[Stage Direction]
Mr. MORIN-by Mr. Blain-asked :
Is Mr.  J. A.@: Pratte in the employ of the government at Riviere du Loup as express agent? If so, since when, and what is his salary?


Hon. G. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals).: Mr. Pratte, who has been stationmaster at RiviSre du Loup since 1878, is also agent for the Canadian Express Company, and is paid by the company for that work.


FISHING LICENSES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA.
Mr.   SAM@: HUGHES-by Mr. Sproule- asked :
1.	Have fishing licenses been granted at Nanaimo, or other British Columbia points to Japanese fishermen?
2.	How many Canadian fishermen of the Caucasian race of British stock were refused licenses at the same time?
3.	Was the reason the British fishermen were refused licenses because the Japanese had been there a longer period?
1.	Is the government aware that certain Japanese become Canadian subjects, and upon concluding their business in Canada return home Japanese subjects?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: 1.	Fishing licenses are granted only to British subjects.
2.	None.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	No.


FISHING RIGHTS IN MATANE RIVER.
Mr. SPROULE asked :: 1.	To whom belongs the right to control the fisheries and grant fishing rights or licenses, to fish in the Matane river, the provincial or federal authorities ?
2.	Have the riparian owners the right to catch and take fish at any time except during the close season?
3.	How many, and to whom, have licenses been granted to fish in this river since 1895?
i. What are the terms of said licenses, the consideration paid for them, the length of time for which granted, and if renewable, for how long?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: 1.	The federal authorities possess no proprietary rights of fishery in the Matane river. These rights belong to either the provincial government or the seigniors or riparian owners, and at present it is understood the latter are protesting against the exercise of the right to lease the fishery by the provincial government.
2.	The riparian owners or whoever else may have the fishing right under lease, or otherwise, must comply with all the fishery regulations fixing times, places or methods of fishing, &c., which it is the exclusive function of the federal government to enact or provide for the regulation and protection of the fisheries.
3.	None by the federal government.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-SUPPLY OF .	ICE.


Mr. STANFIELD asked :: 1.	At what points on the Intercolonial Railway has J. A. McDonald, of Piedmont, supplied ice during the season of 1907-8?
2.	What price has he received for supplying each place, respectively?
3.	What is the freight rate per ton from Piedmont to each point, respectively?
4.	What price is paid for storing ice at each point?
5.	What price was paid for storing ice at Truro in 190G-7, and to whom was it paid?


Hon. G. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: 1.	Truro, New Glasgow, Mulgrave, Point Tupper and Pictou.
2.	Mr. McDonald's contract is for 39 cents per ton of 2,000 pounds delivered on cars at Piedmont.
3.	Freight rate to Truro, $1.40 per ton of 2,000 pounds ; to New Glasgow, 80 cents

per ton; to Mulgrave, $1.40; to Point Tup-per, $1.40 ; and to Pictou, $1 carload rates.
4.	At Truro, 17 cents per ton ; at New Glasgow, 58 cents ; at Mulgrave, 58 cents per ton ; at Point Tapper, 58 cents ; and at Pictou, 46 cents per ton.
5.	$1.74 per ton of 2,000 pounds packed in icehouse. Little & Connolly, Truro.


ANGLO-AMERICAN TREATY.
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day being called ;
Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: I would like to ask the right lion. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) whether there is any further information as to when the treaty between Great Britain and the United States with respect to Canada -will be laid upon the table of the House.


Rt.   H@: These treaties have been received. We are in communication with the imperial authorities and as soon as we have received their assent they will be brought down.


INQUIRY FOR RETURNS.
Mr. E. GUSS PORTER (West Hastings).: I would like to inquire of the government once more-I think this is the fourth occasion that I have inquired about it-with regard to the return ordered on the 15tli January with reference to royal commissions appointed by this government since 1896, their cost and the legislation arising out of the reports of these commissions. It seems to me that a long enough time has elapsed to enable the government to make that return.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I will see about it immediately.


NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY-EMPLOYEES KILLED ON CONSTRUCTION.
Mr. BLAIN.: I would like tp inquire from the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) if he has any further information with respect to the large number of employees who have been killed on the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific ?


George Perry Graham: I have no more information as to the facts. I have been in communication with the chairman of the National Transcontinental Railway Commission who is taking the matter up with the contractors. I may have something to give to my hon. friend (Mr. Blaiu) in a few days about it. I called the attention of the chairman immediately to the discussion in the House, and he is I think discussing the matter with the contractors.	1
Mr. GRAHAM



SUPPLY-QUEBEC TERCENTENARY.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House again go into Committee of Supply.
["Supply, in the same department.\nAt six o'clock House adjourned."]
Hon. GEO. E. FOSTER (North Toronto).: Mr. Speaker, I have a matter that I wanted to bring up particularly with the hon. the Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Frederick Borden). Is he here ?


Wilfrid Laurier: No.


George Eulas Foster: I have received some communications-I hold in my hand one which is a sample of others-from the Army and Navy Veterans Association and this letter which is from Toronto contains a request such as I think has been submitted to the Minister of Militia :	That a
representation of this association shall be sent to the Tercentenary celebration at Quebec. Attention is called to the fact that this association is made up of soldiers who have seen war and active service in almost every part of the globe ; that they are, most of them, in possession of medals as rewards for special service and bravery; that so many of them as were in the vicinity of Toronto paraded at the time of the visit of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and were particularly commended by him; that he spoke to some of them and expressed the desire that he might isee them again when he came to Canada. One can easily see the motives which inspire a request of that kind, and if a representation of 28 or 30 of these men were sent to Quebec the cost would not be much, and it would be a very graceful recognition of men who have not done simply paper service, but who have upon them the scars of war and the merits of many campaigns. I urge upon the Minister of Militia that he should take that question into his consideration and if possible to favourably consider it.


Wilfrid Laurier: Do they belong to the active militia?


George Eulas Foster: I imagine not. I think they are men who have been in the imperial service in different parts of the world and form an association by themselves.


Wilfrid Laurier: The hon. gentleman will understand the difficulty. The Minister of Militia is taking steps to have the militia of Canada represented on a large scale at the Tercentenary celebration and I believe every one agrees that is proper. If organizations outside the active militia are to be dealt with it would require a special appropriation by parliament. However, parliament has appropriated $300,000 towards the Tercentenary celebration and if this petition is sent to the minister I am quite sure he will call the attention of the commission to it. The commission has a large sum of money which they are at liberty to distribute as they decide best, and perhaps the object of this Veterans As-

sociation might commend itself to their judgment.


Mr.   POSTER@: X will hand this letter to the Minister of Militia.


Mr. ARMAND LAVERGNE.: I understood that the commission was to report to parliament or to the government. When may we expect to get that report ?
Sir WILFRID LAUR1ER. I suppose they will report when they have completed their proceedings for the year, or perhaps after the Tercentenary celebration has taken place.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I understood [DOT] they would not spend any money until they reported.


Wilfrid Laurier: The money has been placed in the hands of the commission for distribution according to its judgment. The appropriations are sent to us and approved by the Governor in Council.


George Eulas Foster: 
Mr. FIELDING.: They make recommendations for providing the money for certain services and they inform the government of their proposals in that respect, which are confirmed by order in council.


George Eulas Foster: I would not insist very much upon it, but the government might consider as to whether they would place that before the House.


William Stevens Fielding: I think they have made appropriations to the extent of about two-thirds of the total sum approximately. I see no reason why the report should not be brought down.



Mr. E. N. LEWIS (West Huron).: I wish to trespass on the time of the House for a moment to impress upon the Prime Minister and the government the immediate necessity of some action being taken in reference to the appointment of a committee of members of this House to ascertain the official facts as regards the forest resources of Canada and the United States. I do so at this time because of articles which have appeared in the public press and because of the action taken by the United States House of Representatives, the Speaker of which has appointed a select committee to investigate into wood pulp and print paper, and which committee is already at work. I wish to impress upon the Prime Minister certain editorials which have appeared in the Canadian press in reference to this matter, particularly an editorial in the ' Globe ' of April the 6th also editorial of * Industrial Canada ' for April, and an editorial in the Ottawa ' Free Press ' of April the 27th, from which I quote :
The Pulp problem.
As the year advances it is quite apparent that the seriousness of the situation which confronts this country as to the future of its paper supply, and as to the absolute necessity of putting an end to the wastage of the timber resources of the two countries principally involved is more and more impressing itself upon the public mind.
But as we secure additional information upon the predations of the pulp and paper industry of the United States upon our pulp wood resouroes, and as we learn, as we do learn every dav, that the situation in the United States is rapidly approaching the stage where they must procure their pulp from Canada, the question arises whether this issue has not approached the proportions of a national, and a vitally national, question. . . Why should Canada consent to allow these puip areas to be depleted without adequate return to the workers of this country in the future as has been our policy in the past?	.
There is one way to get out of the difficulty, and one only. The federal government should appoint a commission which shall go into the whole question and investigate its true bearings from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Such a commission would be able to secure official information which would be invaluable in enabling the government to deal with the problem from a national standpoint. Sir Wilfrid Laurier has already hinted that he has some such an idea in his mind, and it is to be hoped that the session will not close without the idea coming to fruition. . . .
It would be a new departure in Canada and we are sure that such a legislative committee would prove of untold value in the solution of the problem'.
I ask that the Prime Minister should grant a committee of the House for two reasons. First, a Royal Commission would make a cut and dried report, but the members of a committee of the House would be able to explain their report on the floor of parliament as is the practice in the United States. The second_ reason is that a committee of the House would not be as costly as a royal commission, because the members of that committee would be in receipt of their indemnity and would not receive anything further than their expenses. I would advise that a small committee of the House should be appointed to get the official facts, to sit during recess and report next session. This is not a new matter. So long ago as June the 7th, 1904, a prominent Canadian newspaper editor, Mr. John D. Grace, published in the ' Financial News ' of London, England, an article with reference to this matter. That article was quoted by the great English statesman Mr. Joseph Chamberlain in his fiscal policy speech of 1905, and in that arti-

cle, the statement is made that the United *States is almost at the end of its forest resources and that Canada, Norway and Sweden are the only three countries which can export pulp. Mr. Grace wrote :
When European experts are saying that a t*A0[DOT]' fauune 's within sight, the forests ot this country become a possession which cannot well be overvalued. Our timber will be as valuable as our grain.
I state that I believe Norway and Sweden are now at the end of their resources for export to any great extent and I ask the Prime Minister to question the geological surveyors of Canada as to whether 'there is an inexhaustible supply of timber in this country. For the last thirty years parties of from ten to thirty-this year I belieye there are thirty parties-have been exploring this country from one end to the other, and they are able to give accurate information. I do not ask for any speedy legislation. This is a large matter [DOT] it is a serious matter. But I ask that the Prime Minister will take some immediate steps to organize a committee so that we can get exact information. Another reason for action is this, that the president of the United States has called a congress or convention of the governors of the different states of the Union to assemble during the coming month of May for the purpose of discussing this question. I have had communication on the subject with the United States Consul at Ottawa, and he informs nie that he has no official information, but that he believes that the date set for the convention is May 13. I believe that it would be a very proper thing for Canada to be represented at that convention, where we could probably get invaluable information. The Owen Sound ' Times ' of January 9, and of March 19, 1908, has excellent editorials on this same line. So also the Seaforth ' Expositor ' of April 24, 1908. The ' Canadian Journal of Commerce ' of March 20, 1908. If legislation is enacted, as I hope it will be, on this question, it could be so framed as not to interfere with the rights or the profits of any of the farmers of Canada, as some fear it would.


Wilfrid Laurier: Before my hon. friend takes his seat, would he be kind enough to state to the House the points that he would desire to have investigated by this committee ?


Edward Norman Lewis: The committee should have power, in the first place, as now is the opportunity for doing so, of finding out what are the timber and pulpwood resources of the United States-both of supply and demand ; also the resources of Canada, and as to whether the supply is inexhaustible, as has been stated for years ; also the visible supply to-day in other countries; also what would be the possible result of an export duty or the adoption of some other means by which the manufacture of our Mr. LEWIS.
crude product could be carried on in Canada also the best means to preserve our forests. A Royal Commission could be appointed, composed of members of parliament. They would be without pay except as regards their expenses. I contend that while we have only six or seven millions of people in Canada, the questions affecting this last great nation are just as great as they would be if we had eighty millions; and when we have only 214 representatives for this vast country, I contend that the full time of these men should be given to their legislative duties-not here, however ; because I think the lengthening sessions are interfering with the business of the country. They interfere with the business of the departments while we are here. Shorter sessions would be better ; but the whole time of a member of parliament should be given to the interests of this country. It takes very little to occupy one man's time ; and if he devotes that time to one great question-


Mr. SPEAKER.: I think the hon. member is rather wandering away from the question.


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Speaker, the question to which my hon. friend has called the attention of the House is one which at this moment is engrossing the attention not only of the people of this country, but also of the people of the United States, and which should, in my humble judgment, engross the attention of the whole civilized world. Nothing is more important, I believe, than the preservation of the forests ; but unfortunately, we are all guilty, not in this country, but in all countries, with the exception of very few, of taking the forests too much as a negligible quantity. My hon. friend has stated that the opinion is entertained in this country that our timber resources are inexhaustible. If such tje the opinion of some, it is certainly not my own opinion. On the contrary, I believe that our forest resources are very far from being inexhaustible, and if the present waste goes on, it is not difficult to foresee that before many years pass over Canada will be very much in want of timber and of wood generally. If the committee which my hon. friend wants had for its primary object the seeking of means and methods whereby the waste of forest lands could be prevented, I would be very much in sympathy with it. I think there is no more important problem at the present day than to find ways and means of preserving our forests. In one respect the great enemy of the forest is the railway ; another enemy is the fire. Railways have to be built; but whenever a railway is brought into a forest it brings with it the danger of the destruction of the forest itself. I would not be adverse to the suggestion of my hon. friend to have either a committee or a commission appointed chiefly for the purpose of finding

ways and means to prevent the waste which is taking place annually, not only in this country but all over this continent. The government will be happy, on the suggestion of my hon. friend, to take the matter into consideration, and I may be able to give an answer at an early date. I notice that my hon. friend has suggested that we should be represented at the convention which has been summoned by President Roosevelt, and which is to sit at Washington during the month of May. I may say to my hon. friend that if we were invited we would be only too glad to accept the invitation. But as I understand that it is purely a convention of governors and officials of the United States, I do not suppose that we would have any standing in it. If we had, I would advise the government to send a representative.


THE IMMIGRATION BONUS SYSTEM.
Mr. LORENZO ROBITAILLE (Quebec County).: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair, I would like to draw the attention of the right hon. leader of the House to an article in the ' Canadian Gazette ' of London, of February 6, 1908. The subject of the article is ' The Emigrant Bonus System,' and it states that application was made to Sir Marcus Samuel, judge of the Guildhall court, for the renewal of a license of an emigration agent and passenger broker. The judge was inclined to refuse the application, and Dr. Ginsburg, representative of the board of trade of London, appeared to oppose the application, and the Hon. Charles Russell represented the Dominion government and tried to induce the judge to grant the application for the license, which seemed to be in doubt. Hon. Charles Russell was about to address the court, when Dr. Ginsberg objected, saying that he failed to see his locus standi. The judge thought that the immigration agent caused certain advertisements to be published relative to the demand for immigrants in Canada, containing inaccurate representations. It was only by this action of the board of trade through Dr. Ginsburg that attention was called to the matter. It goes to prove that on the other side the system of bonuses incites the greed of graft and it is not to the benefit of Canada. This report continues :
Dr. Ginsburg. I say that the Dominion government have no more to do with it than any one in the street, and I protest against it.


The Hon.   C.@: 
Wilfrid Laurier: This is a special case and I am sorry my hon. friend has not given notice to the Minister of the Interior of his intention to ask these questions. I shall see that the minister gives my hon. friend the information desired.
Motion agreed to and House went into Committee of Supply.
Public Works, buildings-Ontario-Arn-prior public building, $500.


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works).: This is to complete the payments on a tower clock in the Arnprior building.

Belleville armoury, $75,000.


William Pugsley: This is to make provision for continuing the work upon the Belleville armoury during the coming year. The total estimated cost will be $139,770


Mr. SPROULE.: This again raises the *question which I brought up last night, in the absence of the Minister of Militia during the discussion of votes for military buildings. If he is not present we are not able to secure the requisite information concerning the purpose and the necessity of these works.


William Pugsley: I mentioned my hon. friend's complaint to the Minister of Militia here this afternoon but he said he was sorry he could not be present as he had an engagement in Montreal and had to leave by the afternoon train. I am willing to allow the item in connection with military buildings to stand over if my hon. friend think it best to do so.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think that is the only proper thing under the circumstances.


Edward Guss Porter: I understood the minister to say that this grant of $75,000 would bring the total cost of the building to $139,000? This work was let toy contract for a certain sum.


William Pugsley: The contract price is $87,777.


Edward Guss Porter: Then, what is the explanation of this difference between $87,777 and $139,000 ?


William Pugsley: The amount paid for site was $9,000; paid to the Architectural and Engineering Company for making plans, $1,755; surveying site, legal expenses, printing, advertising and clerk of works' salary, $1,555.31; paid the contractor on account to December 31, 1907. $28,750; making a total of $41,060.31. The amount due on the contract and for additional work is $73,350, making about $14,-
000.	additional to the contractor. There is some additional work which increases the amount from $87,000 to $101,000. Then, there is heating, $5,000 ; electric wiring and fixtures, $2,500 ; fittings and furniture, $10,000; sidewalks and fencing, $1,000; contingencies and superintendence, $6,866, making a total estimated cost of $139,736.31.
Brantford public building-improvements, $500.


William Pugsley: This vote is to complete the improvements and alterations, fittings and general repairs in the post office at Brantford. The total cost of the improvements has been about $13,000, of which $12,510.75 has been spent, leaving $489.25 to complete-or, say $500.


Mr. COCKSHUTT.: The amount spent seems to be large considering the changes Mr. PUGSLEY.
made and the work done. I do not see where they have put $13,000. However, this year the minister proposes to allow ns $500. This seems a very large amount to give out of a total of appropriations of $119,000,000. Does the minister really feel that he can afford this $500 for Brantford? And on what ground has he made the calculation? On that point. I would like to inquire on what basis the distribution of public buildings is made. Has it any relation to the requirements of the people, the amount of business done or the revenue received? If these matters, which, as a business man, I think are very proper to take into consideration, are the basis on which the department proceeds in these cases, I submit that the amount the minister is placing in the estimates for Brantford is totally inadequate for the requirements of that city. I do not think the hon. minister (Mr. Pugsley) has ever visited Brantford, and of course, I cannot blame him for that, for he has not been very long in his present office. But I can tell him that this is not a new question in this House, for we have drawn attention, year after year, to this post office building. This building, it should be understood, houses not only the post office but the Custome Department and the Inland Revenue Department in a city of 20,000 people. Let me give the figures of the revenue collected in that building according to the latest statistics I have at hand. These, I believe, are the returns for 1907, but whether for the full year or for nine months I am not quite sure. The postal department yielded $37,328, besides over $700 for rents of boxes. In round figures, the postal revenue of Brantford is about $40,000. The custom house collected $308,000, and the inland revenue collected between $70,000 and $75,000-a total of something over $400,000 paid into the coffers of this government from the city of Brantford. In return for this vast amount paid in by the city of Brantford and surrounding district, we have the munificent sum of $500 placed in the estimates this year to be spent in that city. This building stands practically as it stood twenty-five years ago, when the city of Brantford was about one-third its present size and the revenue was not 25 per cent of what it is to-day. We have asked, time and again, for a new public building. And I might call the attention of the minister to the fact that this is almost the only way in which the Dominion government can spend money in the city of Brantford. We have no use for the breakwaters and wharfs that are built in some other places-we have some water there, but we do not feel that a breakwater would do much good. We do not ask for dredging as do some of the sea and lake ports. But, surely, when the government has only the two avenues through which it can spend money in a community such as

Brantford-the armoury and the post office -we are not asking too much when we say that we should have a post office building commensurate with the business to be done and the revenue received. To properly house these three branches of the! public service, we should have in that city a building worth from $125,000 to $150,000. There are places in many parts of Canada giving a much less revenue than Brantford in which public buildings are put up costing from $75,000 to $150,000. And still, we are using the building which we have used for twenty-five years, and which is totally inadequate. Our people must walk up a winding stair to pay their customs duties. If there were any competition, no one would do business with the government. But there is no one else besides the government taking customs duties. But our citizens must climb this winding stair as they have been doing for about twenty-five years to pay about $300,000 a year into the coffers of the Dominion treasury. And they must climb a winding stair to pay $75,000 to the Inland Revenue Department. We are not asking for anything extravagant or anything but what is required by the public service. But we think that, when it comes to a city like Brantford, with its revenues, we should have a building more commensurate with the business done than the one we have to-day. I would ask the Minister of Public Works if. in deciding with regard to the location of public buildings, he takes into consideration the amount of business done and the revenue received?


William Pugsley: I can assure my hon. friend (Mr. Cockshutt) that in considering the desirability of erecting a public building in a city or town, the importance of the place, the business done and the public requirements are all taken into careful consideration. As to Brantford, I take it that my hon. friend would not suggest that we should ask the committee to vote a larger sum than is necessary to finish the improvements that have been undertaken. When only $500 is required, to vote more would be a mere waste of the public money. So far as the erection of a new building in Brantford is concerned. I have not had the pleasure of any communication from the hon. gentleman who represents the rid-' ing in which the city of Brantford is' situated, urging that a new public building should be erected there. Although I have been for several months in the department. the hon. gentleman, as the one who is entitled to speak for the people of that district, has not made any communication to me in this direction, nor has any one else.


Richard Blain: Perhaps the request was made in the House at a former session.


William Pugsley: That may be, if so I was not here to receive it. I recognize the importance of the town of Brantford, I recognize that a large business is done there and a large revenue is collected. I can say to my hon. friend that I shall have much pleasure during the recess in looking into the matter and seeing what the requirements are, and will give the suggestion of my hon. friend a very careful consideration.


William Foster Cockshutt: The minister rather criticises me for having failed to wait upon him or write him in connection with this matter. I have taken this, the earliest opportunity when the matter was under discussion, to bring it to his attention. His predecessor was asked on more than one occasion on the floor of the House, and was personally interviewed by myself, and if there are no records in the department of that kind, it is of little use for us to make these requests from time to time. I have made these requests on the floor of the House, and also personally, and the minister apparently now hears of them for the first time. I waited upon Mr. Hyman myself, and I think other citizens of Stratford have waited on him and I think considerable correspondence has been held with the government about this very matter, namely, the inadequacy of the Brantford postal facilities and the inadequacy of the inland revenue facilities. It is not a new question, and if the minister has not searched his files, or if these requests have not been placed on file, that is not my fault. X have made the request from time to time, and at every opportunity during my term in this parliament. The buildings have been inadequate for some years, and when these votes were made of $10,000 or $12,000 for repairs, I pointed out to Mr. Hyman that it seemed to me a comparative waste of money to tinker up an old building that was never going to be satisfactory, and that it would be better to take the matter up in a broad sense, as it should be, in order to satisfy the requirements of the city, and give us a public building worthy of Brantford and commensurate with the very large business that is done there. We do not ask for a lavish expenditure, but we do say that any business house in the city of Brantford doing a large business, would have premises erected a great deal more up-to-date than these government buildings. It is only because there is no competition in the revenue or customs business that so large a business can be done in these old premises. I trust the minister will carry out the promise he has made on the floor of the house, and that he will visit the city of Brantford at an early date and see for himself the great commercial and industrial activity prevailing there, and will give us a building suitable to the requirements of the city. I thank the minister for his promise, and trust that he will not forget it.


Richard Blain: I feel it my duty to endorse what my hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Coekshutt) has said as to the necessity of an expenditure for public buildings in the city of Brantford. I am much surprised that the Minister of Customs has not communicated to the Minister of Public Works in reference to the needs of Brantford in this respect. May I ask the Postmaster General if any requests have been made to his department for better service in the city of Brantford, and a larger building.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: I could not answer offhand, but I think we have received a petition to that effect.


Richard Blain: If the Postmaster General has received a petition to that effect, I suppose he would communicate it to the. Minister of Public Works. I should also suppose that my hon. friend the Minister of Customs, as an old resident of Brantford, and a representative of that constituency for many years, would have interested him-, self on its behalf. The hon. gentleman has been in this government since 1896. Now one of his colleagues says that no request has been made for a better service, and a larger post office building in the city of Brantford. Surely the Minister of Customs has not forgotten his old city that elected him to parliament for the first time. I would ask the hon. gentleman if any demands have been made upon the government for increased accommodation in the city of Brantford for the various services of the gover-ment, a city which is contributing so large a sum to the revenue. I certainly endorse what my hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Coekshutt) has said. I have heard him myself several times on the floor of the House pressing the claims of his city upon the government for a more liberal expenditure, and suggesting that some of the money that is being wasted in other directions should be put to good use in the city of Brantford. On this side of the House we do not advocate a larger total expenditure by this government, but we desire to see the middleman dispensed with and the money wisely expended. A few years ago the government were proposing to inaugurate a pneumatic system of distributing the mails in Toronto and Montreal. Instead of wasting money on schemes like that, let some of it be expended in important centres like Brantford where there is so evident a public need of better facilities. I think the Minister of Public Works is not doing himself justice when he suggests that the member for Brantford has not directed his attention to the fact that a larger expenditure is necessary.


William Pugsley: There is no suggestion about it ; it is a fact.


Richard Blain: The hon. gentleman has given that as a reason why larger appro-Mr. COCKSHUTT.
priations were not made for the city of Brantford. I am sure that the people and his own friends in the city of Brantford will not appreciate that reference to my hon. friend who so ably represents them on the floor of this House.


William Pugsley: I did not intend to say anything which would reflect upon the hon. gentleman who represents the city of Brantford. All I desired to do was to call the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that, although I had been eight months, yesterday, in the department, I had not had the pleasure of having any communication from him upon the subject. Neither had I received any petition, or communication from anybody in Brantford urging that increased accommodation was necessary for post office and customs purposes. Now, the hon. gentleman makes the statement that he had, upon previous occasions, in this House, brought the matter to the attention of the then minister, and also that certain communications had been forwarded. I do not intend to reflect at all upon my hon. friend but only to state a fact which might, in some measure, at all events, explain why there is no provision being made at the present time for any new building for these purposes in the city of Brantford. As far as the present vote is concerned the improvements are quite considerable. We have provided for new fittings in the post office, new granite steps, new letter boxes and brass work, letter receiver, recuttiug of stone work, improved heating apparatus and an iron fence around the building. We have done electric wiring and improved the buildings by painting, graining and varnishing, we have made a number of repairs to the wood work, we have put in new furniture and we have done what seemed to be reasonable and necessary for the building.


Mr. J. D. REID.: Was it done by contract or day's work ?


William Pugsley: Part by tender and part by day's work. I think that the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Coekshutt) did not need the assistance of the gentleman who sits in front of him (Mr. Blain) because the hon. gentleman took my assurance in good faith and with apparent good feeling that I would be very happy to make inquiry into the necessities of the city of Brantford in this particular and give the matter my prompt consideration. I recognize just as well as the hon. gentleman who represents that important constituency does that it is my duty, administering the Department of Public Works, to pay attention to the necessities of all parts of this country and that it would not be proper that I should neglect or overlook the reasonable wants of a place so important as the city of Brantford.


William Foster Cockshutt: I do not wish to have it understood that I felt in any way hurt

at what the minister said, but I think that he was a little unfair in saying that X had not presented the claims of the city of Brantford because they had been forwarded to the department, and that the reason that I had not presented them again within the last few months was that I was awaiting the opportunity that arose to-day. If the minister carries out the promise that he has made it will be all right. The trouble is that this request has been made to the Minister of Public Works on two or three different occasions and unfortunately to two or three ministers. I think we began with the late Mr. Sutherland, we continued It with Mr. Hyman and now we are continuing it with the hon. gentleman who occupies the position to-day. The department changes its head so frequently that we are required to put in these applications a little too often. I think the records will show that the board of trade of the city of Brantford spent more than one evening discussing the inadequacy of the buildings in Brantford and that they placed their views on record and sent them down to this government. The hon. the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson), who is an old resident of Brantford, certainly knows the inadequacy of these buildings. He knows the immense amount of revenue that his department and the Post Office Department are obtaining from the city of Brantford, and I think it is nothing but reasonable that the Minister of Customs should back me up when I make the reasonable request that I am making, and when I say that the city of Brantford should have a little of this vast expenditure that this government is making annually. We do not ask for any extravagance, but we do ask that legitimate business requirements may be provided for in the city of Brantford. Instead of this small vote the department should make one job of it and put up a new building. I admit, as the minister has said, that they have improved the inside of the building considerably, that they have given us modern fittings and a certain amount of that kind of expenditure is all right, but it is only a temporary arrangement because the building is inadequate and it cannot be increased to the size which is necessary. I should say in justice to the hon. the Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) that I do not think anything has been actually placed before himself at all but he will see that the very same argument that has been made with respect to the Department of Public Works also applies to his department. This matter was taken up when Sir William Mulock was Postmaster General. I think the records in that department will show that petitions came down to the department some four or five years ago and I may say they were endorsed by the citizens generally. I remember that an inspector was sent up by
the Post Office Department. I had the honour of being one of the committee that awaited upon him. We pointed out the inadequacy of the arrangements and we had a special committee that sat for weeks and months to endeavour to get the department to deal with this very matter. Although all of this had reference to the Post Office Department the hon. gentleman who occupies the position of Postmaster General is not responsible in that respect because the request was not made to him. We made it to his predecessors and we made it also to the predecessors of the Minister of Public Works. Now I renew it to-day to two of the ministers-to three of them for the matter of that, because the Minister of Customs should be included also. His department obtained $308,000 from the city of Brantford alone last year. The building is in the same condition, so far as I know, as it was twenty-five years ago. It was built in Sir John Macdonald's time, long before this government came into power, and we have had no addition to it from that time to this. There has been no change, I believe except some small changes in the interior fittings. The population of Brantford is three times what it was, the' business is probably ten times what it was and the revenue is probably three or four times what it was when the building was put up. If business is business it is right that the large amount of business which is done in Brantford should be housed in proper quarters. I am not going to find fault with the promise of the minister, only I ask him not to take too long to carry it out because it has been before the House on several occasions. We have pressed it upon the attention of the government and practically nothing has resulted. I have just had placed in my hand the answer which was given by the Hon. A. B. Aylesworth, then Postmaster General, to a question which I put to him in the House on March 19, 1906, and which will be found at page 339 of Hansard of that year. I shall read the answer in order that the present Postmaster General may see what has been done in Brantford within the last few years. The Hon. A. B. Aylesworth made the following statement:
1.	Revenue-
1900	$26,550	781901	
28,796	671902	
32,349	071903	
33,748	431904	
36,773	561905	
42,921	102.	Value of postal notes issued-1900	$ 2,641 241901	
2,999	191902	
2,818	151903	
3,920	381904	
4,862	491905	
6,903	85
3. Value of postal notes redeemed-
1900	
$ 9,328	211901	
10,093	101902	
10,927	021903	
11,032	881901	
15,427	511905	
16,061	53
Every single year during that whole term, each one of these sources of revenue from the city of Brantford steadily increased. The Postmaster General does $60,000 worth of business in the city of Brantford, not to speak of the returns from the customs and inland, re venue and all this business is housed in the one inadequate building. I think the minister must recognize tiie necessity for increased accommodation at Brantford and I trust that year after year I will not be compelled to bring this matter to his attention. When Mr. Hyman was minister and when he heard the statement I made in the House he said to me privately, but I think I may mention it : Cockshutt you ought to have a building in Brantford costing not less than $125,000. Mr. Hyman practically gave us to under-staiul that in the very near future this would be done, but to-day we have a paltry $500 in the estimates for Brantford.


John Dowsley Reid: I am surprised that the Minister of Customs sits silent without a word to say for the good old city of Brantford. When the Conservatives were in power, although he represented the constituency, they generously erected a building in Brantford which was sufficient for the business done at the time, but, the Liberals have studiously neglected that city. After hearing the statement of the hon. member (Mr. Cockshutt) I do not wonder that Brantford rejected the Minister of Customs because evidently since the Liberals came into power he has not. been able to get the claims of that city recognized. To-day when the hon. member (Mr. Cockshutt) pleads for the assistance of the Minister of Customs the Minister of Customs has not a word to say. The minister owes it to the city of Brantford to state whether there will be sufficient accommodation afforded that city and whether he will use his influence in that direction. Now, this item like all others includes a charge for architect's fees although one would suppose that if the Public Works Department were run on business principles it would have a sufficient permanent staff of architects and engineers to do all this work. There is a general impression that the Public Works Department has been running wild ; first one minister is brought in to improve it and then another until it is brought down to the present minister. I was much astonished the other day when I heard that contracts for dredging were to be given without tender.


William Pugsley: Why not discuss the item before the chair. As a matter of fact the contracts were not to be given without tender; it was only an extension of the time of the old contracts.


John Dowsley Reid: I mentioned this to show that the Public Works Department wants reorganization worse than the Marine Department. Here, as was shown by the hon. gentleman from Simcoe (Mr. Ben-net) the other day, the Public Works Department paid in nine months $27,500 to one outside architect, when one good permanent employee at a salary of $5,000 a year could have done all the work. Either the department has not competent men to do the work or else they are farming it out amongst friends of the government so that large profits may be made by them.


Mr. BENNETT.: They are afraid of their own architects since the Laurier tower fell.


John Dowsley Reid: That may be and probably they are afraid of their inspectors as well. It would be much better in every way to have a well paid and competent permanent official who would look after this architect work, and he would not be likely to be so susceptible to graft as the superintendents who are indiscriminately employed throughout the country. I believe that we should have, a permanent officer of this kind and that he should be paid a sufficient salary. Take the case of the little armoury at Belleville and an Ottawa architect has to be called in and everybody knows he is the son of the chief architect. He may be as good a man as any other, but it strikes me that if the chief architect should have a man in his department who is qualified to make plans for a building such as this


William Pugsley: Why discuss everything under the sun on this item ?


John Dowsley Reid: I do not think that I am out of order in giving this as an instance of what is being done in the department. I object in the strongest possible manner to the Public Works Department spending $100,000 to employ architects outside of the department. I claim that the minister should employ a sufficient number of men to do the work in the department and not farm it out in this way to the disadvantage of the public.


William Pugsley: I am sorry that my hon. friend should think it necessary, on this small item of $500 to finish certain work on a public building at Brantford:, to go over matters which have been already discussed again and again in this House. Let me say to my hon. friend, with all respect, that repetitions of this kind are actually costing this country more than would erect a new public building. With regard


William Foster Cockshutt: 


APRIL 29, 1908 746(5
[Stage Direction]
to Mr. Taylor, the gentleman who supervised this work, he was acting as the clerk of works. My hon. friend must know that there must be somebody on the spot to see that the work is well done; we cannot leave it to the different contractors without supervision; and the item to which my hon. friend makes great objection amounts to $195.42, as will be found at page V-48 of the Auditor General's report. Will any one say that this was an unreasonable sum for looking after a work costing upwards of $13,000?
Mr. TAYLOR.: I find that a namesake of mine, L. H. Taylor-I do not think he is of the same politics, or he would not get it- was paid 2 per cent on $6,173.74 and 5 per cent on $1,014, and $10 for a special report, making $195.42; but I find that the Schultz Bros. Co. were paid for alterations in the post office $3,295, and for sundry repairs $433.12. The money spent does not represent the money on which the architect was paid the commission.


William Pugsley: Part of the expenditure was made in previous years.


George Taylor: ' If we Jo.k at Y-61, we will find Mr. Taylor figuring again on the construction of armouries at Brantford, on which he was paid $504.86. When a minister comes here and makes a statement, we ought to be able to put it down as being as true as the gospel ; but the hon. gentleman stated that there was only $10,000 paid to outside architects during the last year whereas we find that Mr. Perrault alone, on the new postal station on St. Catherine Street in Montreal and on the plans for the general post office on St. James Street, drew nearly $10,000.


William Pugsley: The question was put as to how much we paid out each year for architects, and the chief architect told me he. thought it would not exceed $10,000. taking one year with another.


George Taylor: We find on almost every item we touch that fees are paid to outside architects. I venture to say that if you go through the Auditor General's report you will find that these payments will amount to several hundred thousand dollars.


Mr. PATERSON.: In case I should be considered wanting in courtesy to the hon. gentleman who alluded to me, I wish to say that when I came in I did not know wnat this discussion was about. I understand that it is on an item for a further expenditure of $500 for some improvements in the existing building in Brantford, on which in the last two or three years there has been $13,000 expended. This expenditure manifests, I think, that the convenience of the people there is not being disregarded. Brantford is a city to which in the past I have owed a good deal; my home was there. Therefore, I would be very pleased to see a
fair measure of justice done to it. I cannot myself see that injustice has been done to it. The member for Grenville (Mr. J. I>. Reid), speaking without full knowledge of the fact, alluded to the Conservative government having erected the present building, and suggested that it might have been partly the cause of my temporary defeat there, because I had not accomplished more with the Liberal government. He is a little wrong there, I was at that time a humble member of the House, and I believe that it was on my recommendation that the public building was given to Brantford. It was given before our Conservative friends came into power the last time, so-if there be any credit for that, though I do not claim credit, as the place deserved the building, it was my representations that the building was put there. Subsequently a large armoury was put there in my time. That was under the Conservative government.


Mr. BERGERON.: You were then in opposition?


William Paterson: I was in opposition as I was for eighteen years, which the hon. gentlemen will find to be a very long time. The old shed was dilapidated and had lost its roof, and on my representations the building was erected. The city of Brantford contributed one-half the cost, $10,000, doing more in that respect than other municipalities. Since this government came in the armouries have been greatly enlarged, $20,000 or $30,000 have been spent and they are now equal to any in the country. The hon. member for Brantford will admit that this government have not been disposed to slight Brantford simply because it was represented by an opposition member. It is a large and growing city, and we all know that the business has largely increased, possibly to such an extent that at times there may be a little inconvenience. As far as the custom house is concerned, we have room enough to do our business. Of course the climbing of the stairs to the customs house [DOT] and inland revenue office, which, as so often happens, are situated above the post office, is inconvenient, and I think it is right that the! government should ascertain whether the business of Brantford has so increased that the public interest would justify the erection of a new building, perhaps for the post office, giving the whole of the present building to customs and excise. I have no doubt that if representations are made to the minister, he will consider them. My hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Coclcshutt) has been re-elected president of the Bell Memorial Fund, an honour which is only his due. That fund is national in one respect and therefore the government felt that they were justified in meeting the request of that committee and granted $10,000. I think

my hon. friend will be generous enough to say that since he has represented the riding the government have not turned a deaf ear to requests by him to which they felt themselves able to accede.


Richard Blain: Have any new public building been erected in Brantford since the present administration came into power? -


William Paterson: I am not aware of new buildings but there have been great enlargements and improvements, notably in the armouries.


Mr.   BRAIN@: The revenue from custom duties in 1900 was $178,540.10, and by .annual increases it grew to $225,662.86 in 1905, showing a large increase. The complaint is that there has been no corresponding expenditure to provide better accommodation for those paying the duty, and ciizens in general.


William Paterson: The hon. gentlemen opposite do not want to have money expended simply because the revenue in a particular line has increased, if the existing accommodation will suffice. From the remarks of hon. gentlemen that is evident. My hon. friend has been in Brantford and I have no doubt that the citizens would show him the very handsome building erected by the Mackenzie government many years ago and improved by the present government.


John Dowsley Reid: I think the minister did not understand me and did me an injustice. I was not complaining about Mr. Taylor, my objection was not to the payment of so much to one architect, but to the practice of having so much work done by outside architects that should be done by the architects of the department. I do not believe that the work is done as well in the public interest or as economically as it would be if we had well-qualified and properly paid officials in the department to do this work.
Dominion publio buildings-renewals, improvements, repairs, &c., $20,000.


William Pugsley: This is the usual vote, and about the same amount as usual. In 1906-7 the sum of $12,198.08 was expended. This includes some thirty different buildings. We are asking now to cover about fifty different buildings, the amount being $20,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: On this item of repairs, improvements and so on, i desire to call the attention of the committee to the fact that an enormous bill is creeping up for furniture and fittings for these several public buildings.


William Pugsley: I do not think that this item includes the Ottawa public buildings.


William Paterson: 


William Humphrey Bennett: But the remarks I have to make relate to suplies for outside buildings as well. It would seem that it is becoming a serious question with the Department of Public Works and other departments to find places to stow away the articles that their friends provide at the public expense. Two returns have been made on this subject which I desire to place on ' Hansard.' I will first deal with the Eclipse Company. The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) asked the following questions :


Mr BLAIN.: 1. How much money has been paid since 1896 to the Eclipse Manufacturing Company, of Ottawa?
2.	How much each year?
3.	What was the general character of the supplies furnished?
These questions were replied to as follows :
1.	$215,468.06.
2.	1896-7	
1897-	8	
1898-	9	
1899-	1900	
1900-	1	
1901-	2	
1902-	3	
1903-	4	
1904-	5	
1905-	6	
1906-	7	
1907-	8	
3.	Steel cases and
	$	448 00
	 339	65
	 13,388	46
	 12,659	35
	19,915	25
	 22,754	95
	 4,299	78
	16,315	43
	 24,098	63
	 29,164	72
	 30,294	12
	 41,789	12
filing cabinets.
I moved for another return of the goods bought from the Office Specialty Company, and the figures of the purchases from that company are as follows :
J8QR-7 		.. .. $ 70 00
18Q7-8 			 78 94
18Q8-9 			 4,797 86
		 2,903 44
i qnn.i 			 11,457 15
1Q01 -9 			 19,269 79
1Q09-3 		.. 9,021 09
1903-4			 26,530 58
1904-5			 50,272 38
1905-6			 66,505 75
1906-7			 53,189 37
1907-8			 78,714 61
Now, these figures show that these two companies alone have been paid for fittings and furniture of this kind the enormous total of $538,278. That is, in round figures, $70,000 a year has been spent in this way for a number of years past. And it is to be remembered that furniture is bought for the different public buildings from hundreds of other sources besides, but these two companies alone have succeeded_ in getting this colossal sum of $538,278 out of the people of Canada. The figures seem almost incredible. There is only one explanation, and it is to be had by referring to the records showing who was the Minister of Public Works at that time. Mr. Hyman made his appearance on the scene in 1902-3. And what was the result? The

bills of this Office Specialty Company jumped at once from $9,000 to $26,000, and went on In succeeding years, $50,000, $66,000, $(53,000 and last year $78,714. It is well to understand who comprise these companies. The head and front of the Office Specialty Company is Mr. G. M. Reid, of London. And who is he? He is one of the quartette who are to-day awaiting sentence for criminal participation in the London election frauds. It is no wonder that this man could come to Mr. Hyman and take him by the throat, having all the evidence that he must have had in his possession. When brought before a trial judge he was convicted, with three others, of complicity in these stupendous frauds which not only astonished the country, but brought Ontario into disgrace in the eyes of the Dominion and of the world. And let it be clearly understood-let there be no mistake about it-that Mr. Reid is not only one of the large stockholders of this concern, but is an influential member and one of the directors.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) says that Mr. Reid has a large interest in this concern. Will he state what it is?


William Humphrey Bennett: I will gratify the curiosity of the minister-and of the deputy minister, for I saw him suggest the question- the amount is $12,000-


William Pugsley: What Is the total capital ?


William Humphrey Bennett: and there is a suspicion that some of the stockholders are there as representatives of others.


William Pugsley: What is the total capital ?


William Humphrey Bennett: I cannot tell the minister. Probably the deputy minister can tell him-for the deputy seems conversant with the whole thing. I notice that it is becoming a habit of deputies, when they attend the House, to intervene very much in matters when any political question is coming to the front. Well, take this Newmarket Company, with Mr. G. M. Reid, of London election fame, as one of the directors -how did they get these contracts ?


William Pugsley: If the hon. member (Mr. Bennett) will allow me a moment, I may say that there is not a single item connected with the Office Specialty Company or the Eclipse Specialty Company in the item under discussion. This is simply the ordinary repairs for about seventy different public buildings all over Canada. I think that when a particular item is before the committee members should confine their remarks to the discussion of that item instead of being allowed to roam to other items in various jiarts of the estimates. 1 237


William Humphrey Bennett: Reference to the Auditor General's Report will show that supplies are sold by this company for different buildings under this vote.


William Pugsley: I would like your ruling, Mr. Chairman, on the point I have raised.


William Humphrey Bennett: Surely the minister will not say that on a general item which covers the placing of letter boxes in post offices, &c., this discussion is not in order. If he will look at the Auditor General's Report he will see that he is mistaken. Now, let us take the composition of this other company, the Eclipse Company


William Pugsley: What do I understand your ruling to be, Mr. Chairman ?


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: It is a question of relevancy. This vote is for ' Dominion public buildings-renewals, improvements, repairs, &e.' I do not know what the ' &c.' means. There is another item later in the estimates for the Ottawa public buildings. Another item is $131,000 for public buildings generally. Then there is one for repairs, furniture and heating for Ottawa buildings, specially.


William Pugsley: If the hon. gentleman really desires to discuss it upon this item, I will withdraw the objection.


William Humphrey Bennett: Now this Office Specialty Company sells under these circumstances. Some repairs had to be made in the Barrie post office and tenders were called for. One would have assumed that when tenders were called to furnish public buildings, other contractors would have been asked to tender on the whole thing, but they were not. This Office Specialty Company must have a part out of every appropriation made by this department of Public Works. I am not laying this at the charge of the present Minister of Public Works, because he is innocent as to past transactions, and these are past expenditures that I have referred to. But I want to warn the minister that these two companies are on his heels, and will be on the heels of every Minister of Public Works, because they have been strongly entrenched in the past. Take the Eclipse Company, that is another political company. It is common talk here, if you talk with any person conversant with these matters, that A. W. Fraser, barrister of this city, is one of the large stockholders in that company, and is one of the leading lights of the Liberal party. These two companies have been allowed in the past to secure a monopoly to the extent of selling, in about eight years, no less a grand total than $538,000 worth of furniture. Take some of these returns and look at them. One would imagine that if, for instance, away down in Nova Scotia, the public building at Antig-onish wanted four desks, or four chairs, these could have been purchased from some local manufacturer. Surely the whole pro-



vinee of Nova Scotia can produce chairs, there are furniture dealers there. But under past Ministers of Public Works this furniture is all bought from this favoured company of Mr. Reid. Of course Mr. Reid was taking long chances to act as he did with the ex-Min is ter of Public Works. The evidence alone of this George W. Reid before the commission showed that he was the man who took thirteen men into the riding of West Elgin when the election atrocities were committed there, and among the thirteen men he took in there was Pritchard, the man who admitted on oath that he was concerned in the offending in that riding. Take another place in this return, Saskatoon, three desks, $150, nine chairs, $113.75. Surely furniture can be purchased at Saskatoon. ' There is another case at the Toronto post office. It is true they have a large office there where they seem to sell thousands of dollars worth. Then take another case, London.


William Pugsley: I think this company has agencies in various sections.


William Humphrey Bennett: I should not think they would have an agency in Antigonish. But take the city of London. Apparently Mr. Hyman was in the grip of Mr. Reid, when they had to send down to this Office Specialty Company to buy a $7.50 table. It is not a question of the country really requiring this stuff, but this company has the stuff to sell, and the department has to take it from them. Now how did the department deal with these two favoured companies when it purchased over $538,000 worth ? Under the Act the department is bound to call for tenders, and then there is a nice little game of love taps going on between the Eclipse Company and the Office Specialty Company which results in the Office Specialty Company getting one good job and the Eclipse Company getting another. The country is paying two prices for what it gets from these two companies. The minister has lying in his department an estimate from a firm in the United States for a certain lot of steel fittings to cost $17,000. They could be laid down in Canada for that, freight and customs paid, and actually they paid this Office Specialty Company $22,000 for the same articles.


William Pugsley: That estimate was the cost at Washington, including transportation and duty.


William Humphrey Bennett: Where the prices of labour and transportation are higher than they are in Canada. What was the result ? These American people were not invited to tender at all, and the minister replies by saying, oh well, here are two concerns in Canada who tender.


William Pugsley: Is the hon. gentleman prepared to say, according to his memory, that the estimate given by the chief architect was not the cost at Washington, not Mr BENNETT.
of the goods laid down in Canada, but the cost at Washington with the duty and transportation added ?


William Humphrey Bennett: I admit that it was the cost at Washington, but if they can make and sell the goods for $17,000 at Washington, why can we not make them at Newmarket or Ottawa for the same money ?


William Pugsley: That is a very different thing. In a great country like the United States where they have hundreds of thousands of customers, we know that goods can be produced more cheaply than they can be produced in a country where the demand is comparatively small. Why do we find it necessary to protect our manufacturers ? How is it, even with quite a high duty, that we are not able to protect them, and foreign goods do come in ? It is because in the United States, in Great Britain and other countries, they are producing such enormous quantities aud are selling such enormous quantities, that they can cut the price very much below the price at which goods can be sold in this country where the market is comparatively limited. That is the answer I make.


William Humphrey Bennett: Well, a company that can sell in eight years $322,000 worth " of goods to the government, besides the rest of the Dominion to supply, has not got a very limited market. But this is only on a par with the extravagance in every department of the government to-day, and it is only on a par with the same principle of *benefiting party friends at the expense of the country generally, because there is practically no competition. These are startling figures to go out from this House to the country, that two favoured concerns have, in the past eight years, succeeded in depleting the coffers of this country of $538,278 worth of these supplies. And mark you, there are thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars paid out in addition to what is paid these two companies, because there are some members of parliament who, I assume, have stood on their rights and have told the Minister of Public Works that if he wanted to buy a chair or a table in their riding for a public building, the department was not to go to George W. Reid and Company to buy it, but they must patronize some local concern. Let any man go through these buildings at Ottawa within the past five or six years and he will understand what it means, they will see furniture thrown out on the snow in winter, splendid hardwood and pine, cupboards and cabinets that would suffice for every purpose of filing, but they have all got to be torn up and thrown out as waste, simply that Mr. Reid's company or Mr. Fraser's company may sell the departments at Ottawa hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of supplies. Now I hope that the minister, with this evidence before him, will call a halt on these two companies, and will

allow -the necessities of the case only to govern purchases in the future, and not buy great quantities of goods when really it is difficult to find a place in the departments to store them.
Glencoe public buildings, $3,500.


William Pugsley: This vote is


William Humphrey Bennett: I want an answer from the minister as to these fittings.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman has made his statement in committee.


William Humphrey Bennett: Well, then, the minister will make a statement in reply or I will irfake another one.


William Pugsley: Not necessarily. It is not necessary that I should answer every statement that is made. This item


William Humphrey Bennett: The minister will not get away in that way. The minister came to this House


William Pugsley: I am addressing the chair.


Charles Marcil: The Minister of Public Works has the floor.


William Humphrey Bennett: I am waiting for his reply to my question.


William Pugsley: This item of $3,500


William Humphrey Bennett: Answer the question I asked on the previous item.


William Pugsley: That item is passed.


William Humphrey Bennett: No, it is not passed. I was waiting for the courtesy of a reply from the minister and if the minister cannot give me a reply I will continue. I desire to protest


Mr PUGSLEY.: That item was passed.


William Humphrey Bennett: No.


William Pugsley: I appeal to you, Mr. Chairman, as to whether that item was passed or not ? The chairman decided that it was passed.


Richard Blain: I do not think it was decided.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER, I understood it to be passed when no member objected. If nobody says anything I conclude it is passed.


William Pugsley: I do not think I am called unon to make any reply and I may say frankly to the hon. gentleman that it does not seem to me that, upon the discussion of this item for the ordinary repairs to the buildings throughout Canada, I am called unon to enter upon a general discussion of the goods which have been bought for other purposes.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. gentleman said that he withdrew his objection.
237*


William Pugsley: It does not seem to be so.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. gentleman is the greatest withdrawer in public life today. He withdraws from everything.


William Pugsley: What did I withdraw from now ?


William Humphrey Bennett: The minister proposed to give dredging contracts for the coming year at the same prices as were paid last year and he withdrew from that. The minister can sometimes be firm and sometimes very infirm. He was very infirm on that question. A few wepks ago Mr. Mackay, the leader of the opposition in Ontario, and some other political henchmen of the hon. gentleman were at the door of the department asking that these dredging contrastc should be extended for another year.


William Pugsley: I rise to a point of qrder. I do not think that the hon. gentleman is discussing the point under consideration. I appeal to the good sense of the hon. gentleman himself. I can assure him that the country is watching the discussions which are going on here.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Pugsley: And I am sure that the country expects us to discuss the items of Supply which are before the committee and not to seek to introduce a thousand other things which have nothing to do with what is before the committee.


William Humphrey Bennett: If the question of whether $538,000 is paid out to the hon. gentleman's political friends is of uo interest to the hon. gentleman, it is a matter of great importance to the country, and so long as I am a member of this House I am going to protest against Mr. G. M. Reid or any other political henchman, having the power to take the minister by the throat and force his goods on the country when the country does ont require them. Does any one think that Mr. Geo. Reid, if he did not know what he does in connection with elections in London, could have forced his wares on the country as he has ? It was political leverage that enabled him to do so. When did Mr. Reid become a stockholder to the extent of $12,000 in this company 1 Probably the deputy could inform the minister. It is a very close corporation, and before Mr. Reid became a member of the company it was not vending any hundred thousand dollars worth of goods to the country. After Mr. Reid became a director the figures grew. Twenty-six thousand dollars in one year doubled into $50,000 in the next year. Next year it had risen to $66,000 and they made a grand finish last year with sales to. the government amounting to $78,414. Has the minister a report from his architect pointing out any further points in or about any of the buildings at Ottawa

or elsewhere where the wares of this company may be deposited in the coming year?


William Pugsley: There are applications from various departments for these steel fittings which are considered to be very desirable. I do not know what the amount of these applications is, but it is very considerable.


William Humphrey Bennett: I think the minister had better let us know in prospective what Mr. Reid is going to get out of this long suffering country.


William Pugsley: I da not know Mr. Reid at all.


William Humphrey Bennett: Mr. Reid and the Office Specialty Company are one and the same concern.


William Pugsley: The bon. gentleman said that he was a stockholder.


William Humphrey Bennett: I said also that he was one of the directors of the company and the deputy and the officers of the department can probably verify that.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman has a great fashion of picking out some one person who may have a small interest and calling the company by the name of that individual.


William Humphrey Bennett: It is a new system in this country for people who are not in a particular style of business to be in touch with that business. The hon. gentleman should not run away with the idea that Mr. Reid always had $12,000 worth of stock in that company. He had not. Great oaks from little acorns grow. Whether it is Mr. Reid's money which is invested in that company I do not know and I care not, but I know that his holdings increased very largely in the company, and as his holdings increased so did his sales. A gentleman who has a prospect of going to Kingston for doing something on behalf of Mr. Hyman should be attended to by Mr. Hyman. A man who takes his life in his hand-I will not say his life, but his liberty to go and debauch the electorate, as he did and which Judge Winchester found he had been guilty of doing, is entitled to some consideration at the hands of the minister, and he got that consideration at the hands of Mr. Hyman. The minister must know what requests for steel fittings have been received for the coming year and whether they are to be purchased from this company or not.


William Pugsley: If we come to any item which involves steel fittings I shall be very happy to give the information. In the meantime I have not the information at hand in reference to steel fittings.


Richard Blain: Before the Ontario items are taken up, I asked the minister for a statement of the papers in which adver-Mr. BENNETT
tisements calling for tenders for the erection of two buildings in the province of Quebec were published.


William Pugsley: I have the information which the hon. member desires. It was in regard to the newspapers in which the advertisement appeared for the post office in St. John, Quebec, and also for the Dominion arsenal at Quebec. The statement is as follows :-
St. John, province of Quebec, post office. St. Johns, ' Le Canada Franpais ' (St.John and Iberville).
Valleyfield, ' Le Progres.'
Acton Vale, 'La Revue D'Acton.' Arthabaskaville, ' L'Union des Cantons de L'Est.'
Joliette, ' L'Etoile du Nord.'
Buckingham. ' Post.'
Richmond, ' Times.'
Sorel, ' Le Courrier.'
Sherbrooke, ' Le Progres de L'Est.'
St. Hyacinthe, ' La Tribune.'
St. Hyacinthe, ' L'Union.'
Hull, ' Le Spectateur.'
Hull, ' City Advance.'
Shawenegan Falls, ' L'Industriel.'
Quebec, ' Telegraph.'
Quebec, ' Le Soleil.'
Montreal, ' Le Canada.'
Montreal, ' La Presse.'
Montreal, ' Witness.'
Montreal, ' La Patrie.'
Montreal, ' Herald.'
Montreal, ' True Witness.'
Montreal, ' Le Moniteur du Commerce.' Montreal. ' Insurance Chronicle.'
Montreal, ' Le prix Courant.'
Montreal, ' Shareholder.'
Montreal, ' Journal du Commerce.' Montreal, ' Le Bulletin.'
Quebec-Dominion Arsenal store building. Quebec, ' La Vigie.'
Quebec, ' L'Echo de Quebec.'
Quebec, ' Le Soleil.'
Quebec, ' L'Union Liberale.'
Quebec, ' Daily Telegraph.'
Quebec, ' La Semaine Commercials.'
Quebec, ' Budget.'
Arthabaskaville, ' L'Union des Cantons d* L'Est.'
Montmagny, ' Le Courrier.'
Shawenegan Falls, ' L'lndustriel.' Richmond, ' Times.'
Sherbrooke, ' Le Progres de L'Est.'
St. Hyacinthe ' La Tribune.'
St. Hyacinthe. ' L'Union.'
Sorel, ' Le Courrier.'
Berthier. ' La Gazette.'
St. Johns, ' Le Canada Franpais.'
Baie St. Paul, ' L'Echo de Charlevoix.' Levis, ' Le Quotidien.'
Nioolet, ' Le Progres.'
Chicoutimi, ' Le Progres de Saguenay.' Chicoutimi, ' Le Travailleur.'
Rimouski, ' Le Progres du Golfe.'
Riviere du Loup, ' Le St. Laurent.' Roberval, ' Le Lac St. Jean.'
Montreal, ' Le Presse.'
Montreal, ' La Patrie.'
Montreal. ' Le Canada.'
Montreal, ' Witness.'
Montreal, ' Herald.'
Montreal, ' Le Bulletin.'


Mr. STANFIELD.: I did not hear the name of the Quebec ' Morning Chronicle.' Last evening, or early this morning, an hon. gentleman said that he had seen the advertisement in the Quebec ' Morning Chronicle.'


William Pugsley: He must have been in error.	.


Richard Blain: I may say that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Beland) met me outside today and stated that he could not find the auvertisement in the ' Chronicle.'


William Pugsley: Sometimes newspapers publish these advertisements without being authorized. For instance they appear in the Montreal ' Star,' and I am not aware there is any authority to publish them. It may be that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Beland) saw the advertisement in the ' Chronicle ' in that way.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I must come to the rescue of my hon. friend from Beauce. I myself have seen long advertisements of the Transcontinental Railway Commission in the Quebec ' Chronicle ' which is a Conservative paper. There are no contracts in my department which necessitate calling for tenders by long advertisements in the newspapers, but I have asked that certain public works advertisements be published in ' Le Progr&s du Golfe,' a Conservative newspaper.


Richard Blain: I am glad the Postmaster General is broadening in his politics. I assume that 99 per cent of the papers in *which this advertisement appeared were Liberal papers. Is that right?


William Pugsley: I presume so.


Richard Blain: Is the Minister of Public Works going to adopt the suggestion of the Postmaster General and insert the advertisements in the newspaper having the largest circulation in the district ?


William Pugsley: If there were two newspapers published in a city, one Conservative and one Liberal I would pursue the policy which has been pursued since confederation of giving it to the newspaper which is friendly to the administration. I say that frankly, but I may tell my hon. friend that in the case of a great public work like the Transcontinental Railway, when I was asked the names of different papers in the province of New Brunswick in which the advertisements should appear, I mentioned among others the St. John ' Daily Telegraph ' and the St. John ' Times,' both of which were formerly Liberal papers, but which have been purchased by a strong Conservative 'and are now Conservative papers.


Richard Blain: The hon. minister has not answered my question. For instance, what is the policy' of the government with respect to advertisements in newspapers in the province of Ontario?


William Pugsley: There is no change. It is the same as for the last forty years.


Richard Blain: Where there are two newspapers in a town having the same circulation and the newspaper supporting the government is selected I do not object, but where the Conservative newspaper has the largest circulation will the minister insert the advertisements in that paper?


William Pugsley: Certainly not; not simply because it has a somewhat larger circulation.


Richard Blain: Then it is the policy of the minister to advertise in the newspapers supporting the administration regardless of their circulation.


William Pugsley: I did not say that. I do say that if in order to give proper publicity it was necessary to avail myself of the columns of a Conservative newspaper I would not hesitate to do so.


Richard Blain: That is a very nice story, but it does not answer my question. If the newspaper having the largest circulation in the vicinity where a public work is to be done is a Conservative paper, will the minister publish the advertisement in that paper?


William Pugsley: I hope my hon. friend will not think me discourteous if I answer that when the contingency arises it will have consideration. That is as far as I can go.


Richard Blain: Very well, I will probably renew' the question.


William Pugsley: Next year.


Richard Blain: Before that. Now, W'ith regard to the Brampton post office; the Minister of Public Works told me last night he did not know where Brampton is, and I may inform him that it is in the county of Peel, province of Ontario, twenty miles west of Toronto, on the Grand Trunk Railway.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: And gives a good Tory majority.


Richard Blain: Is any of this money we are now voting to be expended on the Brampton post office?


William Pugsley: I find that at Bromp-ton (it is probably a mistake in my notes for Brampton) there w'as an expenditure last year of $388, and I assume there will be an expenditure this year at Brampton.


William Humphrey Bennett: Who looks after the framing of these advertisements? I see in that great family journal the Ottawa 1 Free Press ' a long advertisement calling for tenders for dredging at different points. There is a long list of places which I need not read. In another column of the same paper there is an advertisement calling for tenders for dredging to be done at Tiffin and at Victoria Harbour. I think it should not take a great stretch of imagination on

74S0
the part of the clerk preparing these advertisements to see that he might have added to the former list Tiffin and Victoria harbour. What is the sense of having over a quarter of a column occupied with an advertisement inviting tenders for these two places when they might have been included in the list?


William Pugsley: The work at Tiffin and at Victoria harbour is somewhat special in its charaacter. The department may recommend that the dredging shall go to a deptii of 25 feet and that the channel for the Canadian Pacific Railway at Victoria harbour and the channel for the Grand Trunk at Tiffin shall be completed by the 1st of October. So that the advertisement required to be separate. *


William Humphrey Bennett: Perhaps that might very well have been added as an ' N.B.' to the other advertisement. But the hon. gentleman is perhaps a little tired of NJ5. They are very cabalistic letters-they stand for New Brunswick.


Mr. CLEMENTS.: Can the hon. minister state what part of this money is to be spent at Chatham?


William Pugsley: I am not able to say. This is a vote which is taken every year. It is assumed that it takes from $15,000 to $20,000 to make these general repairs and whatever amount is needed for repairs at Chatham will be expended. The amount expended last year on the Chatham public buildings was $230.72.


John Dowsley Reid: Does the hon. minister insert advertisements calling for tenders in independent newspapers? If so, I would like to know why he singles out the Montreal ' Star ' especially.


William Pugsley: I will tell my hon. friend very frankly. I have noticed from time to time that the Montreal ' Star ' has published advertisements calling for tenders for various public buildings. As these advertisements have not been ordered by the department, I assume that they are published as news items.


Samuel Hughes: Then why does the hon. minister leave out a good Grit journal like the Montreal ' Star?' It is as bad a Grit journal as the ' Herald.'


Richard Blain: Are advertisements in the Montreal 'Star' referred to by my hon. friend paid for?


William Pugsley: I think not.


Richard Blain: Then they are unauthorized? We were dealing with the authox

ized advertisements.


John Dowsley Reid: I have always looked on the Montreal ' Star ' as an absolutely independent newspaper. We are to understand, then, that the ' Star ' is not on the patronage list-is that the position?


William Humphrey Bennett: 


William Pugsley: No, I think not.


John Dowsley Reid: Then what is the exact position as regards the Montreal ' Star ' getting any advertisements?
Mr. PUGSLEY'. I am not aware that since I have been a minister there has been any advertisements of my department published in the Montreal ' Star.' It is a good paper, but I have always looked upon it as a very strong Conservative paper.


Richard Blain: May I ask my hon. friend what is necessary for a newspaper to get on the patronage list?


William Pugsley: Not very different from what it was twelve or fifteen years ago.


Richard Blain: I was not asking what was necessary twelve oj' fifteen years ago, but what is necessary now.


William Pugsley: A man must be thoroughly reliable in the article in which he deals; he must be honest; he must furnish a good article, and he must furnish it at a low price.


Richard Blain: I am sure the committee are very much refreshed at that statement, if my hon. friend proposes to put it into operation.


William Pugsley: I propose to continue that in operation, and if It is not in operation in my department I propose to put it in operation.


Richard Blain: An hon. friend suggests that one qualification is to be a good Grit, whatever that means.


Mr. FISHER.: That would be prima facie evidence of honesty.


Richard Blain: The Minister of Agriculture is always ready to come to the rescue on a question of moral reform except when it refers to a definite important question. Will the minister say where in the province of Ontario the balance of this money is to be expended?


William Pugsley: I am not able to tell my hon. friend in advance. For instance, last year repairs and improvements were made on 70 public buildings in Ontario, on which $15,559.53 was expended, running from GO cents up to $1,115. The different superintendents of buildings make reports as to what is needed, and the repairs are made as they are required.


Richard Blain: I would like to state to my hon. friend that in the Brampton post office additional accommodation is required for the additional amount of business being done. There is plenty of space in the building, I think, if it were properly arranged. There is not sufficient room for people coming to get their mails. I think some rearrangement of the boxes and of the interior generally is necessary. May

I ask if some portion of this sum will be spent for that purpose?


William Pugsley: I shall be very happy to have the matter looked into.


Samuel Hughes: Has the minister set apart any portion of this money for the purpose of reorganizing the postal service in the House of Commons, which at present is the same as it was in the days of Noah?


William Pugsley: No, there is nothing in this vote for that purpose.


Samuel Hughes: Does that come under the minister's direction or under the Speaker's?


William Pugsley: I think it is under my direction.


Samuel Hughes: I wish the minister would look into the matter and replace the present pigeon holes with drawers.


William Pugsley: I may say that the question of making improvements in the postal service of the House of Commons has been brought to my notice. Plans have been prepared and 1 have authorized the chief architect to have the improvements made. They could not be made very well during the session. They will be made during the recess.


Mr. BARR.: In the Auditor General's Report at V-95 there is an item :
Orangeville, Ontario, by tender, Library Bureau of Canada, fittings, $1,950.
There is another item :
Office Special tv. Limited, boxes (a) 384 at $1.80; (b) 64 at $2.55; (c) 16 at $2.75; freight, $6.
This makes $825.39 for the lock boxes.
I would ask the minister how many tenders were received for the fittings and I would like information as to the purchase of lock boxes'.


William Pugsley: Tenders were received for the fittings but I have not the number here.


William Humphrey Bennett: Who is the president of The Library Bureau ?


William Pugsley: I do not know.


William Humphrey Bennett: I may inform the minister that one of the large stockholders is Senator Edwards.


William Pugsley: A very good man.


John Barr: I would be very glad to receive the information for which I have asked.


William Pugsley: The hon. member must know that when I come to the House to ask for the passing of appropriations itemized in the estimates, I would not be supposed to have information with me about
some other work done two or three years ago and not mentioned in these estimates.
If my hon. friend will write a letter asking who tenderers were and the amounts of the tenders, I shall be most happy to give him the information.


John Barr: This was not two or three years ago, this was in 1907.


Richard Blain: Out of what vote was this money of which my friend from Dufferin (Mr. Barr) speaks, paid?


William Pugsley: It would be paid out of the vote for post office fittings and supplies.


Richard Blain: A similar expenditure for this year would be paid out of the item now under discussion ?


William Pugsley: It would be paid out of the same vote as last year.


Richard Blain: Will the minister meet the wishes of the member for Dufferin and bring down the information ?


William Pugsley: I shall be most happy. Mr. BLAIN. And he will bring the information to the committee?


William Pugsley: The hon. member, surely. does uot want me to bring down information as to buildings completed years ago, and for which no vote is asked.


Richard Blain: But the minister is so will-


William Pugsley: But the hon. gentleman should not ride a willing horse to death.


George Taylor: The minister told the hon. member for Dufferin (Mr. Barr) that there was no part of this vote for the post office at Orangeville. This is a general vote for the buildings in Ontario, maintenance, repairs, &c.


William Pugsley: But the money paid for the post office at Orangeville was taken out of a different vote.


George Taylor: This goes to prove that mv hon. friend (Mr. Pugsley) is not well acquainted with his estimates. There is another vote for post office fittings and furniture-


William Pugsley: I know that, and the sum to which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Barr) referred was paid out of that.


George Taylor: If the hon. minister will look at the Auditor General s Report, page y__19, he will find that there was an expenditure for repairs to the Orangeville post office last year. Out of what was that paid ?


William Pugsley: Out of a vote similar to the one now before us.


Mr TAYLOR.: Certainly. And with it there were other items-for instance, the pay of a caretaker.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend (Mr. Tay-or) has not understood me. The amount referred to by the hon. member for Duf-ferin (Mr. Barr) was paid out of the vote tor repairs.


George Taylor: But the hon. minister said no part of this vote was to go to Orangeville and asked to have the item passed.


William Pugsley: No part of it for the purpose to which the hon. gentleman referred.


George Taylor: But he has just stated that the money paid last year was paid out of this vote.


William Pugsley: It was paid out of the vote last year, but it does not follow that a dollar of this appropriation will be used for Orangeville.
is wanted by the House and the country. My constituents ought to be allowed to know how many tenders were put in and where they came from.


William Pugsley: The amounts to which the hon. gentleman refers were paid out of a vote for post office fittings and supplies. He will find, at page 53 of the Estimates a number of items under ' rents, repairs, furniture, heating, &c.' When we reach that vote, I will have at hand the information the hon. gentleman desires.


William Humphrey Bennett: In bringing down that information, will the hon. minister be ready to tell us whether public tenders were called for, or whether there was merely an invitation to the Library Bureau to put in a tender ?


George Taylor: What was charged to Orangeville last year ?


William Pugsley: I will get that information.


William Pugsley: 

TAYLOR. Then, what was this i.67 at page V-119 of the Auditor General's Report ?


William Pugsley: 
William Pugsley: The hon. gentlemau (M Taylor) has not the Auditor General's R< port for i 907-8 yet.


Samuel Hughes: Reverting to the-House of Commons post office, we have been promised these changes every year and I would urge upon the minister the desirability of expedition in the matter. I hope that when these lock boxes are put in they will be of the most modern type, that there will be no job in connection with them and that tile country, in one instance in the history of this administration, will get value for their money.


William Pugsley: This matter will be attended to as early as possible.


George Taylor: I am reading from the report for 1906-7, and that comes down to March 31, 1907.


William Pugsley: But this $120.42 was expended during the fiscal year 1907-8.


George Taylor: This is the latest Auditor Generals Report we have, and the only thmg that we can refer to for the discussion b.efore us. Here was a total of Ijaid for repairs, &c., for Orangeville, and a portion of this vote will have to be for Orangeville this year.


William Pugsley: 
William Pugsley: 
John Barr: Whether it comes out of this vote or not, makes little difference, but the minister proposes a departure from the usual proceeding. When we call attention to an item in the Auditor General's Report, and ask questions concerning it, the minister says : Write me a letter and I will send you the information. But the information


George Taylor: 


William Humphrey Bennett: Does the minister know of a man being killed by a fall of ice and snow off the public building in Barrie last winter and if so have steps been taken to prevent a recurrence of such an accident ?


William Pugsley: Precautions to prevent a recurrence were taken at once.


William Humphrey Bennett: Has a claim been made by the relatives and if so who are the solicitors ?


William Pugsley: A claim has been made but I do not remember the name of the solicitors. A letter wTas received but I am not sure if it came from the firm of solicitors.


William Humphrey Bennett: Has the claim been settled ?


William Pugsley: No.


William Humphrey Bennett: Has a fiat been granted?


William Pugsley: I do not think there is any fiat yet.


William Humphrey Bennett: On page V-95, there is an item of expenditure for the Toronto post office, $595 to the Canadian Revolving Door Company, Limited, for a revolving door. Will the minister bring down the information as to that, please ?


William Pugsley: I should be glad to do so.


John Dowsley Reid: Who Is Mr. D. J. Mul-larkey, who does some inspecting for the department ?


William Pugsley: He is a gentleman attached to the headquarters branch of the Public Works Department. Whenever there is inspecting to be done regarding which he has special knowledge-his specialty is concrete work-he is sent to make the inspection and report, and, sometimes, to remain on the spot and see that the work is done.


John Dowsley Reid: Is he paid an annual salary ?


William Pugsley: He is paid $4 a day and his expenses when on duty outside of Ottawa.


John Dowsley Reid: Is he paid for Sundays as well as working days ;


William Pugsley: He is in the permanent employ of the department, and his pay includes Sunday.


John Dowsley Reid: Is he a permanent employee ?


William Pugsley: In that sense, he has been attached to' the department for two or three years.


John Dowsley Reid: Is he paid by the day Or by the month ?


William Pugsley: My deputy advises me that he is paid by the month-$4 a day, including Sundays.


John Dowsley Reid: Where did Mr. Mullar-key come from ?


William Pugsley: He has lived in Ottawa for a number of years and he has worked himself up to his present position. He is a Practical man in concrete and masonry.


Samuel Hughes: Was he the man who mixed the concrete for the Laurier tower ?


William Pugsley: No, he had nothing to do with the Laurier tower. The concrete work belonged to one of these important bridges that cross the river. He has had large experience, and is regarded by everybody as an expert.


John Dowsley Reid: I see on Y-69 that Patton & Crowe supplied 50 fire extinguishers at $15. Where were these placed ?


William Pugsley: I will have that matter looked up and tell the hon. gentleman later.


John Dowsley Reid: I see the Empire Electric and Manufacturing Company, of Ottawa, supplied one Westinghouse motor, 5 horse-power, where was that placed ?


William Pugsley: They are sent out to different buildings where they are required.
Glencoe public building, $3,500.


William Pugsley: This is a revote towards the erection of a public building in the town of Glencoe. The site was purchased out of a previous appropriation of $5,000, and the amount paid for the site and the total expenditure up to the 31st of March, was $1,500 altogether, leaving a balance of $3,500 to be revoted. The site has been purchased, but the contract has not been let. The chief architect is preparing the plans.


Richard Blain: Now we have here a case in point, where a public building is to be erected in the town of Glencoe, in the county of West Middlesex, which Is represented by the chief whip of the government party (Mr. Calvert). The newspaper having the largest circulation in that western district, the London ' Free Press,' goes into almost every home. Now I want to ask the minister to insert his advertisement for this building in the London ' Free Press ' when he asks for tenders.


William Pugsley: Is there no other paper in London ?


Richard Blain: There is a paper called the London 1 Advertiser.'


William Pugsley: Has that got a good circulation ?


Richard Blain: Considerable, but nothing approaching the circulation of the London ' Free Press.' Now in view of the fact that the London ' Free Press ' is the leading newspaper in that district, may I ask my hon. friend, when he is calling for tenders for the erection of this building, if he will insert the advertisement in the London 1 Free Press ' ?


William Pugsley: If in my opinion it should be necessary in order to give proper information to intending contractors, I wilt do so. But that will be a matter for consideration.


Richard Blain: What does my hon. friend consider proper information ?


William Pugsley: What is the circulation of the ' Advertiser ' ?


Mr. GORDON.: It has quite as large a circulation as the ' Free Press.'


Richard Blain: Does the hon. gentleman really believe that the ' Advertiser ' has as large a circulation as the ' Free Press ' ?


David Alexander Gordon: I think so.


Richard Blain: Now we will watch with interest the policy pursued by the minister in respect to advertising for tenders.


William Pugsley: They will be very widely advertised.


Richard Blain: Who made the request for the expenditure ?


William Pugsley: This expenditure has been urged by petition from the town of Glencoe, also by copy of a resolution from the town council, and that petition and resolution have been very warmly endorsed by Mr. Calvert, member of parliament for the riding in which Glencoe is situated.


George Taylor: Wliat is the population of Glencoe ?


William Pugsley: By the census of 1901, 1,034.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: Prom whom was this site purchased ? and was there any middleman engaged in it ?


William Pugsley: The site was purchased from Mr. P. D. Keith. I do not think there is any middleman interested, not only in this case but in any of the properties required by the Public Works Department, I never heard of any. We endeavour to get land or supplies at the lowest possible price, after all reasonable effort is made for ascertaining those prices. The lot is a corner lot with a frontage of 100 feet on one street and 165 on another, and it cost $1,250.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: As regards the intervention of middlemen in purchases made by the Public Works Department, I will give a case in regard to which I have correct information. It was not in the time of the present minister. The site for the Sand: wich post office was bought from A. J. Healey. Mr. Healey is a young lawyer and prominent politician in that district, and is associated with the Liberal party. I understand he is connected with a dredging concern there.


William Humphrey Bennett: Keep your eye on him.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: He bought a lot having 208 feet frontage on one street and 52 feet on another, for $1,600. He sold one-half of the property to the government for $1,700, making exactly $1,500 on this lot. There was a house on the lot when he purchased it, and he realized $400 out of the house, besides the $1,500 profit he made out of the lot.


William Pugsley: What was the size of the lot sold to the department?


Herbert Sylvester Clements: One hundred and four feet fronage by fifty-two feet depth.


William Pugsley: At what price?


Herbert Sylvester Clements: Seventeen hundred dollars.


William Pugsley: Was that a high price?


Herbert Sylvester Clements: Well, it was a high price; it was just twice the price that he purchased it for.


William Pugsley: Do you say that it was an excessive price?


Herbert Sylvester Clements: I say that it was in the town of Sandwieh. This gentleman acted as a middleman and made $1,500 out of this government. Before the item passes,
I want to draw the attention of the minister to a matter that I took up personally with the late minister, Mr. Hyman. I refer to the erection of a public building in the village of Tilbury. I see that-Glencoe has a public building and I have nothing to say in opposition to it. I congratulate Glencoe upon getting this building, but I say that other districts should be similarly treated. Tilbury lies between the constituency of the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Clarke) and my own constituency. I made representations to Mr. Hyman some time ago as I was requested to do by the residents of the district. Tilbury is a very thriving village, and I think it is deserving of a public building. It is one of the best villages in that district, and I trust that the minister will grant the application and see that provision is made for a building at that place.


William Pugsley: An application has been received for the erection of a public building in the village of Tilbury. I recognize that it is quite a thriving place, and the matter will have very careful consideration. I am in hopes that before very long I shall be able to meet the wishes of the people of Tilbury in this respect.


John Barr: I would like to know what the policy of the government is in connection with the erection of public buildings? Here we find a village, not a very thriving one, but a village having 934 inhabitants is to receive a post office. The village I live in has 1,200 or 1,300 people and we have the post office in a little room in connection with the town hall. Why does Glencoe get this favour? It is represented by the government whip in the House. That is an important consideration, but there Is a much greater one why the hon. member who represents that riding ought to get something. It is not only represented by the whip, but it is represented by a would-be minister of the crown. That lion, gentleman claims that the hon. the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) has his position as Minister of Public Works. In order to soothe his injured feelings and to show his constituents that lie is doing something for them it is necessary to erect a building in Glencoe. I would like to know why a little village like Glencoe should receive this consideration, when Shelburne, a flourishing and growing village, should not receive similar consideration. If it is the policy of the government to supply villages of 1,034 inhabitants with post offices, then, 1 submit that it is the duty of the government to supply a village of that size. It was contended some time ago that it was only towns that should get post offices. I know that Orangeville did not get a public building until it had reached the status of a


Richard Blain: 


William Humphrey Bennett: Is the policy of the minr ister the same as the policy stated by the hon. Minister of Finance the other night that if it could be shown that no public money had ever been spent in a riding it was the duty of the government to place a public building there? Is ho in accord with the sentiments or the views of the Minister of Finance?


William Pugsley: I think that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance put the matter upon a very reasonable and very fair basis. I understood him to say that even in the case of small towns in a riding in which no public money was being expended; that is to say no money for public buildings, and more especially, if it were a county town-I think perhaps he limited it to that


William Humphrey Bennett: No, the Minister of Finance did not limit it to a county town.


William Pugsley: I think he said a county town. At all events he spoke of one town, and he said it was not unreasonable that a public building should be erected there. But, he further said at the same time that people must be patient, that these things could not all be done at once. While I am on my feet I may say to the hon. gentleman who represents the riding of Dufferin (Mr. Barr) that I am very much pleased to hear him speak so highly of the village in which he lives. I am glad to hear that it is a thriving village, but I may say ta the hon. gentleman that if the village which he represents is entitled .to a public building perhaps he is a little open to the criticism- I do not make it here as a criticism against
him-of not having in any way directed my attention to the necessity which existed for a public building in that locality.


John Barr: The hon. gentleman must remember that he inis not occupied that position long. I can assure my hon. friend that I did bring it to the notice of his predecessor, and that he promised to give it careful consideration. I thought that consideration was being given to it. However, I will not fail to remind my hon. friend, the good-natured Minister of Public Works, that we are very anxious to have a post office in Shelburne and that we think we should have one.


Mr. NORTHRTJP.: I think that my hon. friend from Dufferin (Mr. Barr) was hardly to be blamed for not having brought this matter to the attention of the minister.


William Pugsley: I did not blame him very seriously.


William Barton Northrup: I had not the opportunity of hearing the minister when he spoke in Montreal the other evening, but I have had the privilege of reading the account of his remarks as published in a newspaper, and I see that he laid down the principle that public buildings were erected for the education of the people, that the people required something in the nature of culture and education in some parts of the country. He declared that where ignorance, stupidity and bigotry reigned, it was necessary that public buildings should be erected. We will see at once why the hon. member for Shelburne had no opportunity of procuring a public building for his town, and why villages of 1,000 inhabitants do obtain them. Up to the time the minister made the explanation. no man in Canada could understand why there was not a public building in Shelburne.


Mr. FOWLER.: The Minister of Public Works is reported in the press recently to have said that a member from his own province had made an onslaught on him. I do not know to whom the minister refers, whatever suspicion I may have. The minister also stated that the gentleman who made the onslaught on him was not often to be seen in the House. If I had my suspicion in the first instance as to whom the minister was referring that suspicion would be dissipated by this latter statement, because if he was referring to me in his first statement he certainly could not be referring to me in his last statement, because so far as attendance in the House is concerned I have been a more regular attendant than the minister himself. If his remarks with regard to public buildings are not more truthful than these other remarks of his, they are not worthy of much credence.


Mr. SCHAFFNER.: I represent a large and important constituency and I think I

may say that there is not a single public building in that whole constituency.


William Pugsley: What is the size of the largest town in my hon. friend's constituency?


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: My own town is larger than Glencoe, where you are erecting a public building; it has 1,200 inhabitants. I do not object to the erection of a public building where it is necessary and where the expenditure is not too great, but I have already made representations in this regard with respect to my own constituency and I would like to know why Glencoe in Ontario with 1,030 people should pay $1,250 for a site for a public building when I will guarantee that I will get a site in my own town of 1,200 inhabitants for half that amount. It is about time that the town of Boissevain should have a post office. If I were speaking about the man who has charge of postal affairs in that town for the past live years I would have something to say, but that is not at present under discussion. I rose to make as strong a jilea as I can to the Minister of Public Works to take active steps as early as possible to build a post office in the town of Boissevain, which is larger than the town of Glencoe.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend comes from a town which has a population of 1,200 aud he urges very strongly that it would be a proper expenditure of public money to erect a public building in that town.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Yes.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend is entitled to speak for his constituency and if he makes a proper representation to me I will be very glad to consider it between this and next session.


Mr. WM. WRIGHT.: Let me tell the Minister of Public Works that for several years I have impressed on his department the necessity for erecting public buildings in the riding I represent. We have some large towns in that constituency, but yet there is not a public building within its borders. Delegations have come from one of these towns on different occasions asking that a public building be erected there, but no action has been taken and in the meantime little villages all over Canada, one-third the size of any one of three towns in my riding, and where there is no warrant, comparatively speaking, for the erection of a public building, have been favourably considered by the government. There is in my riding a town of 3,000 population, giving a postal revenue of $5,000 a year, and there are two others which give a slightly smaller revenue, and these towns deserve consideration from the government.
I.	have urged the matter on the attention of the government and delegations have Mr. SCHAF.VNEB.
come here to support my representations, but yet there is no sign in the estimates that any provision is to be made. Is there any underlying principle which guides the department in this matter? They seem to follow a happy-go-lucky method by which little villages get consideration and large towns are neglected. It is time some principle should be laid down which would guide those who are administering public affairs in this matter. We have gone on too long on this principle of spending public money without any consideration as to the requirements of the case.


William Pugsley: What is the name of the town in which the hon. gentleman thinks a public building should be erected?


William Wright: If you give me any encouragement to think that you will make use of the information to give the matter consideration I will name you three towns in my riding.


William Pugsley: I will consider it carefully.


William Wright: Bracebridge, Huntsville and Gravenhurst.


William Pugsley: I came in as a new minister last summer and if I have not before heard from my hon. friend that there was necessity for a public building in any one of these places he can hardly blame me for not having provision made in the estimates. I have not hitherto, directly or indirectly, had any representation from my hon. friend that there should be a building erected in any of these towns. Of course, in considering whether we should at once erect public buildings in the riding the hon. gentleman represents, it must be remembered that there is a very urgent demand, which does not seem to be unreasonable, for the expenditure of money on public wharfs in that constituency, and it may be that the people of that riding have felt that it would be more desirable, at present at all events, to have money expended in affording facilities for transportation and trade rather than in erecting public buildings. That consideration may have had some influence. I may say that the question of giving increased wharf accommodation in the hon. gentleman's constituency is receiving my very earnest attention, and I hope I may be able to meet the very reasonable expectations of the people in that respect. With regard to public buildings, I will also say that I take the way in which my hon. friend has approached the question to-day as an expression of his desire that there should be more public buildings there, and I will give that matter my earnest attention.


William Wright: The minister lays down the rule that we must make our applications to every new minister. I under-

stood that we made application to the department, and that that department had an official head and a deputy head, and that a record would be kept of the applications that were made. But if every time there is a change in the Minister of Public Works we have to renew our applications, it is as well that we should understand that. However, with regard to wharfs. 1 may say that there have been two or three built in my constituency since this government came into power, probably costing ail told $20,-
000.	As to that, I am not making any great complaint, as I have seen a deputation who waited on the minister a week or so ago, and they have stated that he distinctly pledged himself to put a sum in the estimates for a wharf at the town of Graven-hurst. I do not know whether that has been definitely decided upon, or has been merely taken into consideration.


William Pugsley: Nothing is definitely decided on until it appears before the House in the estimates.


Mr. MARSHALL.: I do not know whether there has yet been a requisition for a post office in Aylmer, Ont.


William Pugsley: Not to my knowledge.


David Marshall: I may tell the hon. minister that we have been promised a post office for the last fifteen years, and the promise generally comes just before a general election.


William Pugsley: That would take it back to about 3893.


David Marshall: We had a promise of a post office from the old government, but did not get it. However, I am living in one of the nicest towns, as far as business is concerned, in Canada. I think the hon. Minister of Customs will bear me out in that; he has been in our town, and we are always pleased to have him. I have been living there about thirty years. I have no objection to any town getting a public building. Glencoe is a smart business town, but it does not compare with the town of Aylmer. The population of Aylmer is about 2,500. It is a manufacturing center. The post office is inappropriate to the town. We have also a custom house which is not in keeping with the character of the place. I would like to have a promise if I can get one from the minister to amend matters for us. We have not only a beautiful town, but a tine country. I do not think the hon. Minister of Public Works has ever been in that section. We would be glad to have him come, even at election time. We are always glad to see distinguished gentlemen come there, no matter what their politics are. During my campaign we were visited by five very prominent gentlemen who are sitting in this House the hon. Minister of Justice, the hon. Mr. Hyman, the hon. gentleman who has just left the chair, the hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Miller) and the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German), and you know the result-to me it was very satisfactory. North Bay is a town that does not compare with Aylmer, and you are spending $66,000 on a public building there. Welland has a population of 1,863, and is getting a new post office costing about $27,000. Leamington is another place which 1 understand is to get a post office building. It has about the same population as Aylmer, and is a very beautiful little town. I would be very glad to have the views of the minister as to giving Aylmer a post office building, which we have been promised for years.


William Pugsley: I may say that considering what a very nice, progressive town Aylmer is, its population, and the energetic representative it has, I am certainly surprised that although I have been here for several months, I have never heard from the hon. gentleman that there was the slightest feeling among the people that there should be a public building at Aylmer. It may be that the people of Aylmer have heard so much talk on the part of the opposition about the great extravagance which has been shown in the erection of public buildings in various cities and towns, that they have been rather timid in making application for a public building. But, from the discussion which has taken place to-day, I am very glad to see that there is such a consensus of opinion in favour of going to a reasonable expenditure in giving to the people in thriving towns accommodation in the way of public buildings. My hon. friend must not expect us to attend to all the wants of the people at once. We have to proceed reasonably, in a way which may appear to some people to be somewhat too slow. I am sure the hon. gentleman will not expect us to rush at once into the construction of public buildings all over the country. We must look to the wants of the people, and as these wants are urged upon our attention, endeavour to supply the reasonable needs of the people. I shall be very glad if I can have the opportunity of visiting Aylmer and shall be only too happy to take into consideration the wants of the town.	j


John Barr: I wish to correct a statement of a few moments ago, as to the revenue of Glencoe and Shelburne. The revenue of Glencoe is $2,150.80 and that of Shelburne, $2,670.21. The expenditures in Glencoe were $816.65 and in Shelburone $991.18. We are not complaining about the progress that is being made in the country in the building of post offices and public buildings, all we complain of is that they are not distributed properly and we say they should be placed where there is the largest population and where the largest revenue is brought into the treasury, not in accord-

ance with some influence that may be brought to bear.


William Pugsley: I understand you entirely approve of what we are doing but complain that we do not go far enough.


David Marshall: I neglected to state that I have the honour to represent a riding having 22,000 population and we have not a government building in that riding.


Samuel Hughes: I wish to urge a suggestion which I have made unsuccessfully to several Ministers of Public Works, that a regulation should be adopted that all public buildings should be isolated from other buildings, that some safe distance, possibly 100 feet, should be left between public buildings and other buildings. In this case, for instance. I am sure that for the money spent in Glencoe the minister could have procured a square in which the building could have been placed


William Pugsley: That is very desirable undoubtedly, but in cities especially it would very greatly add to the cost. As to the cost of land in Glencoe this is a comer lot, 100 by 165 feet; my information is that Glencoe is in the centre of a very rich and progressive agricultural district, and is quite an important railway centre. The price is $1,250 and I think my hon. friend is entirely mistaken in saying that the cost is too high.


William Humphrey Bennett: I think it only fair to place on ' Hansard ' what the minister did say on the occasion referred to. He is reported in the Montreal ' Gazette ' of last Monday as saying :
In fact he believed that any government would also be justified in spending a limited amount on public buildings in quarters where other expenditure was not large, so as to cultivate public taste, to stimulate citizens and make the people contented and proud of the locality in which they lived.
I would ask him what amount of lethargy, discontent and lack of pride must he manifested before the minister will give a locality a public building ?


William Pugsley: The report from which the hon. gentleman has read, while it gives a portion of the remarks I had the honour to make on the occasion to which he refers, does not profess to be a verbatim report. Some of the observations I made which are not contained in it would somewhat qualify the remarks quoted making my statement more in accordance with what I have said here to-day.


William Humphrey Bennett: If the minister was mis-reported, would he repeat what he did say ?


William Pugsley: I did not say that I was misreported, but some remarks were left out which would qualify those printed.


John Barr: 


George William Fowler: The minister might have answered that where the population of the district had shown discontent, lack of pride and lethargy by electing a Liberal representative, it would be necessary to give them a public building.


Richard Blain: Again referring to the advertising, I stated that the newspaper having the largest circulation in the section of the country where the money we are now asked to vote is to be expended, Is the London * Free Press,' a morning newspaper. The London ' Free Press ' had a circulation-


William Pugsley: I suppose my hon. friend would not for a moment think that I would wish him to justify the waste of the time of the House and the country beyond tbe extent to which he has wasted it this afternoon, by asking him for information as to the circulation of the London ' Free Press.' Do not let him excuse himself by suggesting any such request by me.


Richard Blain: I am not paying any serious attention to what my hon. friend stated. I asked him the policy of his department in respect of advertising for public buildings. He was unable to state the policy and said in reply that when he was considering the advertisements that were to be published in newspapers for this public building now under discussion he would consider it. The London ' Free Press ' had a circulation of 20,012 on April 26, 1908. As to the London ' Advertiser,' although the figures are not published in the paper itself, I am informed on the very best authority that the circulation of that newspaper is less than 12,000 and it is an evening newspaper, the circulation being largely in the city of London, while the other circulates in every part of western Onario. The hon. gentleman is going to advertise for tenders for a building to be constructed at Glencoe. I am asking whether he will select the leading newspaper or will reject it for its politics. I do not expect an answer from him. Nor am I consulting the hon. gentleman particularly as to the waste of time he is causing tins afternoon. I am directing his attention to facts which are worthy of his consideration, if he intends to spend the public money appropriated for advertising in that way to do the most good. But, if he proposes to spend it in the interests of his political party, as he has been doing, the information I have submitted will be of no value to him, and will not be taken note of. Now,
I would like to ask out of what vote passed last year was $1,250 paid for this site ? Also has tbe site been paid for?


William Pugsley: The site has been paid for, the money being taken out of an appropriation of $5,000 passed last year.


Richard Blain: What will be the cost of the building ?


William Pugsley: Something about $20,-
000.


William Humphrey Bennett: Including heating and everything ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Mr. GANONG.: Is this a customs port of entry ?


William Pugsley: Yes, customs as well.


Gilbert White Ganong: Lest the minister should think me remiss, as he has suggested other gentlemen have been, I would call his attention to the fact that in the county I have the honour to represent there are three towns, more important, I believe, than Glencoe, and certainly more important than Knowlton with its 760 population wfrich has been given a post office building. These towns are known to him, but not so well, probably as to me. St. Andrews, in the county of Charlotte, is one of the most important watering places on our Atlantic sea-board, and one of the oldest towns in eastern Canada.


William Pugsley: What is its population ?


Gilbert White Ganong: About 1,300 or 1,400. Then, there is Milltown, an important manufacturing place, with a cotton mill employing about 800 hands, and St. George with large industries. All these are incorporated towns. If it is necessary for us to repeat our applications to every new Minister of Public Works who comes into office, and if the changes are to be as frequent as they have been in the last ten years, I think an officer shpukl be appointed and blank forms supplied so that these applications may be kept before the head of the department without undue labour. I observe that the minister has adroitly passed over the question suggested by the hon. member for Duf-ferin (Mr. Barr) and others as to the general policy of the government in regard to these buildings. I hope he will take note of the three towns to which I have called attention.


John Dowsley Reid: In my county I have a town which I believe is more important than Glencoe, the town of Kemptville, which has a population of about 2,000, and a postal revenue of $2,600 or $2,700. But we have other places where public buildings are more necessary than in Glencoe, though I am not objecting to this Glencoe public building. Take, for instance, the town of Morrisburg on the St. Lawrence, a place of about 3,000 people and a fine town. In view of these cases, I think there should be some statement from the minister as to his policy.


William Pugsley: It is nearly six o'clock, but before the committee rises, I would like to ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. J. D. Reid) whether he is opposing this vote for Glencoe or whether it is that he thinks that others ought to be included ?


John Dowsley Reid: This appropriation for Glencoe has my approval, and would have my vote if necessary. But I say that there are other places requiring public buildings. whose cases should be considered. There was a case mentioned a little while ago of a towTn in Quebec with about 700 population, which is given a post office. These cases indicate that some special influence must be brought to bear to direct the action of the government in these matters. For instance, in the case of Glencoe, probably the chief whip of the other side (Mr. Calvert) must have brought pressure to bear on the minister in favour of that place, for I do not think this post office is given to Glencoe because of the great interest the Minister of Public Works takes in that village.


Richard Blain: The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) must not go out and say that the members of the opposition are pressing for increased expenditure. It is quite plain what my hon. friend (Mr. Pugsley) is asking for, and I want to put myself right-and I am sure I speak for others about me. The opposition say that the government spends enormous sums of the public money uselessly, and that the government has no policy except a political policy in the spending of this money. A village represented by a Reformer is given a post office, but an important town represented by a Liberal Conservative receives no appropriation for that purpose. That is what we object to. And we object to the increased expenditure of this country and say that it ought to be reduced.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I would ask the minister if plans and specifications of this building in Glencoe have been prepared so as to show not only the cost of the building, but the cost of heating, fittings and furniture as well? The committee will then know exactly what this building is going to cost before we vote this money. The minister will remember that a few days ago I drew his attention to this point, that before any money should be voted for the erection of a public building the minister should state definitely the outside amount he proposed to expend so that the committee may know how the money of this country is going to be expended. I for one would object to this vote going through unless the minister is prepared to say that full specifications have been prepared, and that every dollar he intends to put into the building has been determined, and that it is the purpose of the government that this amount should not be exceeded. I hold that is the only way in which the expenditure can be controlled. If the minister is not prepared to say how much money he is going to expend on this building, I think he had better let the item stand until such time as he has arrived at,a conclusion. I am not very particular as to the amount, but I want a definite promise from the min-

ister so that those of us who may be here next year when another vote is asked for will know whether the government is prepared to abide by its estimates.


William Pugsley: This is a re vote. There was a vote of $5,000 last year. The site has been purchased, and the chief architect has been instructed to prepare the plans and to limit the total expenditure to $20,000, and he assures me that he will see the expenditure does not exceed that amount.


Charles Marcil: Is this vote agreed to ?
Some lion. MEMBERS. No.


Richard Blain: Before the House rises-I have here a copy of the Toronto ' Mail and Empire,' which says that a Liberal member of parliament, the hon. member for Kings county, P.E.I. (Mr. J. J. Hughes), is being sued for $12,000 for having furnished supplies to the government.


Charles Marcil: That is not relative to the question before the House.


Richard Blain: I will take another opportunity of bringing up the matter.
Some resolutions reported.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What business does the government propose to take up to-morrow.


Wilfrid Laurier: Supply, in the same department.
At six o'clock House adjourned.


HOUSE 0E COMMONS.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, April 30, 1908.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER took the Chair at Three o'clock.


Mr. J. D. REID asked :: 1.	Has the Montreal Harbour Commissioners lately given a contract for cement?
2.	If -so, was the quantity 30,000 barrels? If not, how many barrels were contracted for?
3.	To whom was the contract given?
4.	Is it a fact that this order is to be imported from Belgium?
5.	Is the government aware that there are cement manufacturing industries in Canada, making first-class cement?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: The first four questions are answered on information received from the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal.
1.	Yes.


Mr. HENDERSON.: 2.	The quantity contracted for is 100,000 bags of 94 pounds each, the commissioners to have the option of reducing or increasing the quantity 25 per cent.
3.	Dillon's Limited, Montreal.
4.	Tenders for the cement were called for by advertisement. The lowest and most advantageous tender which complied with the specifications was accepted. The brand to be supplied is ' North's Condor ' made in Belgium.
5.	Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: I omitted to ask the price paid for the cement. Will the minister get that information.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I will inquire.


MICHAEL J. WALLACE.
Mr. CLEMENTS asked :: 1.	Is one Michael J. Wallace employed at Windsor, Ontario, bv the Customs Department ?
2.	If so, when was he appointed, and what is his salary and duties?


Hon. WM. PATERSON (Minister of Customs) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	He has been employed since 19th of June, 1907. His salary is $90 a month, repayable by the contractors of the Detroit River tunnel, as special services. His duties are to keep a check of materials imported for the tunnel.


IMMIGRATION ACT.
Mr. LENNOX asked :: 1.	Has an order in council been passed pursuant to an Act of this session intituled ' An Act to amend the Immigration Act,' Bill No. 135?
2.	If so. will the minister bring down and lay on the table this order in council?
3.	If not yet passed, when does the government propose to take action, and what is the cause of this delay?
4.	Will the minister bring down the order in council when passed?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior).: A memorandum to council is being prepared and will be brought down when passed.


DOKIS INDIAN RESERVE.
Mr. PERLEY asked :: 1.	In what newspapers has a notice been published regarding the sale of the timber on the Dokis Indian reserve?
2.	On what day was the first insertion of the notice printed in each of these newspapers?
3.	What is the total number of insertions authorized by the government to be published in each of them up to the day of proposed sale?

4.	Have the lines been run on the ground dividing the said reserve into the different timber berths which are advertised to be sold separately ?
5.	If so, when were these lines run, and where can a record of the same be seen?


Frank Oliver: 1 and 2:
Paper authorized and date of authorization to King's Printer.
April 9, 1908-	.
' Barrie Examiner,' Barrie.
' Brantford Expositor,' Brantford.
' Collingwood Bulletin,' Collingwood.
' Manitoulin Reformer,' Gore Bay.
' Hamilton Times,' Hamilton.
' North Bay Times,' North Bay.
' Free Press,' Ottawa.
' Examiner,' Peterborough.
' Advertiser,' Sturgeon Falls.
' Algoma Advocate,' Tliessalon.
' Globe,' Toronto.
' Herald,' Montreal.
' Le Soleil,' Quebec.
' Manitoba Free Press,' Winnipeg.
' Mining News,' Cobalt.
' Sault Express,' Sault Ste. Marie.
'Sudbury Journal,' Sudbury.
' Pembroke Observer,' Pembroke.
' North Star,' Parry Sound.
April 13, 1908-
' Burks Falls Arrow,' Burks Falls.
April 22, 1908-
' Times,' Peterborough.
' Wiarton Echo,' Wiarton.
' Herald,' Hamilton.
April 24, 1908-
' Canadian Freeman,' Kingston.
April 27, 1908-
' Gazette,' Barrie.
' Trade Review,' Montreal.
' Canadian Congregationalist,' Toronto.
' Hull City Advance,' Hull.
' Dominion Presbyterian,' Ottawa.
3.	One insertion each week, between authorization and date of sale, 24th of June, 1908.
4.	No, but a surveyor has been instructed to do the work, and it is expected that he will be on the ground this week.
5.	After return of survey has been made, record thereof may be seen in the Department of Indian Affairs.



BRITISH PENSIONERS.

Mr. BLAIN asked :: 1.	Has there been issued to British pensioners residing in Canada a notice from or through the Department of Militia and Defence to the following purport:	*
' Acting under instructions from the Postmaster General in England, I have deducted from your pension the sum of	,
being 3 per cent, for the period May 1, 190G, to August 31, 1907; the 3 per cent tax to continue during residence in Canada.'
2.	If so, under what authority and at whose instance was this notice issued, and when was it issued?
3.	What is the object and upon what grounds is this deduction made from the income of these pensioners?
4.	What are the circumstances attendant upon the action of the Department of Militia and Defence in this connection?
5.	Is it intended to discourage the residence of these pensioners in Canada?


William Pugsley: If any such notice was received by an imperial pensioner resident in Canada, it was sent by the army officer paying pensions acting under instructions from the imperial authorities, and for which neither the Canadian government nor the Militia Department is in any way responsible.



UNITED STATES WARSHIPS ON GREAT LAKES.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BLAIN asked ;
1.	Does the government propose to make
any inquiry as to the armament and crew of the following United States training ships or war ships upon the great lakes: (a) ' Yan-tic,' (b) ' Hawk,' (c)	' Fern,' (d) ' Dorothea,'
(e)	' San Juan,' (f) ' Essex,' (g) and ' Sandoval ' ?
2.	Does the government propose making any
inquiries as to the crew and armament of the. ' Nashville,' a United States war ship or training ship which is to pass through the canals into the great lakes during the year 1908?	.
3.	Does the government consider that the matter of the armament and crew of these vessels has any relation to the convention of 1818 with respect to naval forces upon the great lakes?
4.	What are the terms of the convention or agreement of 1818 with respect to a naval force upon the great lakes?
Right hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (for Minister of Militia and Defence) :
1 and 2. The Department of Militia is obtaining information on this subject. (Note. 'San Juan' should read 'Don Juan.')
3.	The government is not in a position to express an opinion at this moment.
4.	In April, 1817, an agreement was entered into between Great Britain and the United States to the effect that the naval force of the respective countries, on the lakes, should be confined to the following vessels on each side, that is to say :
On Lake Ontario, to one vessel not exceeding 100 tons burden and armed with one 18-pound cannon ;
On the Upper Lakes, to two vessels not exceeding like burden each and armed with like force ;
On Lake Champlain, to one vessel not exceeding like burden and armed with like force ;
No other vessel of war to be built or armed on the lakes.
The agreement is terminable by either party giving six months notice of its intention.

Mr. A. A. McLEAN (Queens) asked :: 1.	Who was the harbour master at the Port
of Louishurg, Nora Scotia, for the year 1906, and what remuneration did he receive for his services ?	[DOT]
2.	What was the amount of harbour dues collected at the port of Louisburg,- Nova Scotia for the year 1906?
3.	What amount of the harbour dues collected for or during 1906 has been forwarded to the department and at what date?
4.	What remuneration did H. C. V. LaValle receive for his services as harbour master at the port of Louisburg, Nova Scotia, for the year 1907?
5.	What amount of harbour dues collected during 1907 has been forwarded to the department?
6.	Who is the deputy harbour master at the port of Louisburg, Nova Scotia, when was he appointed, and what remuneration?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: 1.	H. -C. V. LeValle, $200.
2.	$405.50.
3.	$55.50 in March, 1907.
4.	$200.
5.	$128.50.
6.	John Townsend, sr., appointed 1st May, 1899, $150 per annum from the fees collected.



SECTION 16, 15, 27, WEST 4TH MERIDIAN.

Mr. HERRON asked :: 1.	In respect of section 16, 15, 27, west 4th meridian, what is the history of this section?
2.	Who were the original homesteaders, if any?
3.	Have patents been issued? If so, to whom, and on what grounds?
4.	If sold, what was the price per acre and what were the reasons for and condition of sale ?
5.	To whom does the section now belong?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) :: 1.	Section 16, 15, 27, west 4th meridan, less area patented to the Calgary and Edmonton Railway Company for right of way, was entered for as homesteads in April, 1903. On the 27th April, 1904, Mr. J. Bailey Powell was notified at Ottawa that the Northwest Ranching and Packing Company Limited, were permitted to purchase for the purpose of their business, at the current rate of $3 per acre, sections 9, 15, 17 and 21, in township 15, range 27, west 4th meridian, and to acquire from the homesteaders on -action 16 their rights to that section. Terms of sale were that patent would be issued when payment was made in full, that $40,000 be expended in bona fide improvements and buildings within two years ; one-half the purchase money must be paid at once, and should the conditions not be fulfilled the lands should revert to the Sir WILFRID IAURIEP
crown. The homesteaders on section 16 abandoned their entries and the lands were sold to the company at $3 per acre. Being unable to fulfil the conditions of the sale, owing to a difficulty with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, under authority of an order in council dated 31st August, 1907, the amount paid by the Northwest Ranching and Packing Company, was applied in full payment for the N.J of the N.J of section 9, and the whole of section 16, less right of way, and the sale of the remainder of the lands was cancelled and patent for the said section 16 and N.J of N.i of section 9 was issued to the company on the 14th October, 1907.
2.	N.E.i, William Fisher ; N.W.i, H. J. Parkhill ; S.E.i, William J. Parkhill ; S.W. i, J. B. Powell.
3.	Yes, to the Northwest Ranching and Packing Company, Limited. See answer to No. 1.
4.	$3 per acre. Answered by No. 1.
5.	The government is not in possession of any information as to the present owners.



RAILWAY MAIL SERVICE.

Mr. DANIEL asked :: 1.	How long has Mr. G. M. Ryan, late superintendent of Railway Mail Service, been dead?
2.	Has any one been appointed to fill this position? If not, why not?
3.	If no one has yet been appointed, who does the work, and under what conditions?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Ryan died 28th June, 1907.
2. No. The question is under consideration.
8. The work is performed by Mr. C. A. Murray, a first-class clerk in the railway mail service at St. John, N.B.



THE WOOLLEN INDUSTRY.

Mr. A. C. MACDONELL asked :: 1.	How many people were engaged in the woollen mills of Canada in the years 1897 and 1907, respectively?
2.	How much capital was invested in the woollen mills of Canada in the years 1897 and 1907, respectively?
3.	IVhat wras the value of the output of the woollen mills of Canada in the years 1897 and 1907, respectively?
4.	How many woollen factories, both large and small, were in operation in Canada in the years 1897 and 1907, respectively?
5.	What was the total value or amount of the wool and woollen manufactures imported into Canad-a during each year, from and including the year 1897 down to and including the fiscal year 1908?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We have no statistics of the production of woollen materials for 1S97 and 1907. The statistics for the years 1900 and 1905 as shown by the censuses of 1901 and



CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION-MR.


George Eulas Foster: Before the orders of the day are called, I would like to ask the First Minister if the instructions which were issued to Messrs. Watson and Perron, and which were alluded to by the Minister of Justice in his speech the other evening, can be got and laid on the table of the House for the present discussion.


Mr. AYLESWORTH.: So far as the instructions to Mr. Watson are concerned, there is no objection, and I will lay them on the table at any time. I had no com-238*
munication with Mr. Perron except a short verbal interview.


George Eulas Foster: May I ask whether that verbal interview has been reduced to writing ?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: Not in any way.
Mr. FOSTER, It ought to be.



BOUNDARIES OF MANITOBA.

Mr. W. J. ROCHE (Marquette).: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called, I would like to renew a question which I asked in the Prime Minister's absence prior to the Easter holidays, and to which the Finance Minister was unable to give me a definite reply, that is, when we may expect the Bill which was promised for this session, I believe, to extend the boundaries of the province of Manitoba. The session is wearing on, and this is a very important measure, and I would like to know if the government have considered such a Bill and if it is their intention to introduce it this session ?


Wilfrid Laurier: The government have considered the question and it is their intention to introduce a Bill this session.



WHARF ON RIVER THAMES.

Herbert Sylvester Clements: I have information that the wharf at the mouth of the river Thames is in danger of being carried away. I called the attention of the minister to this some time ago and would again ask him to have it attended to.


William Pugsley: Where is the wharf ?


Herbert Sylvester Clements: The river Thames wharf at the lighthouse at the mouth of the Thames river.



HOSPITAL LOT, BELLEVILLE.

Edward Guss Porter: A return was ordered on the 18th March last regarding the purchase by the government of property in Belleville known as the hospital lot. I think it was purchased as a site for a drill shed.
Mr. PUGSLEIL I shall have the matter looked into.
SUPPLY-CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION REPORT-Mr. JUSTICE CASSELS.
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.


Robert Laird Borden: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I desire to make some observations to the House with respect to the report of the Civil Ser-

vice Commission. That report lias naturally attracted a good deal of attention, not only in the House but throughout the country as well. I was somewhat misled when I first took up a copy of this report, because in glancing over it hurriedly 1 imagined for the moment that I had in my hands some of the campaingn literature issued by hon. gentlemen opposite in the good old days before they were elected to office. At page 37 of the report I observed the following remarks :
It is true that the salaries of most of the civil servants are not equal to what they were thirty or forty years ago, in consequence of the greatly increased cost of living, the obvious and logical result of our wasting, impoverishing and demoralizing system of protection.
That phrase has a singularly familiar sound. I commend it to my hon. friend the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) as the report of one of his own commissioners who seem to entertain a different view of the present tariff from that which the hon. gentleman is so ready to place before us. There is this difference however in the character of this utterance as compared with that of similar utterances which were made by hon. gentlemen opposite in the days gone by. The utterance of Mr. Fyshe-as any man who knows him will be willing to testify-is absolutely sincere and would be the rule of his conduct if he were in power to-morrow. But the similar pledges of these hon. gentlemen opposite, though made with all the vehemence of Mr. Fyshe, were utterly forgotten when they attained the power to fulfil them.
Coming to the report itself, it naturally deals with the subject of civil service reform. I do not intend to speak of legislative reform to-day at any great length because I do not desire to forestall my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) who has had on the Order Paper a motion with regard to that particular subject which he intends bringing before the House, and which he dropped some time ago because the report we are now considering had not been printed. Civil Service reform had its commencement in England early in the last century. It hadits origin then in an attempt to reform the Indian civil service. Some advance was made later on in 1832 ; and in 1854 or 1855, the government of Great Britain, being unable to obtain the assent of parliament, took the matter into their own hands and determined by executive action that appointments to the civil service should be made upon merit alone and from men selected after competitive examination. Parliament shortly afterwards fell into line, and to-day the civil service of Great Britain challenges and commands the admiration of the world. Not only in Great Britain has the work of civil service reform made itself manifest to the Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
advantage of the country. Had not a similar service been accomplished in India, even before reform was brought about in England, we would in all likelihood see a very different condition of affairs in India to-day. Were it not for the reform of the civil service in India, I verily believe that the power of Great Britain in that country would probably have come to a termina-ation before this, and the fact that that great country is to-day ruled-ruled well and wisely I believe-by the British Crown is due, as much as to anything else, to the education, the status and the character of the men who belong to the Indian civil service and who have given just and equitable government to the people of that country.
In the speech which I made in Halifax on the 20th August last, I said that the Conservative party favoured a thorough and complete reformation of the laws relating to the civil service so that future appointments shall be made by an independent commission acting on the report of examiners. Some of the government organs say the government propose to bring in a measure on that line. I for one would be prepared to assist them in every way if they did, and I believe that the result would be a more enduring monument to their memory than anything they have accomplished during the twelve years they have been in power.
Let us consider one difference between the system which prevails in Great Britain and that which prevails in this country. In Great Britain the policy of every department is dominated by a political head, and its administration by a permanent head. Upon a change of government, the affairs of every department go on as before without any change except that which may be brought about by a change of policy, instituted by the political head of the department. That is a system which has not been so much in force in this country. In this country the political head of the department takes a greater or smaller share in the administration of the department itself. I believe that the British system is on the whole the best, although I am not insensible to some advantages which may be claimed for our system in a new country such as Canada, where the political head of the department may be very thoroughly in touch with the particular needs and aspirations of some interests under his special jurisdiction.
But even under the English system, what is the constitutional rule as to political responsibility? That rule is well known. I have quoted it many times in this House. Let me repeat it once again because it is very short. The rule will be found in Todd at volume 1, page 628. as follows :
As a necessary consequence of the division of the civil service into political and non-polit-

ical officers, and of the acknowledged supremacy of the members of the administration over all the subordinate employees, it is required by our parliamentary system that every branch of the public service should be represented, either directly or indirectly, in the houses of parliament. This duty is performed by the political heads, who are themselves solely responsible for every act of administration down to the minutest details of official routine. Having entire control over the public departments, they are bound to assume responsibility for every official act, and not to permit blame to be imputed to any subordinate for the manner in which the business of the country is transacted, except only in cases of personal misconduct, for which the political chiefs have the remedy in their own hands.
Surely no man can claim that in this country, where the political head takes a greater share in the administration than in Great Britain, there is any less responsibility upon the political head than in Great Britain.
I do not propose to deal at any length to-day with the subject of civil service reform by legislation. Let me, however, simply say that the requisites of civil service reform are that ability and industry must be recognized and must count, that there must be a sense of responsibility and that the civil service must not be a mere machine. Appointments upon merit and the recognition of merit in promotions must lead to a cultivation of individual initiative, which ought to tend very greatly towards raising the standard of the civil service in this country. This is recognized and expressed better than I have expressed it in the report itself, and I shall conclude my remarks upon this portion of the subject by expressing the hope that we shall bring about in Canada such legislative and administrative reform that Canada shall have not the worst, but the best system of civil service extant. Great corporations in Canada, dealing with this question upon common sense business lines and with honest and intelligent endeavour, have a splendid service where merit is recognized and receives promotion. If these great corporations can have such a service why cannot we have the same and why should we continue in the public service of Canada a system in which, according to this report, the evils of political patronage make themselves manifest at every step and upon every inspection?
Let us look for a moment at what the commissioners state in their report-and this is the report of gentlemen appointed by this government, gentlemen in whom they have confidence, and in whom they stili say they have confidence-and see what these gentlemen say as to the working of the political pull, of the patronage system, under the present government. At page 13 of the report, from which I shall be obliged to quote very freely for the purpose of making my points, as I prefer to
use its exact language instead of attempting to paraphrase it from memory, we read:
Your commissioners have so far dealt with the paragraph in the order of reference, stating that ' while the general principles of the Civil Service Act are regarded as satisfactory, &c., &c.' From the inquiries made by the commissioners and the evidence submitted to them they are constrained to declare that they are unable to agree with the expression of opinion contained in the order of reference, and they are of opinion that the repeal of the Act is really the best course to pursue in the public interest. What should be given in its place the commissioners will state when they come to that part of the report in which they make recommendations.
Let us now see some of the grounds at least upon which they put forward this statement respecting the present working of the Civil Service Act. Ou the same page they say :
The commissioners also find that in order to meet the pressure brought upon the several departments by influential politicians to take on assistants, officials who have not passed the examinations are employed temporarily and are called labourers. Patronage seams to run more or less through every department of the public service.	\
Again, on page 14, speaking of a particular branch of the post office, the commissioners state :
In that special branch of the public service politics was found, as a rule, to play an important part. The commissioners consider from the evidence submitted to them that on the part of responsible officials of the several departments, especially in the outside service, there is a dread of the politician, and every bit of strategy is resorted to to circumvent the carrying out of the patronage system.
On page 15 the commissioners say :
Your commissioners found in their rounds that a collector of customs, a city postmaster, a post office inspector and others were appointed politically. The recent appointment of a postmaster at Kingston was on the recommendation of the patronage committee ; the last appointment to the postmastership at Montreal, the most important in the Dominion, was given to an aged member of parliament, 67 years old.
And further on :
It is the political element in the Act which, from time to time, has become more aggressive and which has steadily tended to deteriorate the public service. It would seem to the commissioners that the great prosperity of the country during the last fifteen years has been such that able men, who were formerly attracted to the service of the state have now ceased to look to the rewards of that service and have turned their attention to other avocations in which they see prospects of higher emoluments, with' the result that inefficient and inferior men, unable to obtain better positions in the outside world, through political operations and other means, have been

brought into the service; whatever the cause the tendency is more and more to lower the standard of the civil service with the consequent detriment to the business of the state.
Again, at page 19, we find further evidence with respect to this :
In other instances of temporary employment people who have failed to pass the necessary examination, through political pressure or otherwise, have been unloaded on the departments when help is necessary, and to overcome the provisions of the Act are graded as labourers or some such designation.
These are sweeping statements, and if they are true-and they have not been denied up to the present-they are statements that show that the system of patronage carried on openly and avowedly by this government has seriously deteriorated the public service of this country during the twelve years they have been in power. But this is not all. On the same page of their report I find :
Your commissioners consider that in many cases promotions have been forced on the several departments owing to political influence; that the officials promoted do the same work as they performed in the lower grade, and, as has been mentioned before, promotions have taken place as a rule for other causes than the necessities of the service.
Can anything be more damaging, can anything be more of a condemnation of the government than a statement such as that ? How is the power of appointment to public office, or the power of promotion in public office to be regarded ? Is it not to be regarded as a public trust; is it not a trust as sacred as the duty of the government to deal fairly and honestly and wisely with the revenues of this country? When we find three men, political friends of this government, able men, representative men, men whose ability and wisdom and honesty have not been doubted, deliberately stating in this report as they have done, that not the interests of the service but political pull has dominated the appointments to and promotions in the public service, surely we would be justified in expecting that before this date-because this report has been before the House for more than a month- the government or some member of the government would have given some explanation or contradiction of the statement I have just read.
But that is not all. On page 27 of the report the commissioners state :
As a rule your commissioners found in the outside service that politics enter into every appointment, and politicians on the spot interest themselves not only in the appointments but in subsequent promotions of officers. While at Ottawa the departments generally are administered with a good consideration for the public interest, yet in the outside service the politics of the party is of greater importance in making appointments and pro-Mr. R. L. BORDEN
motions than the public interests of the Dominion.
I invite the attention of the right hon. gentleman and of every member of the government to this portion of the commissioners' report. The statement there made calls for observation from the government, and cannot fail, under present conditions, to arouse very great distrust among the people of this country. Again on page 28 :
In the outside service those who have the 'political pull' use it for all it is worth; they pass by their superior officers and bring pressure to procure anythin^ that may prove to their advantage.
On page 29 reference is made to the Department of Customs :
The chief positions in the outside service of this department are political appointments. Every collector of customs has been appointed from the ranks of the party in power at the moment.
Then on the same page, speaking of the same department:
Curious facts were brought to light in the inquiries into the outside service. At Montreal, for instance, there were found two binding waiters, one appointed in 1871 and the other in 1891, the one doing duty at the Bonaventure station and the other at the Dalkousie square station, both equally good men. The officer appointed in 1871, according to the last Civil Service list, after 36 years of service, obtained' a salary of $750. The officer appointed in 1891, with 20 years less service, obtained a salary of $1,000; and when inquiry was made the collector informed the commissioners that a most prominent influential citizen of Canada who could not be refused had been approached by the friends of the officer who was appointed in 1891, and having inquired into the matter, insisted that his protege should have an increase in salary.
So that not only does appointment to public office depend upon political pull and upon patronage, not only does promotion in office depend upon political pull and patronage, but the very salaries paid out of the public exchequer of this country are doled out to one or other civil service employee according to the amount of political pull he can summon to his aid. But that Is not all.


William Paterson: May I ask if that was not a circumstance that took place under the old government and not under this?


Robert Laird Borden: Well, I always was under the impression that the hon. gentleman did not regard the old government as the exemplar of all the virtues; and I have always been under the Impression that the hon. gentleman, when he paraded this country from 1878 to 1896, proclaimed loudly the reforms he would bring about. If the hon. gentleman, after a circumstance of that kind is brought to his attention, has

no better answer to give than to say that the Conservative party which he condemned from one end of the country to the other, did the same thing, then I think he ought to resign his office and get out of public life.


William Paterson: I am making no defence for anything I have done, I am asking the hon. gentleman a question. He says the public service has deteriorated under this administration, he cites this Act where political pull was exercised and I ask him whether the case occurred under my administration of the Customs Department or under the previous administration.
I made no comments, I simply asked a question.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not making these comments myself, I am reading the report of the commissioners appointed by the Minister of Customs and his colleagues. In order to make it perfectly plain I will read it again to the hon. gentleman.


William Paterson: No, read the evidence.


Robert Laird Borden: Am I not entitled to read the report of the commission appointed by this government? I do not know whether the commissioners have been paid by this government, but they were appointed by this government, and I presume they were paid for their services. They made this report


William Paterson: The report is supposed to be founded on evidence.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the hon. gentleman intimate that the report is untrue or incorrect?


William Paterson: As I read the report, I was under the impression that this particular case they refer to took place under the previous government. If I am wrong, I would like to be set right.


Mr.   R.@: Ij. BORDEN. Well, in the name of all that is sensible what would the hon. gentleman argue if the evidence discloses that ?


William Paterson: I looked to see, and I think so, but I may be mistaken.


George Eulas Foster: You had better look again. You want to get your work done for you.


Mr. R. B. BORDEN.: I will read another paragraph :
In Toronto your commissioners ^ found that the senior officer in point of service who was appointed an 1896 was the fourth in point of seniority. The collector, surveyor and cashier were all his juniors, although drawing larger salaries than he receives. There is no question of the integrity and ability of the officer in question. The only suggestion which the commissioners can make in regard to the outside service of the customs is to
have the department absolutely divorced from political influence, and have all the appointments put upon the basis of merit.
Further on, on page 30 :
Of course, in the Inland Revenue Department, political appointments, as in other branches of the public service, prevail.
Further, on page 31:
Every postmaster is appointed politically, and the number of what are called city post offices is small. Hundreds of post offices are used for the benefit of politicians rather than the benefit of the state. Only recently has it been pointed out in the public papers that the postmastership at Kemptville has been vacant for six months, and your commissioners are of opinion that until the political system in use in the outside service is entirely abolished, notwithstanding all the business methods adopted by the department, efficiency will not follow.
On page 37, after referring to some of the evils which had been demonstrated in the administration of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, the commissioners use this language :
The political pull has much to do with this; and no radioal improvement need ever be expected until the political pull is completely eliminated from all branches of the service.
On page 42, speaking of the public works service, they say:
In certain cases there may be over-payments of wages such as the notorious instance which was brought to light about a year ago, when a clerk of works appointed by political influences was found to have sublet his work to another person at a much lower rate.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I think I have read from the report of the commissioners enough to indicate, not only the evil of the political pull and patronage system, but the fact that it has been in continuous activity since this government has been in power, and that through the active oper-' ation of that system much of the inefficiency, much of the extravagance, and much of the waste found by these commissioners in the administration of the public departments, are due. They further declare that the Civil Service Act which leaves full sway to the patronage system has often been evaded. They point out on page 13 that it is continually evaded by parliamentary votes:
That for the year ending March 31, 1906, during the last session of parliament, over 50 votes were passed with the saving clause ' notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Civil Service Act.'
And they declare :
It is known to the commissioners that many of the votes, not having that clause attached to them now, have had it in previous years.

They declare further :
It is the belief of the commissioners that hardlv a vote to pay the several classes of the public service has been passed, during one sesion or another, without adding the limitation already noted.
The opposition have called attention to this evil on many occasions during recent years, and they have pointed out the constitutional difficulty, which is not noticed by the commissioners. That is very obvious to any one who considers it for a moment. Both Houses have passed a Civil Service Act, and a repeal pro tanto of that Act is annexed every year by this House to the appropriation Bill which cannot be amended, but which can only be rejected as a whole by the upper House, and as a result the House of Commons repeals pro tanto an enactment made with the sanction of both branches of the legislature, and it does that against all constitutional usage and custom. Then they point out, at page 13 and again at page 31, that the Act is evaded by improper classification. They say:
It would seem that in the four post offices examined into by the commission, letter carriers were employed to do high grade duty and duties of clerks, that they are still designated on the pav-list as letter carriers; that in consequence of a desire on the part of the officials not to bring these letter carriers in their uniforms to the public notice, they to their loss have been deprived of their uniforms as well as their street car fares
On page 31 they allude to the same subject:
Your commissioners found that in all the post office branches, officials were employed who had failed to pass the examination laid down by the Act, and who were designated as labourers although in many instances doing clerks' work. If the Civil Service Act is to be of effect your commissioners are of opinion that this incongruous state of affairs should be brought to an end as quickly as possible.
Then they found a further evasion by means of what is called ' temporary employment,' and their remarks in regard to that are on pages 18 and 19:
So-called temporary clerks are constantly admitted to the service and remain in the service until their death. There are temporary employees at Ottawa who have been there for thirty or forty years. In other instances of temporary employment people who have failed to pass the necessary examination, through political pressure or otherwise, have been unloaded on the departments when help is neces sary and to overcome the provisions of the Act are graded as labourers or some such designation.
It goes back thirty or forty years. It is obvious that some of these men must have been taken on by administrations which preceded the present one, but the hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) will remember


Robert Laird Borden: that we have brought this matter up over and over again in this House, particularly upon his estimates and.upon the estimates of other ministers as well, and have urged that there was every reason in the public interest why these men, if they are to be retained indefinitely, should be put on the permanent staff and brought thoroughly within the provisions of the Civil Service Act. Then, it is pointed out, at pages 14 and 42 of the report, that a very large number in the employment of the government are not under the Civil Service Act at all. I will not read that portion of the report as hon. gentlemen can consult it for themselves.
The commissioners deal with the question of suitable remuneration, and I agree entirely that it is a question of the utmost possible importance. The recommendations of the commission should be taken into consideration by the government at the very earliest possible moment. Although I have not had the opportunities of studying it that are possessed by lion, gentlemen on the treasury benches, my own opinion of the civil service, as we see it at Ottawa at the present time, is that it is over-manned and underpaid. I believe that men have been introduced into- the departments of the government by means of political patronage and political pull who are not wanted there, and that if the officers of the government, the heads of the different branches in these departments, were consulted and their evidence taken fully and frankly many of them would state that men have been brought into their departments whom they did not want, and whom they found to be absolutely useless. As far as many officials are concerned I believe they are underpaid and that men doing the same amount of work in the service of the great corporations and institutions of this country are better paid thaw the average civil servant is at the present time. This, however, is a subject that I do not intend to dwell upon. It will no doubt come to the attention of the House later on in the session.
The commissioners deal also with the necessity of a pension system, and their observations in that regard are worthy of being quoted. At page 21 they use this language :
At the outset your commissioners consider it a subject of regret that the Superannuation Act, which had been in force for over twenty-seven years, should have been repealed, and the present Retirement Act put in its place. To the commissioners the repeal seems most illogioal; when it is found that within a few years after its repeal Pension Acts have been placed on the statute-book providing for pensions to the members of the Northwest Mounted Police; the staff of the Intercolonial Railway, the members of the Permanent Corps and Headquarters Staff, and other employees under the Militia Department, as well as to their widows and families, it would seem that the

action in abolishing the Superannuation Act was not only illogical but hasty and inconsiderate.
So would think any person who has made a study at all of conditions as they prevail in this country at the present time. There is hardly a large corporation, such as a railway company or a banking company in Canada, that does not provide pensions for its employees after a certain age. Not only does it provide pensions for its employees, but it provides that there shall be an allowance under certain conditions to the widows and children of its officers after their death ; so that any man entering the service of one of these corporations has not only the assurance of a competence during his own old age, but he can feel absolutely certain that those who are dear to him and whom he may leave behind him will not suffer in want and poverty after he is gone. The government found a Superannuation Act upon the statute-book. No one pretends that it was perfect, but it might have been amended and brought up to the standard of the present day. Instead of moulding it in that way the government abolished it, and they provided a retiring allowance which these commissioners find to be absolutely inadequate and insufficient. They touch the subject further on in the report, at page It!. I will take the opportunity of quoting what they say there:
Your commissioners have in conclusion to point out that they are unanimously agreed that a comprehensive superannuation system should be placed on the statute-book; and- that this system in the present state of the Dominion should include pen sions to dependents of civil servants for there seems little doubt that with the exception of slight set backs the conditions of life in the Dominion are and are likely to be such that advances in prices of commodities will be the rule, and it will be almost impossible for the average civil servant to effect any savings from his salary. With that view your commissioners consider that the time has arrived when an efficient pension system should be put into force.
Now, I come, Mr. Speaker, to that portion of the report of the commissioners in regard to the administration of the different departments. Let me express my conviction that the government never intended that these commissioners should make any such examination of, or any such investigation into the several departments as that which they have attempted in the time at their disposal. In fact, we have heard rumours throughout the country, we have heard opinions freely expressed by certain stalwart Liberals, that the matter went wrong through the absence of the right lion. Prime Minister last May, and that if he had been here this order in council never would have passed in any such terms as would have permitted this investigation. But, if we had entertained any doubt as to the intentions
of the government in that regard, my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ayles-worth) with his accustomed caudour, has made the matter perfectly clear. He has pointed out that the government, never, for one moment, dreamed of the slightest investigation into the administration of any of the departments.
Well, Sir, we know from their record in this parliament that that statement of the Minister of Justice is absolutely true. When did they ever grant an investigation into any department? Two years ago when I moved for an investigation into the Department of the Interior with regard to the disposal of public lands, the Prime Minister declared that no investigation would be permitted; that if charges were made, they would be investigated, but in the meantime they would deny us such investigation and access as would permit us to make charges even if these charges were well founded. What was the attitude of the right hon. gentleman with regard to the Department of Marine and Fisheries ? After he himself had stated in this House that that department was not being well administered, he followed it up by bringing down a motion not to investigate the department but to find out whether or not the steamship 'Arctic' was physically capable of holding the stores which were said to have been placed in her. And when I moved in amendment that the whole Department of Marine and Fisheries should be investigated, the Prime Minister said that our words and our proposals were simply froth and wild talk. Does he now think the report of this Civil Service Commission froth and wild talk ? I venture to say that if he had permitted that investigation into the Department of Marine which we asked for two years ago in this House, all that is in this report and a good deal more would have been made known to the people of Canada long ago.
Let me bring to the attention of the House the charmingly candid words in which the Minister of Justice has made it plain that the Civil Service Commission took the government by surprise. In his speech on the 28th of April the Minister of Justice said :
I said on that occasion what I have no hesitation in saying again and what any hon.gentleman who reads the mandate to these commissioners can at one see for himeslf, namely: that they stepped altogether outside of that which was defined to them as their jurisdiction when they made a report at length which they have made with regard to the different departments of the governmental service. They were appointed to inquire into the operation of the Civil Service Act; they were not appointed to inquire into the administration of the general departments of the government service.
Further on he said :
I am simply pointing out, not in any way of attaok or even of criticism upon their work,

that they did undoubtedly go beyond the commission of inquiry issued to them in what they have reported.
And further on :
They fell into an error, not unnaturally, but an error which they would not have fallen into if any one had known that they were travelling outside the purpose for which they were appointed or were engaged in an investigation which they intended to make the foundation of a report of this character-which simply illustrates the danger of acting upon or accepting the conclusions of gentlemen who have gone about a work which they were not appointed to undertake, and a work which nobody was aware they were engaged in at all.
Again lie said :
And therefore, I say, I make no point whatever of the fact that they have travelled afield and outside and beyond their jurisdiction.
We are very much obliged to the Minister of Justice for making absolutely clear and beyond cavil that which every person must have believed, namely, that when the government appointed that commission they did not for one moment intend to permit the slightest Investigation into any department of the government, even into this very Department of Marine which the Prime Minister himself was ready to admit had gone astray.
The Minister of Justice has used somewhat singular analogies with regard to the work of this commission. He lias likened the commission especially in their work with regard to the Department of Marine and Fisheries, to a body of surveyors who by some accident have in the course of their journeyings come upon a corpse and suspect foul play. Then he proceeds to a further remarkable analogy by suggesting that the government, in the commission which they have issued to Mr. Justice Cas-sels are inviting him to play the part of a corner's jury. In some respects the analogy is not inappropriate. Let us look at the Department of Marine and Fisheries as it was in 1892. Mr. J. M. Courtney, a member of the present Civil Service Commission, was a member of the Civil Service Commission of 1892, and that commission made several comments upon the excellent condition, the efficiency and the economical management of the Department of Marine and Fisheries at that time. At page 27 they say:
Your commissioners observe that it has been found unnecessary to continue the division of the Department of Marine and Fisheries into two departments, and that it is thought the affairs of the department will be more economically administered by a single staff of officers, the minister and his deputy being assisted, in l espect of those questions which relate more especially to the conservation of the valuable fisheries, by the study and experience of an expert.


Frederick William Borden: At page 66 they say :
Ocean and river service, lighthouse and coast service, marine hospitals and steamboat inspection-
All under the control of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and involving an expenditure of $749,000. Your commissioners in looking over the outlay for some years back, are pleased to mention that they find a large measure of effectiveness has been introduced into these services, and expenditures that have been found of little advantage to the department have been dropped.
At page 68 :



SCIENTIFIC INSTITUTIONS.

[Stage Direction]
The outlay for these institutions covers the cost of meteorological service, including expenses for telegraphing weather warnings, for instruments, etc., and expenditure on account of the observations. The amount spent last year exceeded $60,000. The service is under the control of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and is well supervised.
At page 85 and 86 they report on important reforms made in the simplification of the accounts and book-keeping which were due to a particular officer mentioned, and they say :
This in an instance where it would be desirable to have such improvements made known and adopted by the departments generally.
At page 86 they say :
This department amongst other things has the charge of 710 lighthouses-more than there are on all the coasts of Great Britain and Ireland. We should judge that a very efficient outlook is kept on the very diversified service of this department and that supplies therefor are purchased with reference to economy.
That is the department as it was in 1892. I will contrast a little later on the department as it was found in 1907, and I think I may admit that the analogy of the Minister of Justice was a good one, and that the Civil Service Commissioners in 1907 found in that department the corpse of that honest, efficient, and economical administration which did prevail in 1892, but which has been assassinated and destroyed under this government. The Minister of Justice likens the functions of Mr. Justice Cassels to those of a corner, but in the present case the coroner has a very narrow scope of inquiry into matters which ought to be presented before him.
Coming to the report of the commissioners upon the several departments of the government, we find that it discloses deplorable extravagance, waste, inefficiency, confusion and lack of system in several of the departments which have been partially but only partially investigated by them. Let us look at some illustrations of this. On pages 23 and 24 of the report, the commissioners say :
Owing to the good times which have recent-iv been prevalent and the large revenues re-

[Stage Direction]
ceived from customs, the old-fashioned notions of frugality and living within one's means have to some extent been departed from, and instances have been found of departments giving orders for stores and other services to be delivered within a year in excess of the vote granted by parliament. Large amounts have been spent at several places in the Dominion for supplies bought from those enjoying politioal patronage at what may be called retail rates. Heavy expenditures have been incurred without necessary consideration or supervision, and while no doubt the several offioers have thought themselves justified, owing to the expansion of the revenues, yet such conduct is contrary to the public interests and, in the opinion of the commissioners, ought to be restrained.
And let me say, in justice to my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, that these observations are not confined to his department, but are general observations, apparently applying to every department of the government which has come under the notice of the commissioners, except where they have otherwise stated in their report. Let us look at pages 26 and 27 :
By the evidence of several officials who are concerned in the purchase of stores, it has been conclusivelv shown that large amounts of money are paid over each year to merchants whose names are on the patronage lists in the several localities. It has been pointed out in the most simple way that this practice has been followed by everybody and it could not be altered. Your commissioners, however, consider that while the practice was always bad, yet through the great development of the country the extent was not so great as to become serious until of recent years. When one witness stated that his expenditure has increased threefold recently, and it is a well-known fact that the public expenditure has increased in the last twelve years about fifty per cent or more, in the opinion of the commissioners the time has come when this practice gf paying retail prices "to a few favoured merchants in each locality should be discontinued. Before suggesting a remedy your commissioners wish to point out how these expenditures are managed. In the first place there is the question of certificates. These certificates are in general terms, that the articles have been received, that the articles are necessary in the public interest, that the prices charged are according to contract, or that the prices are fair and just. In reference to the question of certificates, the Auditor General in his evidence pointed out that in one department he did not believe in the certificates received. This is a very serious affair. Generally speaking the commissioners are of the opinion that the certificates should be given in the first place by the officer who really receives the goods, or, to quote a witness of the commission of 1892, ' who is responsible for and cognizant of the services performed.'
Further on, at page 27, they say :
Your commissioners are of opinion that in many instances stores are ordered unnecessarily, and it may be doubtful that a good
quality is always delivered. Mr. Pottinger states in his evidence that it is his opinion that the amount paid by the Intercolonial Railway for coal was higher than it ought to be. In instances which have been brought to the notice of the commissioners stores have been received which were not wanted and which it is difficult to get rid of.
That is a reference perhaps to the celebrated purchase of files of which there were supplied to one of the departments more than would be required for the next 40 or 50 years. Further on they say, on the same page :
Your commissioners have come to the conclusion that the time has now arrived when it would be desirable in the public interests that purchasing agents, probably three, should be appointed at good salaries to make all purchases of goods required for the public service, and that all purchases required bv the several departments should be procured by this means.
Exactly the proposition which was put forward by my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) in a resolution which was opposed by the government, and especially by the Minister of Finance, who moved an amendment thereto. On page 34 we find further testimony :
A list of prices paid in Quebec was, in February last, submitted to the manager of the shipyard at Sorel, for comparison with the prices which he was paying there; and in his reply he stated that the prices were generally about 50 per cent higher than the prices being paid at Sorel. One item objected to was the purchase of a certain brand of flour at $6.95 a barrel. When this was inquired into at the instance of the Auditor General, the agent replied; 'These are
[Stage Direction]
's prices, and the same prices are
charged bv every flour dealer in Quebec for the same brand of flour. These brands cannot be bought for less here. If as good flour can be bought in Halifax for $5.20 per barrel, it would pay the department to import it from there. There are other brands of flour
that can be bought in this market from
[Stage Direction]
and others at $6 upwards, but not less than $6, suitable for our purposes. Our people generally choose the best, for the reason that it is subject to changes of temperatures which might cause it to harden or sour, as has often occurred with ordinary flour.' And he adds later on ' referring to the matter of flour, there is but one flour dealer on the patronage list.'
And the remedy which he proposes is remarkable in its simplicity :
I beg respectfully to suggest that you place one or two more on the list of such dealers.
How exceedingly effective that would be ! Then the commissioners add their own comment as follows ;
Your commissioners took the trouble to inquire of the makers of the particular brand of flour in question what price they were selling it at in Quebec at the time of the purchase referred to, and were informed that
[Stage Direction]
the price was $4.50 per barrel, at which price they would only have been too glad to sell to the department. It should hardly be neces-sarv to make any comment on this.
. In other words, the government of this country, through this particular department, into which the Prime Minister refused any investigation two years ago, have been paying $6.95 a barrel year after year for flour which they could have bought in the very same city of Quebec for $4.50. Further on the commissioners say :
Tour commissioners are informed on the best of authority that this state of things has been going on ever since pre-confederation times. As some evidence that the heads of the department have been quite aware of it, we find on one of the files a memorandum bv one of the officers dated May 31, 1905, regarding expenditures in connection with lighthouses. ' I am of opinion that in the Quebec agency alone a saving of at least $25,000 per annum can be made by compelling the agent to obtain authority for his expenditures over ordinary supplies and maintenance. If this is not carried out, the department can look for an overdraft for the next fiscal year of from $50,000 to $100,000/
The commissioners add a sarcastic comment on the extraordinary nature of the remedy proposed. The remedy would be, of course, either to purchase the goods by tender covering a certain length of time or to adopt the system of purchasing agents which has been advocated by my hon. friend from North Toronto. The commissioners add another memorandum from an officer of the Marine and Fisheries Department, in which he says :
I may also add that if you had a good storekeeper, articles which are often required could be purchased wholesale instead of retail. and thus a considerable saving could be effected-a saving of $8,000 or $10,000 a year could be made.
Further down on the same page the commissioners say :
These are comparatively small matters, but they are not small in the aggregate; and they are not small as symptoms of the disease the department is suffering from.
Dealing further with this diseased department, as the commissioners call it, on page 37 of their report, they say :
total expenditure, both in capital and consolidated fund was in the neighbourhood of three and a half million dollars. In the estimates lately submitted to parliament for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1909, appropriations are asked for aggregating $6,500,000 That is to say, in four years and three-quarters the expenditure will have increased, if the suoplv asked for is granted, to the extent of $3,000,000.	'
At page 41, after referring to the lack of necessity for an officer such as the inspector general and to the high salaries paid to a number of the officers in the Department of Militia and Defence, they say;
Your commissioners have noticed that it has been held to be of serious importance that the expenditure of the militia in Canada should increase with the growth of the revenue and that when once the revenue has arrived at $100,000,000 a year the expenditure should be in the same proportion to $13,000,000, as $13,000,000 is to $1,000,000, that rate being paid for conditions at the time of confederation. It would follow therefore that with a revenue of $100,000,000 a year, the expenditure should be at the rate of $8,000,000. How can this be adjusted with the various retardations which must occasionally happen through a bad harvest, stringency of the money market and other causes, the commissioners cannot understand. It would seem that the militia expenditure would have to be cut down in proportion to the revenue. The better method in the opinion of the commissioners, is that the expenditures should be increased according to the growth of the population and be put on a per capita basi3.
If there is any virtue at all in the report of the commissioners, these hon. gentlemen opposite, who protested so vigorously against militia expenditures in 1906, will see that some brake is put upon the expenditure in the Militia Department. When we look at the comparative statement of expenditure given in the report of the department for the year ending 31st March, 1907, we find some rather startling conditions. Take for example the pay of the Headquarters' District Staff:
1897-8	$ 38,592
1905-6	 143,880
And the pay of the permanent force:
1898	$ 249,457
1906	 1,099,420
Money is wasted in small things as in great because no one seems to have any motive to do otherwise.
Then a little further on:
The political pull has much to do with this and no radical improvement need ever be expected until the political pull is eompletely eliminated from all branches of the service.
At the bottom of the same page, 37, dealing with the Department of Militia and Defence, the commissioners report as follows:
The expenditure in this department is going up by leaps and bounds. In 1903-4 the Mr. E. L. BOEDEN.
I presume that a portion of that is accounted for by our taking over the defence of Halifax and Esquimalt, but I do not know exactly the amount. Then take the other items:
1897-8.	1805-6.
Allowances for care of	„„„„„
arms, &c	$ 77,8*6 $ 1-2,897
Annual drill, including supplies and transport ..	..	299,628	809,924Military properties, construction	
66,453	254,427Warlike and other stores..	46,868	174,980Clothing and necessaries	..	87,344	429,727
[Stage Direction]
1897-8.	1905-6.
Provisions and supplies for
permanent force	
119,911	463,663Dominion arsenal	
72,832	290,037Arms and ammunition	..	173,740	1,092,128
The total expenditure for 1897-98 was $1,088,213, and for 1905-00 $5,594,009. And the estimates for the present year, as pointed out by tiie commissioners aggregate no less a sum than $6,500,000, of which, however, it is only fair to say, $1,250,000, as estimated by the Minister of Militia, is to be accounted for by our taking over the defence of Halifax and Esquimau.
My hon. friend from Dundas (Mr. Bro-der) has pointed out some rather significant considerations in connection with the expenditure upon militia and defence, as compared with our expenditure upon agriculture. He has shown the House that, after making fair deduction, there was expended in all about $500,000 in the interests of agriculture during the year ending 31st July, 1906, and that during the same year no less a sum than $5,594,009 was expended on our military force. Or, as he quaintly put it, for every $11 voted for war in Canada there is only $1 voted for peace. The question is whether or not for this enormous expenditure we have obtained any increased efficiency. As to that, I shall quote a little later on some remarks of the commissioners which seem to point to the conclusion that we have not got value in return. Our hon. friends opposite, including specially the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur), tore their hair in 1S98 in declaiming against the expenditure by the Conservative government of a sum of $1,000,000 for arms.
Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Three hundred thousand dollars.


Robert Laird Borden: It may have been $300,000 at first, but eventually it was $1,000,000. My hon. friends on the other side were amazed that any such expenditure should be undertaken by any government in this country, and my hon. friends from Quebec on this side tell me that in the campaign of 1896 that expenditure was made a chief cry against the government. Well, what do these gentlemen think of an expenditure of $6,500,000 as compared with an expenditure of $1,700,000 by the late government ? We have had no expression of opinion from them, but we have had an opinion from the commissioners, and to that I shall draw the attention of the House later on.
So far I have spoken of extravagances and waste. Let me read some extracts from the report of the commission regarding the disorganization, inefficiency and confusion which they found in certain departments. At page 34 their most striking condemnation is made, and it is in respect of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. I should say that the time of the commission was very largely devoted to the inspection and investigation of this department, because for some reason of which I am not aware, they considered that the affairs of that department especially invited their attention. They say that they did not attempt to inspect or deal with the Department of Railways because they thought there were other departments on which their attention might better be bestowed. I would have liked, had there been an opportunity, to suggest to the commissioners, having regard to the operations of the Eastern Supply Company, to the Moncton land deal and other land deals carried out in the Department of Railways, that they would have found in that department quite as abundant a harvest of mal-administration, extravagance, and inefficiency as that which they did find in the Department of Marine. Let us read the conclusions of the commissioners with regard to the Department of Marine and Fisheries.
There are officers enough in the department, both inside and outside, to do all the work efficiently, if they were properly trained and organized: but there is no efficient organization.
Who was responsible for the organization ? The government of this country, especially the Minister of Marine and Fisheries; but every man who sits on the treasury benches is politically responsible for that lack of organization.
The only attempt at it is the appointment of men whose titles would seem to indicate what their duties are; but those duties have never been specifically defined. There is no record of anything of the kind, and there are no written or printed rules and regulations known in the service, which the commissioners think is lamentable.
Suppose that an investigation were made into the Grand Trunk Railway or the Canadian Pacific Railway and that conditions such as those described in this report as existing in the Department of Marine and Fisheries were found, would it be proper for Mr. Hays or Sir Thomas Shaughnessy, as the head of the company to say: Oh, the responsibility is altogether with my subordinate officers and I will immediately institute an inquiry and take steps to have them punished ?
It is practically impossible to fix responsibility on anybody. The deputy is supposed to shoulder responsibility for everything as his signature shows; but that means that he speaks for ' the department,' and ' the department,' like the King, can do no wrong. There seems to be a huge redundancy of work which proceeds in a lumbering, haphazard way, giving rise to constant blundering and confusion. There is no sign visible of a single directing head, or an intelligent purpose, unless it be that of spending as much money as possible.
Who is responsible for the expenditure in that department? The government of

this country are solely responsible and the minister at the head of that department is, of course, especially responsible.
Zeal for economy and good management or pride in the work, is not visible. Perfunctory and mechanical discharge of duties is the rule, with apparently no perception of any need for improvement.	.
How long has this department been in that state, and is it possible that those conditions can have prevailed in any department of the government without being brought to the attention of the head of the department and, indeed, to the attention of every member of the government?
The lack of organization and of organizing power in the department has recently been very conspicuously and painfully illustrated by the fact that the accountant's or bookkeeping branch had apparently fallen into such confusion that expert accountants had to be called in to put things to rights, and create some intelligible system. After months of work by these highly paid experts the result has been at least greatly improved books, as far as mechanical form is concerned, but probably little else; and this achievement has been accomplished at an almost fabulous expense.
There is not only a lack of efficient organization and method in the department. There would also seem to be a lack of conscience. In connection with the enormous expenditures which are deemed necessary the word 'discount ' never appears. It is tacitly assumed that there is no such thing; but the whole commercial world knows otherwise. If no one gets any benefit from trade with the government except the trader, then it must be clear that in these great purchases made for the government, without discount, its officers must be assisting the trader to get better prices from the government than he can get anywhere else; for, everywhere else he has to give discount. In other words, some of the government's officers are serving two masters, and apparently succeeding with both-scripture notwithstanding.
The government of this country have taken that paragraph, minus the first sentence which deals with the inefficient organization, and have appointed Mr. Justice Cassels to act, as the Minister of Justice observes, as a coroner's jury with respect to the defunct body which is found in that portion of the report. Why did the government not add the following paragraph which I am about to read :
It seems amazing that this question has never been courageously faced and dealt with. There is evidently a power in the hands of responsible officers of some of the departments which they can exercise without the necessity of giving any account of it, and with the most demoralizing consequences all round. It is certain that under such a state of things it must be impossible to develop high character in the service, or rather to prevent the deterioration of what character there is.
These words are the words of independent men in respect of the utter lack of Mr. E. L. BORDEN.
organization, the utter lack of system, the complete and thorough demoralization of one department of the government.
When that report comes down to parliament what takes place? The men who are responsible, the men who sit on the treasury benches and wrho therefore are responsible for this condition of affairs, calmly hand over to investigation by Mr. Justice Cassels, one paragraph, one small portion of this report and consider themselves before parliament and before the people of this country absolutely absolved from responsibility by taking that step.
Let us look at page 37 for further evidence :
Organization, discipline, zeal for the public service, and regard for economy are all conspicuous by their absence. Money is wasted in small things as in great because no one seems to have any motive to do otherwise. While there is no real punishment for the most outrageous blundering or the most incompetent service, there is at the same time absolutely no means for the discovery of merit and the promotion of talent.
Will my right hon. friend the Prime Minister and my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) declare in die face of this House and in the face of this country that they can successfully absolve themselves from the condition of affairs disclosed by these words:
On the same page the commissioners speak of the necessity of some effective means of inspection and continue as follows :
Your commissioners have to confess that the general conclusions which they have formed regarding the administration of the department are most unfavourable. It seems to have few redeeming features: although there are some, one of which is the presence in the department of some good men, chiefly, but not wholly, in the lower ranks. With a better organization and better methods these might form the nucleus of a good staff.


Mr. JOHNSTON.: There is a very interesting sentence following that.


Frederick William Borden: Will the hon. gentleman be good enough to call attention to it when he speaks ? I have read every thing in this that is necessary. At page 42, in dealing with the efficiency of another department, the commissioners report as follows :
The number of militia trained in the annual camps is about 40,000 men: that according to the evidence of Major General Lake the men attached to the rural battalions have no drill except at the annual camps, and it is arguable whether the city corps are as efficient as they were some years ago, that while only 40.000 men come out for drill of ages from eighteen to fifty, yet compared with the population of over a million in Canada between the ages of twenty and forty, the proportion seems small.

Further on :
If, with all the consideration of the Public Accounts Committee and the War Office, the expenditure in Great Britain is such that the Public Acoounts Committee consider it their duty to draw attention to expensive ideas, particularly amongst military men, and that grave irregularities are punished by reprimand, the system in Canada where the control is not as effective as in the mother land, would seem to be more disadvantageous to the Dominion.
In this the commissioners are dealing with the Department of Militia. Further on, dealing with Public Works:
Your commissioners are led to believe that in many cases works have been undertaken by the Department of Public Works at the instance of the municipalities or bodies of people locally interested, in which the opinion of the outside officers of the department as to the desirability of the proposed works was not asked for. The only information-sought for related to the feasibility of the works in question.
Then on the same page, 43, they point out that at least three different departments of government are charged with duties of inspection of various characters, and they suggest that all these inspection duties, and all officers engaged in the duties of inspection, should be assembled under one minister, and that the system adopted by the board of trade in Great Britain should be adopted in the country.
Then on page 40, returning again to the Department of Militia, the commissioners point out that in 1892, a recommendation from the commissioners who reported in that year, led to the abolition of the system of paymasters, and add:
In consequence of this evidence the old system of paymasters was abolished, but again, with all its defects, the system is being reintroduced.
Further, on the same page, they allude to the fact that desertions during the year 1905 from the permanent force, amounted to about one in three, and in the following year the desertions in six months were about one in six. They declare that they have not seen any report since the 30th of June, 1906, and are unable to give subsequent figures. But taking the figures of that report they declare they show a grave state of affairs with such a large number of desertions, and they use this language :
Your commissioners have come to the conclusion that the large percentage of desertions is to a great extent caused by the want of sympathy between the officers of the permanent corps and the men.
If that statement is well founded, it is one which certainly invites the earnest and immediate consideration of the government. We are paying pretty heavily for this permanent force, and it is extremely undesirable that any such condition should exist for a moment. Our headquarters staff costs within about $25,000 as much as the headquarters staff in Switzerland. The difference between the military force of this country and that of Switzerland is that In Canada, with 3,000 or 4,000 men in the permanent force, we have 40,000 men drilled for a certain number of days; whereas in Switzerland there is a pretty thoroughly organized army, as I understand, of 250.000 fighting men of the first line, ready to take the field at any moment. The difference in the results of expenditure between this country and Switzerland seems to be very marked indeed.
Now, I am sorry to have worried the House by so many quotations, which have rendered my remarks more lengthy than I could desire. But I must next come to the point that this report upon its face declares that the inquiry was partial and incomplete. If hon. gentleman turn to page 7 of the report they will find there the order in councif upon which the inquiry proceeded, one paragraph of which is in the following words:
That the commissioners be requested to proceed with -the inquiry_as rapidly as possible, with a view to the presentation of their report at the next session of parliament.
So apparently the commissioners considered it their duty to make some report at the present session, and therefore their inquiry was not as thorough as it otherwise would have been. At page 9, in commencing their report, the commissioners use the following language :
The commissioners report that in the short and possibly inadequate time at their disposal it has become very evident that in the present state of the development of Canada important changes are required to maintain the civil service as an efficient, contented and useful part of the machinery of administrative government.
On page 20, in dealing with the efficiency and sufficiency of the departmental staff, the commissioners use the following language:
In dealing with -this subject, your commissioners have to submit that in the vast service such as exists at Ottawa, in the limited time at their disposal, it has been absolutely impossible for them to inquire fully into the efficiency of the officials in the several departments. There are probably including labourers. some 3,000 employees at Ottawa. In the Department of the Interior alone there are 500 employees.
And further on :
It would take many months to examine the work of the Department of the Interior alone, and when so many officials are engaged in these several branches it would be hard to gauge with accuracy the extent or character or style of the work turned out by each.

Further, on page 27, in dealing with the outside service, the commissioners use this language :
Acting on this suggestion, as previously stated, your commissioners visited three places, and they only regret that the time at their disposal prevented them from pursuing their inquiries at other points. The information procured was most interesting and instructive, and even the chairman, who had spent nearly forty years in the public service at Ottawa, had no idea of what constituted the outside service until he visited the several localities.
On page 32, referring to the Department of Railways and Cauals, they say:
Your commissioners have not visited this department, believing that other departments required more immediate inspection.
And speaking of the Department of the Interior, on the same page, they say:
With its large staff of five hundred employees at Ottawa, it would require months to thoroughly inspect the work and see that the several officials are properly employed. The commissioners regret extremely that with the short time at their disposal they were unable to visit the Northwest, much as they desired to see how the land, and more especially, the timber sales are effected.
I am sure that all good Canadians who are interested in public affairs must sincerely regret also that,the time at the disposal of the commissioners did not enable them to perform that good work. At page 37 I observe that the commissioners regret that they have been unable to investigate the condition of things in some of the other departments:
But to do the work with any pretensions to thoroughness would take much more time than would probably be agreeable to the government.
I do not think there can be a doubt in the minds of any hon. gentleman in this House as to the correctness of that surmise. This quotation continues as follows:
They have been able to go over only a very small section of even the Marine and Fisheries Department. If they had had time it would have been most desirable to have inspected the work of the department at the agencies-Quebec, Sorel, Halifax, St. John and Prescott-particularly Quebec and Halifax.
At page 42 they also declare that:
There is no means by which they could appreciate whether the amounts payable for sub-target guns or for Ross rifles are proper and just, but according to the evidence the contract for the Ross rifle was prepared bv the counsel employed by the company, and no security was exacted.
Now, I do not think, after these extracts from the report of the commissioners, that Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
there can be any doubt whatever in the mind of any hon. gentleman in this House that the inquiry was partial and incomplete, that the commissioners desired to make it much more thorough and absolutely complete, and that they did not find themselves at liberty to do so simply because they felt themselves constrained by the terms of the order in council and considered themselves obliged to make a report at the present session of parliament.
The government have, according to their own views, proceeded to supplement the inquiry of the commissioners by a further investigation before Mr. Justice Cassels. The proposed investigation relates to only one portion of the administration of one department, and the order in council cuts one of the paragraphs of this report in two, disregards all the inefficiency all the extravagance, all the waste and all the mal-administration outside of that particular paragraph, and asks Mr. Justice Cassels to consider the matters referred to in this paragraph and these matters alone. What about the next paragraph which I quoted a moment ago? My hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) 'says that the functions of a corner's jury are to be exercised by Mr. Justice Cassels and he most stoutly defends the appointment of Mr. Watson and Mr. Perron as the gentlemen who are to assist Mr. Justice Cassels in that regard. Non', I have not one single word to say in criticism of the professional status of either of these gentlemen. As far as I understand, one of them was not long ago chairman of a Liberal organization in the province of Ontario. The other was in partnership with the late Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and the management of the department under his administration will, no doubt, come under review by Mr, Justice Cassels. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice declares that he is absolutely satisfied with the appointment of Mr. Watson and Mr. Perron and I thoroughly believe it. I do not doubt it for one moment. But that is not the question. The question is whether or not the country will be satisfied, and I do not think the country will be satisfied. Mr. Watson's inquisitorial powers in the West Elgin commission did not seem to be very far-reaching or very effective. I am not going over the story again. Sufficient it is to say that what Mr. Watson could not discover Mr. Aylesworth forced his client to confess, and I suppose that he did not force his client to confess anything which was not absolutely correct and according to fact. We may have some good reason to believe that in so far as these two gentlemen are able to control and conduct the proceedings somewhat the same result might follow. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice has likened the function of Mr. Justice Cassels to that of a coroner's jury. Well, if you find the corpse of honest, efficient, economical ad-

ministration in any of the departments of he government, would you consider that the coroner's jury should be guided by men in the pay and in the employment of the assassins? That is exactly the position which the Minister of Justice is so stoutly defending. The men on the treasury benches today are responsible for the slaying of efficient, economical and honest administration in the departments. The report of 1892 shows honest, efficient and economical administration at that time. When the coroner's jury is to sit upon that which was once living, but which is now a corpse, we are to have the confidential friends and agents of the assassins guiding the efforts to probe into and investigate the cause of the decease. I think the proposition need only be stated in order to convince every hon. member of this House that the course which should have been taken was to select independent men, to go outside of the ranks of the political party which is responsible for this condition of affairs and to pursue the course which was pursued by Sir John Macdonald and Sir John Thompson in 1891 when they selected Mr. B. B. Osier and Mr. C. A. Geoffrion to probe into the Department of Public Works.
Now, Mr. Speaker, under these circumstances I think it my duty to place on record the views of the opposition in regard to the report of this commission. Let it not be forgotten that although this report was presented to the department on the 17th March, 1908, up to the present time we have not had from the government any statement of their intention to redress any of the grievances or abuses disclosed by this report, except that which was vouchsafed by the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) on the day when the report was presented to the House. Although entirely apart and outside of the particular paragraph to which he directed atten/tion on that day, the most outrageous extravagance, waste, lack of economy and efficiency have been disclosed by this report, not one word has been proffered by the government to parliament or to the country in explanation or in promise of redress. I have omitted to metion one or two portions of the report which refer to waste. I have already referred at very great length to extravagance. At page 36 of the report I find this language :
There can be very little question that the lighthouse board has been the means of greatly increasing the expenditure of the department and that much of the increase has been wasted.
Under these circumstances it is the duty of the opposition to place itself upon record as to the necessity of reform and redress, as to the necessity of further investigation. In the first place, the resolution which I am about to move declares that the proposed inquiry before Mr. Justice Cassels is ab-239
solutely too narrow and restricted in its character. Can there be any doubt about that when it picks out one paragraph of that portion of the report which relates to only one department and when it deals with only certain incidents in that administration and not with the whole administration which has been so vigorously attacked. The next point I desire to emphasize by the resolution is that the investigation conducted by the Civil Service Commission was confessedly partial and incomplete. There can be no doubt about that after the extracts which I have read from the report. The next point which is emphasized by the motion is : That this extravagance, waste, inefficiency, and maladministration are deplorable and that immediate steps should be taken to reform and redress the same. And these being the premises laid down in the resolution, the conclusion is : That the public interest imperatively demands the appointment of a commission with full powers to make a thorough and searching investigation which would carry on to a conclusion the work already accomplished by the Civil Service Commission. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move :
That all the words after the word ' that ' be left out and the following substituted therefor:-
The investigation conducted by the Civil Service Commission was confessedly partial and incomplete.
That the proposed inquiry before Mr. Justice Cassels is unsatisfactory and insufficient inasmuch at is relates to only one paragraph of the report of that commission and. touches but a portion of the administration of one department.
That this House regrets the deplorable, extravagance, waste, inefficiency and maladministration revealed by that report and declares that immediate steps should be taken to reform and redress the same.
That the public interest imperatively demands the appointment of an independent commission with full powers to make a thorough and searching investigation into the several departments of the public service.
I may add in conclusion, that I have not mentioned the commissioners who have already acted simply for the reason that I do not know whether or not they would be willing to act again. If I named these gentlemen I might be met by the statement from the government that they had declined to prosecute their inquiry further, that their health, or the time at their disposal would not permit them to conclude the work they had begun. I have therefore left the words of the resolution general in their character in that respect, but I have no hesitation in saying that so far as I am concerned and so far as gentlemen on this side of the House are concerned we have'absolute confidence in the thoroughness, ability and integrity of these three gentlemen and we would be glad indeed to see them appointed to carry



on to a conclusion the work in which they have been engaged.
Rt. lion. Sir WILFRID LATJRIER (Prime Minister). I do not believe it will be difficult for the House, even after the very lengthy speech we have heard, to come to a conclusion as to how this motion should be disposed of and to decide that we should pass to the order of the day. I followed the observations of my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) with very keen interest for I was anxious to know what arguments he would present in support of this motion. The question is not new ; we have had it under debate three or four times already and I must say that I have not observed a very unanimous consensus of opinion amongst gentlemen on the other side as to how the question should be treated. My hon. friend (Mr. R. D. Borden) is of opinion that the inquiry with which we have entrusted Mr. Justice Cassels is too narrow and too limited in its scope and that it should be very much enlarged, while my hon. friend from Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron) is on the contrary of opinion that this investigation of Mr. Justice Cassels is altogether useless and that we have already enough information on which to come to a conclusion. I do not hope it will be possible for me to reconcile the different opinions of gentlemen on the other side. I am satisfied that whatever the government may do or not do it will not be possible for us to have their approbation. However that may be, we will be satisfied if we have the approbation of all conscientious men in this country who are honest and unbiased in their opinions. Let me call the attention of the House to the object of the motion presented by my hon. friend. He wants to have a commission with full powers to make a thorough and searching investigation into the several departments of the public service, and the reason upon which the hon. gentleman bases this new demand for investigation is stated in the first paragraph of the motion to be :
That the investigation conducted by the Civil Service Commission was confessedly partial and incomplete.
If by that word * partial ' my hon. friend means its ordinary acceptation and that the commission showed undue favour to somebody I do not know that the reproach should come from his side of the House, but the hon. gentleman went further and in his opening remarks he stated in so many words that when he opened the report of the commission he thought he was opening a campaign document. In view of the copious extracts he has read from this report I do not know how far it was proper for him to thus at the outset belittle the report of the commission, but that is a question on which I have no comment to make.


Robert Laird Borden: 


Robert Laird Borden: My right hon. friend evidently misunderstood me. I made that observation simply with regard to the extract I read from Mr. Fyshe's statement respecting protection.


Wilfrid Laurier: I did not fail to observe that, and neither did I fail to observe that the ptlier commissioners rather have a slap at Mr. Fyshe and state they do not share his views. If we are to take the report of the majority and not of the minority I do not think the observations come at all under the description which my hon. friend gave them. But, Sir, this is of no consequence ; the commission was appointed in order to give information to the government upon the efficiency of the civil service and in the course of their investigation they found that in one department there had been not only inefficiency as they charged, but also something akin to dishonesty. That was no part of the investigation they had to make.	Still, I find no fault with
their findings.	On the contrary, if they
saw that the attention of the government should be called to a particular condition of things, it was most necessary that the government should be apprised of the fact, so that the proper course could be taken. Therefore, since we had the report of the commissioners charging something akin to dishonesty in a certain department, we thought it our duty not to let the matter rest where it was, but to have the investigation pressed, whatever the consequences, and the whole matter probed to the bottom; and this is the reason why we have appointed Mr. Justice Cassels to continue the investigation which has been left undone by the commissioners. It is to be observed on this point, as my hon. friend the Minister of Finance remarked on a former occasion, that the report of the commissioners states either too much or too little. It would have been better, if they found dishonesty, to have completed the investigation, and to have put their finger on the guilty parties, and reported them to the government so that the government could deal with them. They having failed to do so, we thought it our duty to complete the investigation, and, as I have said, we have entrusted the work to Mr. Justice Cassels. I am glad to say, so far as the selection of the commissioner is concerned, that no fault has been found with it. On the contrary, everybody agrees that no better selection could have been made than Mr. Justice Cassels. Everybody acknowledges his eminent judicial spirit, his honesty, and his impartiality. But, Sir, much fault has been found with the counsel who have been selected. It has been stated that the choice of the counsel was unfortunate, in this respect, that Mr. Watson was at one time the chairman of the Liberal organization in Ontario, and that Mr. Perron was at one time, a partner of Mr. Prgfontaine. So far as Mr. Watson

is concerned, for my part I never knew that he had been so prominently associated with a political organization, though I knew that he generally voted the Liberal ticket. So far as Mr. Perron is concerned, I must admit in all candour that I had forgotten that at one time he had been associated with Mr. Prcfontaine. Nor do I believe that this is a matter of much consequence. But, Sir, we have to view the matter in another light. Is it to be said on the floor of the Canadian parliament by gentlemen of the eminence of my hon. friend in the profession, or by other gentlemen who occupy very high rank in the profession, that when you select counsel you have to look to their political opinions? I belong to the legal profession, and I know something of its ethics; and I am sure I shall not be contradicted by the hon. leader of the opposition, nor by other hon. gentlemen eminent in the profession, when I say that it is not to be supposed that a man who is worthy of belonging to the bar ever carried his political opinions into court. It is the pride and the honour and a very elementary rule of the profession that the man who accepts a brief from anybody leaves his political opinions at the door of the court room. Who does not remember that in the many trials which George Brown had to undergo in his province, he was always defended by John Hilliard Cameron, who sat in this House opposed to him, and was one of the most eminent members of the Conservative party at that time? Did Mr. Cameron, though engaged in political trials and in defending the most eminent man In the party to which he was opposed, carry his political opinions into court? Or is it to be supposed that he did not do full justice to hie client because he happened to be opposed to his political party? Nay, more, is it not within the knowledge of everybody that my hon. friend and colleague the Minister of Justice, when in active practice, was often retained in election trials on the Conservative side? And is it not a fact that he always did justice to his client, whether he was a Conservative or a Liberal, without any regard to the consequences? Sir, I would be ashamed of the profession if it were to be supposed that a man who had the honour of belonging to that profession would be influenced in the discharge of his duty by his political proclivities. If a man belonging to the bar thinks that he cannot do justice to his client or to the cause with which he is associated, it is his duty to refuse the brief; but the moment he has accepted a brief, it is his duty to be true to the cause which he has accepted without any regard to the consequences. Sir, this is the ethics and the pride of the profession. Will any man in this House who belongs to the bar of Ontario or to the bar of any other province in this country take any other position than this? Why, Sir, because Mr. Watson happens to be a Liberal, 239*
or because Mr. Perron happens to belong to the same political party, though I am not aware that Mr. Perron ever took a very active part in politics, is it to be supposed that these men will be recreant to their duty or untrue to the cause that they have to defend, because forsooth it might happen that the political party with which they have been associated would suffer? Why did we appoint this commission? We appointed this commission in order to have the truth and the whole truth brought out in this matter; that is the purpose Mr. Watson and Mr. Perron have to serve. The order in council providing for the commission says:
The minister observes that some statements are made in that report which affect the honour and integrity of the officers of the Department of Marine and Fisheries.
On page 61 of the report the following paragraph appears:
There would also seem to be a lack of conscience. In connection with the enormous expenditures which are deemed necessary, the word ' discount * never appears. It is tacitly assumed there is no such thing; but the whole commercial world knows otherwise. If no one gets any benefit from trade with the government, except the trader, then it must be clear that in these great purchases made for the government, without discount, its officers must be assisting the trader to get better prices from the government than he can get anywhere else; for everywhere else he has to give a discount. In other words, some of the government officers are serving two masters and apparently succeeding with both-Scripture notwithstanding.
The minister further observes that it is assumed by that statement that commissions are received improperly, or enhanced prices paid through dishonesty on the part of officials of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. But, unfortunately, the report does not mention any names which would enable him to take definite action concerning these officials. It is,' however, in the interests of the Department of Marine and Fisheries and of the country that immediate steps should be taken in order to determine what officials (if any) deserve condemnation and to give to all an opportunity to meet the charges implied.
The minister therefore recommends that he be authorized to appoint the Hon. Walter Cassals a commissioner under part 2, chapter 101 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, to investigate and report upon the foregoing statements contained in said report of the Civil Service Commission reflecting upon the integrity of the officials of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, or of any of them.
This is the task for which Messrs. Watson and Perron have been appointed-to assist Mr. Justice Cassels ; and this is the task which, if they are true to the profession to which they belong, they will discharge faithfully, without fear or favour towards anybody. The strange suggestion has been made In the press that not only should Mr. Cassels be assisted with counsel but

that counsel should be appointed to represent the Civil Service Commission. I have not heard that suggestion made by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, but I have heard it made in this House and I have seen it in the press. Could anything be more preposterous ? The retiring commissioners are not on trial. Mr. Justice Cassels is not appointed to take issue with them, and there is nothing to indicate that his appointment is in any way contradictory to their report. On the contrary the object of his appointment is to continue and complete the investigation made by the commission, and therefore it is absurd to pretend that the commissioners should be represented by counsel.
The commissioners were appointed to inquire into the efficiency of the service and they have made a report. The gist of that report is that the service is inefficient and that its inefficiency is due to the fact that the service is recruited by political patronage. There is nothing very new in this. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition says we should have a third investigation. Why, this will be the fourth investigation. We had a commission appointed in 1881 which reported. We had a commission appointed in 1892 which reported also. We had one appointed in 1907, which has just submitted its report, and the hon. gentleman wants another appointed. Well, I have this to say that as regards the inefficiency of the service, it is the duty of the minister and the government to look into that matter and of no one else. We do not admit any necessity for an Investigation into that subject. We are responsible to parliament, and if there be inefficiency it is for us to devise a remedy.
The charge made by the commissioners that the civil service is recruited upon political considerations and none other is not a new one. The same complaint was made in the report of 1892. My hon. friend, who has made copious quotations, did not quote this part of the commission report which will be found on page 15 :
In the previous remarks your commissioners have pointed out that in their opinion the principles underlying the Civil Service Act are not in the public interest. In the report of the Royal Commission of 1892, the commissioners observe that: It is possible that public sentiment in Canada may not as yet he ripe for open competition generally, and it may not Ire possible as yet to eliminate altogether the power of politics in making appointments ; hut if the recommendations of your commissioners be accepted and strictly adhered to, the public service at Ottawa will, they are convinced, in the course of a few years be better for the change.
The commissioners at that time only took into account the public service at Ottawa. Thev. left in their draft Bill ,in the report the provisions of a former Act relating to the outside service. Your commissioners regret Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
to state that in their opinion the hopes of the members of the former commission have not been realized. The provisions of the Civil Service Act and its amendment have not made the service anv better. In fact the Act has been so amended, re-amended and whittled down that the public service, the commissioners believe, not only at Ottawa but elsewhere throughout the Dominion, has fallen back during the last fifteen years.
Well, If the service has fallen back during the last fifteen years, the party in office are not alone responsible because we have not been here ail of these fifteen years. If the evil goes back so far, we all may be held to an equal share of the blame. If the service has been rendered inefficient by political patronage, who is it who will cast the first stone? Can it come from the other side? Why, the service to-day is these gentlemen's own service. It is their service very largely as regards the personnel, and it is altogether theirs as regards the law. We have inherited the condition of things which now prevails and it ill becomes hon. gentlemen opposite to say that we are to blame.
While I am disposed to take the report of the commissioners as a basis of action, I am not disposed to grant that everything in this report should be taken as incontrovertible. In their disposition to blame the system that prevails, they have gone very far to find fault with some of the appointments. They have criticised the appointment of Mr. Harwood as postmaster of the city of Montreal, on the ground that he was an old gentleman seventy years of age and had been in active politics. That is true. But it is also true that the post office at Montreal has never been as ably managed as it has been by Mr. Harwood. For the last six or seven years, during which it has been managed by him, its administration has been perfect. No complaints have come to us and the public appear thoroughly satisfied.
It must not be forgotten that there are several aspects to be looked at before coming to any kind of a conclusion. We appointed a commission because the public were of the opinion that the time had come to have civil service reform. And what could we do better than appoint a commission to investigate and report and lay down a basis of reform ? There are in the report some things in which I am not disposed to agree altogether. There are some statements which I regret exceedingly and which I do not think reflect any honour on the commissioners. What they have said with regard to the Militia Department seems to me altogether uncalled for. And I am not disposed to congratulate my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, on the remark he made a moment ago concerning the speech by the hon. member for Dundas (Mr. Bro-1 der) who, I regret, is not in his seat at pre-

sent. Some time ago, in a speech to a meeting of farmers, the hon. member for Dun-das said that the government spent $6,000,000 on militia and only half a million dollars on agriculture. Now, there is no man in this House for whom I have greater respect than my hon. friend from Dundas. He is a strong partisan, and for that I do not blame him because I am one myself. But though he is a strong partisan, he is generally very fair in discussion. When, however, before a meeting of farmers, he pointed out that the Canadian government was spending $6,000,000 on militia and only half a million dollars on agriculture, he was guilty of appealing to the worst prejudices that lie in the human heart.
I am sorry my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. D. Borden) should have been guilty of the same offence. Sir, the civilized nation does not live to-day that has not to spend more on militia than it can spend on agriculture and arts and many other useful things . That is our position. We are not in the condition yet, I am glad to say, and I hope we never shall be, of those nations of Europe, England, France, Germany, which spend no less than 50 per cent of their income upon war and preparations for war. But, Sir, we are in this position, though we are happily far from the condition of these nations, that we cannot ignore our duty to provide for the defence of this country. It is a part of the duty we owe to ourselves, it is a part of the duty we owe to our nation, and when an hon. gentleman in this House, like my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) stoops-stoops, I say, to try to create political capital out of such a question he plays a part, I believe, altogether unworthy of himself and unworthy of the position which he occupies in this House. We have to spend far more on militia than I would like; I wish we could spend far less, I wish we could spend $6,000,000 on agriculture and only half a million on militia, but unfortunately, if the time should come when my hon. friend occupies this seat to which he aspires, instead of heaping condemnation as he does to-day on our conduct, he will not be able to modify at all the policy which we have introduced. It is a part of our system of existence as a nation and cavilling against it is setting a bad example on the eve of what may turn out to be important events.


George Eulas Foster: What does that mean, signs of war?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes, I see signs of war. That is not only the petty war my friend is engaged in-if that was all I would not mind It-but Canada has a population of 6,000,000 of souls, it has a very large extent of territory, it faces on two oceans, and my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) himself remembers that when he was
in office, he had to provide for the preparation of war, which I hope is very far distant, although it may come at any moment. It is not probable but, Sir, if my hon. friend is ready to say that, situated as we are, we had better disperse the militia and abandon the preparation we have made, I will be prepared to say we have made a mistake -but he never can say that.


George Eulas Foster: No, he will leave that to the Minister of Marine.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend (Sir R. L. Borden) wants to have another investigation. I repeat what I said that so far as the charge of dishonesty in the service is concerned, we have committed that charge to the investigation of Mr. Justice Cassels. So far as the efficiency of the service is concerned, we can keep that in our own hands, it is for us to deal with that, it is for the minister to look into that and provide for a remedy. We have no intention of shirking our duty, we have no intention of placing in the hands of a commission the responsibility which rests upon us. It is for us to administer the affairs of the country. So long as we have the confidence of the people and responsibility to the people we have no intention of shirking our responsibility and placing in other hands the duty that properly rests on us. If the service has deteriorated, it is for us to put it in a better position; if it has to be improved, it is for us to do it. But how is that to be done? First, by amending the law. The commission tell us that the law is deficient. Look at the report of the commission and what is their very first conclusion? The law is deficient and you must change the law. They regret that this was not done before. They call attention to the fact that in 1892 a similar commission reported in exactly the same way and nothing had been done up to the present time. If nothing was done I am not disposed, for my part, to be very severe with the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) who at that time was a prominent member of the administration, nor am I disposed to quarrel with the hon. member for North Lanark (Air. Haggart) who was also a member of the government at that time; they had before them the report which advised them to reform the civil service, to change the law, I am not disposed to be very severe upon them, because the reform of the civil service is a very difficult task and I do not know whether at that time public opinion was prepared for it. But, Sir, we have come to the conclusion that the time has come to tackle this reform. This was why we appointed the commission. We have now the report of the commission which was placed in our hands on the 17th of March last. The first thing we did was to look at the report, to study it, to investigate it. The next thing was to appoint a com-

mission which has been provided for by the appointment of Mr. Justice Cassels. The third thing was to commence the work of looking into the departments to see what improvements could be made, and the fourth thing was to prepare a Bill, which is now under consideration, to be brought before the House. When we lay that Bill before the House we may resume this discussion, but for the moment I have only to say that we do not intend to depart at all from the position we took at first. The duty is ours and we must face it. There is no reason to have another investigation. We have now had three Investigations, one in 1881, one in 1892, one in 1908 and with these we have information enough to do our duty. At all events this is what we propose to do, and I have to say simply this in conclusion that with the responsibility which is upon us we have certain things to do and we intend to do them ourselves ; they will be done not through a commission, not through others, but by the party now in oflice, the government responsible to the people. These are the observations I have to offer to the House on this occasion and I have to say that in my humble judgment, the best thing the House can do is to proceed with the orders of the day and to leave this matter in the hands of the government.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
After Eecess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


George Eulas Foster: Mr. Speaker, whatever else the independent onlooker, if such there be, will have to remark with reference to the observations of my right hon. friend this afternoon in reply to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, I am quite sure he would come to the conclusion that the Prime Minister did not make an adequate answer to the case which was presented by the mover of the resolution. If he will permit a criticism from me I would say that his reply seemed to show, either a lack of appreciation of the condition of things as they now exist, or else so great an appreciation of them that he was not able to meet them, and so went off on what I consider to be simply a side issue. He undertook to divert the attention of the House by conjuring up a difference of opinion between the hon. member for Beau-harnois (Mr. Bergeron) and my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, saying that the leader of the opposition wanted more investigation whilst the member for Beau-harnois thought there was investigation enough, and quite as much information as was necessary. Well, this was an interesting piece of by-play; but I could not help thinking that my right hon. friend would have been better employed in ad- *
Sir WILFRID LAITRIER
dressing himself to meet the arguments in the case, rather than in giving us what was at best a figment of his own imagination.
I said that I did not think the right hon. gentleman showed an appreciation of the condition of things as they are to-day. I do not think I *would be making too strong an observation if I said that of late years I know of nothing that has produced wider comment and aroused deeper interest than the report of the Civil Service Commission. I do not say that such a report coming simply by itself would have had such effect, but coming as it does at this particular time, it certainly had an effect upon the country at large which is remarkable, and, whether my right hon. friend thinks so or not, has taken a very deep hold of the people of Canada. It follows a number of other incidents and transactions which year by year, for the last five or six years, have been gradually unfolded, and of which the people have taken due cognizance. The right hon. gentleman does not seem to feed that owing to laches, sins of omission and sins of commission by himself and his party since 1896, be has already lost and Is still losing in the respect and confidence of a great body of the electorate of Canada. After he came into power and for some years subsequently, he rejoiced in an almost complete adhesion of the provincial legislatures to his party and his cause. Year by year they have been slipping away from him, and have assumed a position of political antagonism. First he lost control by his party friends of the province of Manitoba; then he lost control by his party friends of the right arm of his party, the great province of Ontario; later still, he lost control, against a most determined campaign put up by himself and his colleagues and supporters, of the great province of British Columbia; later still the province of New Brunswick, which for eighteen years had stood behind him and his party, and during the last twelve years without shadow of question, the province of New Brunswick, although the fight on his behalf was engineered by his latest and one of his ablest ministers, has administered a well merited defeat to his Minister of Public Works, and to the federal party after all their intervention in that election. And only yesterday, in the good old city of Halifax, to which two of his party supporters left their places in this House and went down to conduct the fight on partly lines for the Dominion and In view of the next federal contest, the city of Halifax has, by an overwhelming majority, changed its political belief as shown in a civic election, and has defeated the Liberal candidates and elected the Conservative candidates for civic office.
My right hon. friend thinks there is nothing in all these signs. He has a compact majority behind him, for various reasons; does he believe that the country Is just as

compact behind him? And now, after all these signs of the times, after all the work that has been done by His Majesty's loyal opposition against great odds and great difficulties, after all the glimpses which they have been able to let into the departmental work and the methods of the government of my right hon. friend, comes this Civil Service Commission report. A commission of his own friends, appointed by himself, after a more or less exhaustive examination, has given to the government a report which has aroused more interest than any document that has been presented to this House of Commons for many a long year. Yet my right hon. friend seems to think that all is at peace in Zion, that so long as he can turn around and get ready applause from a large proportion of this House that sit behind him and support him he is safe in vouchsafing no answer, safe in taking any trifling position that he pleases on what is really a very large and very important question.
Some one in the newspapers, probably in the independent press, has remarked as a singular thing that this session at least the Prime Minister, who had a reputation for being politically astute, has been so unfortunate as to take the wrong side on almost every important question that has come up. I believe that will be found to be true. Prom the fight for the original documents on which my right hon. friend took the wrong side, and from which he afterwards had to retreat, down through a series of positions which he had to face in this House, my right hon. friend has been, for some reason or other, I do not know what particularly, forced to take, or has chosen to take, the wrong, the unconstitutional and the unpopular side.
In the matter of the purchase of supplies for the different departments of this government the right hon. gentleman generally agreed with the principle of the resolution which I had the honour to introduce, but when it came to the practical part of it, in the end, he finished by what ? Voting, himself and his whole party, for the continuance of the middleman's operations in the purchase of supplies. And so in reference to question after question. It has been remarked, and I think the observation is very true, that the right hon. gentleman appears to have been forced, for some reason or other, to take the wrong side on a great many of the important questions which have come before us. In the same manner I do not think he has appreciated the gravity of the question which is before the country to-day and I do not think, as I have said before, that he has appreciated the whole situation or met it adequately. In the first place my right hon. friend joins the procession of re-pudiators-shall I call them ? These gentlemen selected their own commission-Mr. Courtney, Mr. Fyslie and Mr. Bazin. They
were their own appointees. They declared them to be able men, they had their confidence, they set them to work, they gave them certain powers and these gentlemen acted under these powers and the spectacle is afforded to this House and the country of one minister after another, followed in the end by the right hon. gentleman himself, rising in his place in the House and repudiating his own commission. Why ?- because it had a surprise for them. It often does happen that a man has a certain thing in his head and he thinks that is the only thing there is in the universe, but he is surprised some day to find out that there are other things. The main thing in the head of the Prime Minister and of the government was that the commission should simply confine itself to the dry bones of the Civil Service and nothing else. But these gentlemen had certain powers under which they conceived they acted. They acted under them and besides having something to do with the dry bones of the Civil Service system they went further and inquired into certain things with reference to the efficiency of the Civil Service and the methods by which the business of the government, by this Civil Service, was carried on. That is the thing that the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues did not expect would happen. And so, first, the Minister of Marine, secondly, the Minister of Finance, and, thirdly, the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth), and, fourthly, but I am sure not lastly, the Prime Minister himself rise in their places in this House and confess to their annoyance. The right hon. gentleman joins in the caustic criticism of these gentlemen, sneers at them, in fact, for going bevond their duty. Why this surprise ? Because it really happens to have operated as a flank movement which was not expected. The right hon. gentleman and his colleauges were devoting themselves to the frontal attack and as poor strategists they forgot that the rear and the flanks should also have been defended. Whilst they can, by their majority in the Public Accounts Committee, prevent investigation into public matters, whilst they can by their majority in this House, prevent information from coming down to members, whilst they can, by their majority in this House, deny any investigation and all investigation into alleged malpractices they forgot to fortify themselves upon the flank and the rear. And whilst they were successful by means of their majority in warding off frontal attack, their own friends, in the spirit of duty and of honesty and of thoroughness lifted the lid upon these governmental transactions and gave the people a glance at the inside. Hence this procession of caustic repudiators who, one after another, get up and flagellate the commission that they themselves appointed and sneer at the men that they themselves made their

own Royal Commission. Well, we will let that go to the country. The exhibition is one of bad taste, it is one, I think, of very poor policy, the average man in the country will easily see through it and it will not count to the advantage of the government.
The right hon. First Minister said that it was the duty of this commission simply to inquire into the efficiency of the Civil Service Act and that it was no part of their duty to investigate into transactions. But they did investigate some transactions in one part of one department and they came upon appearances of dishonesty and now the second commission has been appointed, as the right hon. gentleman with an odd failure to appreciate the meaning of language, declared to continue and complete the work of the first commission. If Mr. Justice Cassels had been appointed to continue and complete the work of the first commission, as they themselves conceived their work was to be, this side of the House would have no objection to Mr. Justice Cassels being appointed to continue the work of the first commission, but let the right hon. gentleman as well as this House clearly see what this commission means and the purpose for which it has been appointed. It was not appointed for the purpose of continuing and completing the work of the first commission. What was the work of the first commission as under authority given to them and as understood by themselves ? It was to look into the Civil Service system certainly, to inquire as to its efficiency, and, as well, to make recommendations as to how it could be made more efficient, but when you come to No. 8 and No. 10 of the subjects mentioned in the order in council you see that there are other powers that are given them. No. 8 reads ' Efficiency and sufficiency of the departmental staffs.' How could that commission come to a conclusion as to the efficiency and sufficiency of the departmental staffs* unless they followed the work of these departmental staffs and found out how it was done, not only if it was efficiently done. Is efficiently the only characteristic of the civil service ? It was also important to inquire whether it was honestly done because honesty must be a characteristic of the Civil Service ; whether it was done in a businesslike way, whether it was extravagantly done, whether it was wastefully done, in fine, whether it was properly or improperly done. How were the Civil Service Commission, as appointed, to come to a conclusion as to the efficiency and sufficiency of the departmental staffs unless they followed their business from A to Z ? And in following out that business what did they find ? They found what they have embodied in the report, that instead of there being efficiency there was inefficiency, instead of there being any sign of a directive head in the Department of Marine and Fisheries there was no sign of


George Eulas Foster: it, instead of there being any conscience in that department, not in the individuals in the department-that is not what the commission says-but in the department itself, they found that there was a lack of conscience, they found waste, they found extravagance, they found mal-administra-tion. In the very duty that they had to carry out to determine whether the staffs were efficient and sufficient they were bound to go into that kind of an examination. They went into one-half of the Department of the Marine and Fisheries, namely, the Marine part of it, and they did not get half through with that, but they found what has angered the government, what has somewhat astonished the country and what has proved up to the hilt the charges that His Majesty's loyal opposition have been making for the last five years.
But, Sir, they had another power given to them. They were to look into ' any other matter relative to the service which in the opinion of the commissioners requires consideration, that was a wide power; that power led them into questions as to the purchases and as to whether retail or wholesale prices were paid, and as to whether there was prudence, economy or honesty or not in these purchases, and it led them to some most astonishing results and to some very cogent conclusions which to-day are reverberating through this country and having their influence on public opinion. I tell the right hon. gentleman that he must take back his words or else he must make Judge Cassels commission just as broad as was the commission of the three gentlemen who were first appointed. On ' Hansard ' he will find his statement: that Judge Cassels has been appointed a commission to complete and continue the inquiry begun by the first commission-not to continue and complete the inquiry' that the government supposed these commissioners were going to make but that they actually have been making for the last six months. But is Judge Cassels's commission as wide as has been stated ? Not at all. It is absolutely whittled dow'n to the fine end of nothing in comparison. Judge Cassels is not to prosecute the inquiry which was committed to these gentlemen. These gentlemen if they had been given full time and full power would have lifted the lid from the Fisheries part of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and in lifting that lid I can imagine the caustic conclusions they would come to and the biting notes they would jot down on the margin, when they came to look for instance at the system of lighthouse and buoy service on the St. Lawrence and on the great lakes; and for instance the parcelling out of the great future fishing resources of this country at $10 a year to favourites and supporters and friends of the government, and the giving over to

them for twenty-one years, the absolute exclusive right to fish commercially in the great fishing areas of the Northwest, and to sell the products.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And renewable for another term.


Mr.   POSTER@: And renewable in some cases for another term. But, Sir, if this gentleman were to do what the other commissioners had sarted out to do and had partly done. Judge Cassels in continuing and completing that work would have knocked at the door of the Interior Department at which we have been knocking for four or five years and which we have had banged in our face; and if Judge Cassels had got entrance to that department as the first Civil Service Commission did to a portion-of the Marine and Fisheries Department, X can imagine what would have been the caustic conclusions and the biting margin notes that would be penned. I can imagine what the conclusions would be with reference to the land deals, with reference to the timber leases, with reference to the giving away to favourites of vast tracts of grass and agricultural lands, of the letting down of the bars this day, the driving in of a number of favourites to-morrow, the putting up of the bars the next day thus giving to the half dozen that had been herded in twenty-one years' grazing lease, irrevocable, which they could sell in the markets of the world and make into fortunes for themselves. I could imagine with what caustic notes these gentlemen would have followed the case of the romantic Brown who was hunted for with such extreme diligence for three and a half years and who turned up at last in the pockets of Mr. Adamson, M.P., sitting behind the government and always supporting them. I imagine with what caustic notes they would have treated the giving over to Hitchcock and McGregor, two heelers and supporters of the Minister of the Interior, nearly 100,000 acres of irrevocable grazing leases with power to buy 9,500 acres selected out of the whole of it at a dollar an acre, which they did. and sold directly afterwards for $12 an acre. And, Sir, in connection with the Bobbin's irrigation scheme what gems of thought would have been developed by Mr. Pyshe and by Mr. Courtney as they followed the still more romantic career of the young man Robbins, a penniless Englishman, without capital and without friends, cheeky to the point of stepping up to the Minister of the Interior and asking him to sell him 380,000 acres of land at $3 an acre with the proviso that $2 should be paid back to him when he should have irrigated one quarter of the land and a further proviso that no payments should be made until 1910. How beautifully they would have followed out the rippling course of that young man from England as he passed like
a whirlwind through the Interior Department and in thirty days and less carried off his grant of 380,000 acres and deposited it in the lap of Hitchcock and McGregor, so that these two privileges put together could be marketed on the English market at a profit of $800,000 and over. Oh, how they would have lifted the lid on the fake homesteading in the Northwest; how they would have lifted the lid on the devious dealings of men in the employ and pay of this government in the Northwest who are lining their own pockets by carrying on land speculations and the sale of lands with the information they get from their governmental positions. Oh, with what caustic beauty-if such an expression may be allowed-Mr. Fyshe would have set out these things if he once got inside the Interior Department. And then Sir, what unheard stories he would have to tell if he gained entrance to tho.Department of Public Works, than which there is none other to be compared in its conscienceless system of dredging, in its equally conscienceless system of building public works without any regard to fitness or to the price or to the manner in which they are built; with its beautiful supervision of tailor clerks and absentee supervisors; men who take charge of scows and who never look at the scows and allow them to be loaded and the prices paid without check. All this, if followed out by the first commissioners-or by the second commissioners in the spirit of the first commissioners-would have made beautiful reading for the electorate of Canada. Now, my right hon. friend may I ask you :	Is not
that exactly what your first commission did in so far as it had time. It got at half of one department that of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and if it had had time and had been allowed to do so it would have gone to the inside of every one of these departments. That is what the first commission -would have done. Now, I put it to my right hon. friend :	Take back
your words' that the second commission is constiuted to continue and complete what the first commission was doing, or else come up in a manly way and tell the country just exactly why you appointed the second commission and what you propose to get by it. The right hon. gentleman will not answer, and therefore I will try to devise an answer for him. The second commission was appointed for several purposes. One was to absolve the minister put within the danger zone-to absolve him from any responsibility in connection with the Department of Marine and Fisheries.
I am old-fashioned enough to think that it is the duty of a minister, when he takes hold of a department, and takes his oath as an administrator, and accepts the salary, to make himself reasonably quickly and reasonably well-informed with reference to

the business of the department over which he is to preside. My hon. friend does not lack in intelligence; he had two years in that department; he had years before that side by side with his colleague who preceded him in that department, and men in one department know a good deal of what goes on in another when they sit together in council and foregather as they do from day to day. My hon. friend visited the city of Quebec, visited Sorel, visited Montreal, visited Brockville, went to St. John, I believe, and to Halifax; and his own star witness, Mr. Richards, who had but casual acquaintance with these places, testified on oath before the Public Accounts Committee that any intelligent man could have walked into any of these places and seen exactly what lie saw, though perhaps they could not state as well as he what would be the best way to go about a revision of the evils most quickly and most thoroughly. Now, what was my hon. friend doing1 during those two years? May I answer? He was too busy thinking of the party and of the political side of the administration; too busy parcelling out offices; too busy lying awake nights thinking what he would give here and what he would give there to strengthen his influence against his colleagues and to strengthen the influence of his party against the opposing party. That is what took up his time. But, Sir, he is guilty before this House and this country for allowing a state of things which was spread on the flies of his office, and which he himself, by the merest walking through the domain of this department, could easily have known. He was guilty of allowing that department, which was pretty thoroughly demoralized by his predecessor, to sink lower and lower until it arrived at the stage where it had no directive power, no loyalty, no head directing it, and no conscience within.
Well, iet us see about this doctrine of ministerial responsibility. There have been other days and other expounders of that doctrine. I believe the Hon. David Mills was a pretty thoroughly informed man on constitutional law; he prided himself on that; he was the champion of his party on that line when in opposition; he was made Minister of Justice; he was afterwards translated to the bench. He has all the qualifications which render an opinion valuable. Now, what did Mr. Mills say in 1893?
We do not want to interpose between the responsibility of ministers to this House in the discharge of their duties as ministers, any one deputy or otherwise, who apparently limit the power that a minister should possess, but who really carry out the minister's behests. Why should we say that a deputy should make such a recommendation? It is the minister's business to know the work of the office. The minister, if he does his duty, knows as well as the deputy; it is impossible Mr. FOSTER.
that it can be otherwise. The theory of our government is not that the deputy minister is responsible, but that the minister is responsible, and if the minister is responsible, we ought not to impose limitations upon the discretionary authority of the minister. Let the hon. gentleman look at the English organization as set out by Mr. Todd; does he find any such limitation there upon the authorities of ministers? There is but one limitation, and that it is with regard to appointments to_office.
This expression from Mr. Mills is particular and definite, and besides, it is a true statement of the ease. Well, one object of this commission was to contract the Minister of Marine and Fisheries out of his responsibility in that department. I put it to the Prime Minister whether I am within the facts of the case or not. All that Mr. Cassels is by that commission empowered to look into and report upon is as to whether certain subordinates of that department have dishonestly or inefficiently sacrificed the money of the country in the matter of supplies and of payments. It was stated by the commissioners that from the outlook of the business, as they had gone into it, it would seem that there were officers in the department who were making it easy for the trader to get more than he ought to get. Now, the officer of the department might have had a good reason for making it easy for the seller of goods to get more than he should have got, and for thinking that in doing so he was doing exactly what the minister would have liked him to do, or what the minister absolutely ordered him to do. Does my hon. friend deny that? One of the Tory ' goats,' as the elegant and somewhat imprudent Minister of Justice declared in his own county a few w'eeks ago- one of them is Mr. Gregory, it is said, of the city of Quebec. He was brought to book by the commission, and it is spread upon the report that Mr. Gregory paid more than was proper for certain things. Mr. Gregory was the agent of the government in the city of Quebec. Here is a letter on page 76, dated May 3rd, 1905;
Dear Mr. Gregory,-Young Willie Walsh, who represents McColl Brothers & Company, Montreal agents for Vesta boiler compound, has asked me to say a good word to you for him; and if the material is as good as represented, I hope you will place some orders in his way.
That is fairly modest. That is signed by a minister of the cabinet.
May 6, 1905.-Mr. Leo C. Walsh

Not Willie Walsh this time, though it is the same man


Mr.   L@: Walsh, representing McColl Brothers & Company, will call on you, prob-ablv Tuesday, in reference to some oil. If you can give him an order I will feel obliged. -R. P.

Which means Raymond Prgfontaine. There is a minister of the department pratl-cally odering his subordinate, who is supposed to be doing the government service but who, under the interpretation made by this government, is doing the party service -practically ordering his subordinate-for it amounts to that-to give Willie Walsh a good contract. If he wants to be grateful to his minister, R. P. That is one of the little things left on record ; but where that is left on record, how much is done by word of mouth, how much is done by letter, and the letters not kept on file. Let us go a little further. They raised Cain with Mr. Gregory because of certain fire extinguishers. But it afterwards comes out that the minister himself had ordered $9,000 worth of these extinguishers. It turns out that another man, who had some extinguishers and the proper influence, Mr. P. E. Perreault, 312 St. John street, Quebec, was advised to call upon Mr. Gregory, and sell him a lot of fire extinguishers. Mr. Perreault was afterwards an employee of the agency and he had a lot of fire extinguishers on hand which he would like to sell the department. So the department was advised of this, and in the end it was considered best to take them off the employee's hands, although the department had $9,000 of them bought just before, besides a large quantity in stock.
With reference to this oil called Kantslip, it turns out that they had more Kantslip down there than they knew what to do with. Mr. Gregory says :
An opportunity some time after occurred when I saw the late minister here and spoke to him, as it seemed to me that the firm had taken advantage of his kindness about the matter. He told me to keep the goods and trv to get rid of them to the best advantage, which I did by distributing them around where I understood the Kanslip could be used on belts, &c. If any has been sent where it was not really required, I shall see that it is removed where it can be used to advantage.
Does that not abundantly carry out what I was explaning. that you may have men In the autocratic employ of ministers, who are interested in having their favourites given contracts, and who order their subordinates to give an advantage to their favourites under the penalty of disobedience to orders and thus displeasing their official head. So it may be that there are officials in that department who have really given a contractor a chance to make the most but have given it, not because they were personally dishonest, but because they felt the pressure from above and felt bound to see that the party friends got the best of the transaction.
So when Judge Cassels sits on the bench performing these coroner's duties, as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) So expressively explained to the House last night, he will sit in the position-if I understand anything of the value of English words-where, the very moment any question comes up of connecting wrong business methods with the minister, he will be told by the counsel that this is outside of his commission and that he has no power at all. That is what I mean when I say that instead of appointing a royal commission to look into these matters in the public interest, the minister himself has appointed a commission to simply look into the deeds of subordinates and find out whether or not any of them have taken commissions or unduly obtained public money in the purchase of supplies or the payment therefor. That is the duty of Judge Cassels and his duty only ; but even that duty is circumscribed by the fact, according to the Minister of Justice that he is not expected to look into this whole matter himself. There are files to be gone through ad infinitum, years to be gone over, 1994, 5, 6, 7, 8-why it would take Judge Cassels years and years to make the whole investigation himself ; and that is why the Minister of Justice said he took the responsibility of appointing counsel. It is the counsel who are to look into these things. They will see what papers are to be scanned. They are to look over the files judicially and carefully. They are to designate the cases that are to be brought to light-and they alone. They are to steer the whole investigation, and they are to put the facts and cases before the judge who occupies a judicial position. So says the Minister of Justice. This commission is intended to have the effect of relieving the minister entirely of responsibility. And it is intended to have this other effect. Just as in the case of that deceptive and partial Investigation into the transactions connected withe the ' Arctic '. so in this case my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) stands before the people and exclaims : I have appointed a new commission to continue and complete the work which was begun by. the first commission. That is a fine song for the people. That will make elegant headlines in the Toronto ' Globe ', which is so zealous for the truth. That will be used ad infinitum by the party papers all through. See how our Premier meets the situation. When the first commission after seven months' examination made a partial report, our Premier appointed Judge Cassels to continue what the first commission had undertaken but had not finished. That goes to the people, that is read by the newspapers to the faithful, that is headlined and that is relied upon ; but when it comes down to the naked fact, he has estopped Judge Cassels from looking into a single transaction in any department outside of the Department of Marine and Fisheries and has estopped him from looking into any transaction there unless it involves the dishonesty of a subordinate in the Marine branch. That is what

the commission does. If it were to continue and complete the work undertaken by the last commission, Judge Oassels, on Friday or whenever he starts in, would find every door of every department at Ottawa open to him to look into its transactions and judge by the results as to the efficiency and the sufficiency of the departmental staff ; and any other subject that he thought was necessary to be inquired into for the same purpose. What this commission does, is simply setting aside by a rather bold hut at the same time transparent fiction, the real issue, trying to blind the people's minds while at the same time giving a semblance of a commission to get out what my right hon. friend so valiantly declared over and over again, he wanted, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The last thing that my hon. friend wants in this matter is the whole truth. I am anxious that the country shall know exactly what this second commission is to do, what it can do and what it cannot do. What it does I have declared, what it does not do but what the first commission did is to enter any other department, to look into any single transaction anywhere, to look into any dishonesty of action anywhere except In the cases that are brought to its attention in that report as to one department. I ask my right hon. friend what the inferences are ? Is it possible that the only lame duck you have in that government is the Minister of Marine and Fisheries ? Can it be possible that such a state of thing exists in one department and nothing like it in any other department ? Can it be that the people will not argue in that way ? People will say :	There sits Sir
Wilfrid Laurier, Mr. Fielding, Sir Richard Cartwright and Mr. Paterson, they are conducting this government, because they are the dominant members of the cabinet. In one branch of their work see what has happened-what in the world is taking place in the other branches ? Will you open the lid and let the country see ? No, Sir, you clamp it down and use Judge Cassels and a fiction commission in order to clamp it down and by making a show to the people that you are doing something to continue and complete the work done by the first commission.
My right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) flies to the rescue of Judge Cassels. It is not necessary. Judge Cassels, by his reputation and his action in this matter, has pretty well taken care of himself. What a surprise it must have been to the Minister of Justice, lord of all the judges, as I believe he once described himself, to get a polite note from Judge Cassels saying : ' I had no intimation of my appointment until I read it in the newspapers.' These gentlemen have gone on so long that they think every judge is tarred with the same Mr. FOSTER.
stick. Having had to do with Judge Mac-Tavish and that ilk they think that Judge Cassels and the others are the same and so, without consultation, they appointed him to do the work and had already agreed on the sum in addition to his own salary which they would offer him for doing that extra work. They have found that Judge Cassels is made of different stuff from Judge MacTavish. He immediately administered a reproof to these gentlemen, saying : I think you might have consulted me before you asked me to leave my pressing duties in the Exchequer Court and undertake this investigation ; I will not take any salary or emolument other than what I get as judge of the Exchequer Court and I want to be appointed by parliament and not by a simple minister. Certain of these things Judge Cassels has got; certain others he has not. But it was not necessary for my right hon. friend to fly to the defence of Judge Cassels who has shown that in these particulars he is well able to take care of himself. But the right hon. gentleman flew with terrible alacrity -with lightning wings he cleft the air in order to go to the rescue of those two bright particular stars, the counsel who have been appointed in the case. In that he was more ready than the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice talked for an hour or so, but in all his talk he never mentioned Mr. Perron once. Mr. Watson he knew, Mr. Watson he would vouch for, Mr. Watson was a crony of his own, Mr. Watson was a lawyer of the highest repute-I take the responsibility of his appointment. Thank you, Mr. Minister of Justice, but whether you take that responsibility or not does not make a bit of difference, it is the government that shoulders the responsibility for the appointment of counsel, the Minister of Justice is only the machine through which it is made," that is all. But was it not a little odd I ask you, Mr. Minister of Marine, that your own colleague, the Minister of Justice, never put in a single word for Mr. Perron who is the counsel appointed from the province of Quebec ? Was it an oversight or was Mr. Perron not so much a crony of the Minister of Justice as was Mr. Watson ? There it stands, but the right hon. gentleman came to the defence of both and what a model defence and what a novel defence it was 1 My right hon. friend in this year of his political life and after all his political and partisan acts in his government, assumes a face filled with indignation and overflowing with wisdom and enunciates the doctrine that it does not make to him a pin's difference what the political affiliations of a counsel are, these are never taken into consideration and should not be taken in consideration. Very good. Will my right hon. friend take his pencil and note down all the commis-

sions he has appointed, all the special committees he had appointed, all the counsel he has appointed for grave and other matters of public necessity, and point out one single instance wherein he forgot what was the political affiliation of the counsel? But it just happened that in a moment of somnolence or of weakness, to quote a phrase sometimes quoted by my hon. friend, in a moment of weakness he appointed one Shepley to undertake a very important piece of work and utterly forgot at the time what his political affiliations were. He likewise appointed Judge McTavish as a high court, in a way, and utterly forgot that Judge McTavish had political proclivities and affiliations nearly allied to his own. He appointed Judge Britton, that grand old independent hero without any political affiliations. Whenever a departmental commission is to be appointed he forgets that there are any political affiliations, but he a 1 ways wins out by having all Grits on that commission or a majority of Grits on any parliamentary committee so as to keep things taut. What a splendidly novel and bold defence that was that the Prime Minister made this afternoon. Certainly it must have its effect on the country.
But, says he, George Brown was defended by Hilliard Cameron; a lawyer's honour binds him to his client. So it does. Who is the client of these gentlemen? Who creates them? Who pays them? Who instructs them, verbally or otherwise? Somebody else who has no political affiliation at all. And here I want to protest once more against the action of the Minister of Justice in giving his verbal instructions to Mr. Perron and verbal instructions to Mr. Watson, though he said in his speech that they had been supplemented by written instructions in the ease of Mr. Watson. Is the same old game to be played? Political cronies, vitally interested in the success of their party and government, of which one is a member and the other is a partisan supporter, sitting down together and talking over the whole situation, and one of these, the member of the government, giving his verbal instructions to the other! Will he follow them, as he followed the others, by written instructions designed to guide them, pointing out just the course they should take and the precise time when the bomb should be exploded? Did he, in this case as in the other? Never a more bigoted political partisan occupied the seat of the Minister of Justice than the man who occupies it to-day. What about Mr. Watson? A good lawyer. Who says he is not ? He would not have been chosen by this partisan government for this purpose unless he had been a good lawyer. Mr. Watson may not have the very strongest and best inquisitorial powers, but he has shown that he has great repressive powers. He showed these repressive powers in the West Elgin election. Older now, more experienced, growing somewhat
heavier may be with age, who doubts that his repressive powers are stronger than ever they were ten years ago? And if they are brought to bear with equal success on the files of the department, on the cases to be tried, on the particular complexion of the officer who is to be remodelled, why it may have an effect similar to that it had in the West Elgin case. And how beautifully it fits in for the Minister of Justice, the unpartisan Minister of Justice, who appoints Judge Cassels to find out who is guilty, if anybody, of the subordinates, then to walk up into his own constituency and pass judgment on the delinquents before any inquiry was made by the judge, and declared them to be Tory officials. Here is what he said, I have it from the Globe:
Mr. Brodeur was going to investigate for himself, the sheep will be weeded out from the goats.
He was not a gardener at that time, was not a shepherd either, but a sort of hybrid between a gardener and a shepherd, and so he got the metaphor somewhat mixed. However, what he meant is clear:
The sheep will be weeded out from the goats, the Tory goats who deserve dismissal and they will have fit punishment meted out to them which they have gained for themselves.
There is your Minister of Justice, delightfully unpartisan. Will not the Prime Minister lecture him a little in the doctrine of non-political sentiments and feelings when he approaches a great state question? There is this gentleman who has prejudged the whole thing, creating counsel and sitting down and giving him verbal instructions. And yet we are asked to think that it will be carried out on the square? I do not believe it for a moment, neither will the country.
Now, I come to another branch of the subject. We are not alone at fault, said the First Minister, and he made a dramatic gesture, and asked some one to get up and throw a stone. Who will cast the first stone? says the Prime Minister. Well, that was statesmanlike, I must say. May I ask my right hon. friend where any reform in the wide world could ever take place if that answer was supposed to be sufficient? Here is a man who is brought up before a judge, accused of a crime, the evidence is getting pretty close and pretty hot, and he says: Your honour, John Smith did the same thing ten years ago and he was not punished. According to the doctrine of the Prime Minister, the judge will have to say: Go about your business and sin no more. Exactly on the same plane. What ineffable foolishness it is for the Prime Minister, of all men in the world, to meet a demand for revision and betterment in the great civil service of Canada, to say:	We
ai'e not worse than you were; get up and

75GO
cast the first stone if you can. It is not a question of casting a stone. People are getting wiser, systems are getting to be better understood, new ideas supervene, the experience of the world is constantly growing, and one age will endure what another age will not endure. So it is with reference to the civil service; and if my opinion is worth anything, Canada to-day is waking up to the importance of an improved civil service. Just here I beg to say that if my right hon. friend will bring in a Civil Service Act, prohibiting the features of influence, partisanship, and political appointments, he will have my most hearty support; and if he will press that to the very end of eliminating patronage from every purchase and every appointment by the government, he will have my support as well.
But my right hon. friend was not quite right. He says there was a commission in 1880. So there was, and after the commission of 1880 what was done? The Civil Service Act of 1882 was brought in and passed, and has been on the books ever since, adopting the principle of a civil service examining board, of a qualification and a promotion examination, and of a classification test. In 1892 another commission was appointed, I have the report of that commission in my desk. The report of that commission is worth studying by my right hon. friend, and especially by his Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance the other night tried to lead us to suppose that the report of the commission of 1892 was just as strong as the report of the commission of 1908. Any one who will read It will see the absolute difference. On the question of the operation of a civil service system, it was equally strong in 1892 as it is in 1908. In 1892 Mr. Barbeau and Mr. Hague, two members of that commission, went round the offices in Ottawa, looked them all through, made their comments on them, and with reference to this Department of Marine and Fisheries put in their report a statement which was read by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition to-day. That, Sir, was in 1891 and 1892. Then they said that with the exception of some obsolete methods of bookkeeping here and there through the departments, the departments were fairly well run, but in reference to that special department, they commended it because of its rigid oversight of its business and because of the fact that the supplies were economically bought. On that part of the report contrast 1892 with 1908 which has to do with the efficiency and sufficiency of the departmental staffs and methods of business; this commission's report is absolutely new and is absolutely clear on that point. In both you have the patronage system declared and execrated, but in this one it is ten. yes twenty times as strongly declared as it was in 1892.	.
But, may I call my right hon. friend's Mr. FOSTER.
attention to one thing? He and the Finance Minister declared that nothing was done. Nothing done? In 1893 we introduced, on the top of that commission, three Bills. The commission reported in favour of a civil service board to consist of a permanent chairman and four deputy heads, appointment by competitive examination, *>
clerks to be selected from the roster as established by competitive examination by the board, the superannuation system to be continued and an insurance system if it could be applied properly. In 1893 our government introduced an insurance Bill for the civil service, placed it on the statute-book and it remains there yet. We introduced a Bill strengthening the superannuation system by propounding and establishing fund No. 2 on a more equitable basis to the employees with six per cent interest allowed by the government and that was largely taken advantage of. And we introduced on February 3, 1893, a civil service Bill providing for a civil service board and for the strict supervision of the appointments to office and of the methods of conducting the business of the civil service in all the departments. Where was my right hon. friend? He rose and objected to it. Mr. Mills rose and objected to it. Both of them objected to it on principle and my right hon. friend moved the six months' hoist. Yet the Minister of Finance declared that we did nothing and my right hon. friend declared that we were quits as bad as they were. Well, we will see now what they do. I just leave that as a corrective of something which has been stated in the House and which is not quite correct.
One thing that amused me-and that expresses it exactly because it did not frighten me-was the forced denunciation of my hon. friend (Mr. Broder) by the First Min-ter. It was really a fine dramatic act. I and others sitting here and facing the chief actor could not help but admire the way in which enthusiasm and indignation were worked up and the splendid denunciatory tone in which the invective was launched against Andrew Broder. What was it that my right hon. friend found fault with Mr. Broder for? Mr. Broder, he said, went before a meeting of farmers-tinder, you know ! Farmers and farming questions are something like tinder ; you are apt to get a great, quick, and mighty prejudice aroused amongst a lot of farmers on a farming question! Mr. Broder actually went before the farmers and ventured to tell the farmers that the present government was extravagant in its expenditures for the militia and parsimonious in its expenditures for agriculture ! That was the whole thing. He did it of course, by an object lesson-so many millions for the militia and only half a million for pure agriculture, so many dollars for war and so many dollars for peace. It was the object lesson method of present-
APRTL 3ft. 1908
iDg the fact to the irascible and excitable farming audience that he had before him and he actually worked upon their prejudice to the detriment of the defence of this country, and my right hon friend blossomed out into a full grown champion of war and all the trappings of war. Why ? The one distinction that crowns the brow of the First Minister in Europe as well as in America is that he is a peace-at-any-price man. He hates militarism. He has vehemently denounced the militarism of the old country and fought against its being introduced into this country. He swept aside all the inducements for the colonies and Great Britain to get closer together because the spectre of militarism was above him day and night and frightened him. To-day he rather insinuates that some big thing is going to burst upon us in the shape of an unknown and contingent war and that Mr. Broder has been exciting the prejudices of the farmers against the proper defence of Canada. But, oh, Mr. Speaker, I did believe that it was a very fine play when I saw a portion of the audience that listened to him, said portion being the present Minister of Marine and Fisheries, for, in 1896, when I, as Minister of Finance proposed a vote of $1,000,000 in order to get some large artillery for this Dominion, absolutely defenceless,, in so far as that arm was concerned at that time, the present Minister of Marine and Fisheries denounced the project In this House, went down to the province of Quebec, toured through that province, got together audiences of his fellow-countrymen, wept tears and made them weep tears as he portrayed to them the foul iniquity of the Tories at Ottawa in putting up a vote of a million dollars for war in this country, the ultimate result of which would be that the French woman's sons would be torn from their arms and sent out to defend distant portions of the empire. Did my right hon. friend administer any rebuke to his friend and supporter, the present Minister of Marine and Fisheries when he appealed to the prejudice of race against the defence of Canada and against proper arming as regards large artillery at some of the ports ? Not at all. He gloried in it and lie thanked God for every vote he got by that kind of mechanism. Oh, these strange me-tamorphisms that at the last moment even gentlemen like my right hon. friend will be led to exhibit before the House and the country ! But my right hon. friend ended up by saying : We do not want any more investigations. That was one thing that I believed if I believed nothing else that he said during that speech. He and his party have shown that they do not want investigation. They have shown it in the Public Accounts Committee, shown it in this House, shown it in refusing us information before we voted supplies, shown it In refusing to
us investigation as to how supplies were expended after they had been voted and, time after time, has called his followers here to stand up against any beginnings of an adequate investigation into any department. Two years ago my hon. friend (Mr. R. I,. Borden) moved for an investigation into the Department of Marine and Fisheries. Then they all said :	It is a pure
and honest and efficient department, you shall not have any investigation. We trotted out the Merwins, we trotted in the Strubbes, we trotted in all the Brookes and the others, and we showed how they were fleecing right and left the Marine and Fisheries Department, and yet they would not allow us an investigation. My right hon. friend does not want any more investigations, but I venture to say that the people of this country do, and that they are bound to have more investigations. And so it is that the motion of the leader of the opposition, asking for what the Prime Minister says he has provided for, but which he has in reality estopped a continuation and completion of the work commenced by the first commission, is a motion which this side of the House can support and one which I believe he country will endorse. But, Sir, the man who wants the truth and the whole truth appoints a gentleman like Mr. Perron from the city of Montreal-I am saying nothing as to Mr. Perron's ability as a lawyer ; what I am saying is that for nine long years Mr. Perron was the partner of the minister whose subordinates are to be brought up before Judge Cassels in this investigation ; that he was not only a business-in-law partner with him but that he was a partner in Mr. Pre-fontaine's private and other concerns, and it is stated upon the streets of Montreal that he had a great many dealings with parties who had dealings with the minister and the departments. That is the kind of man -outside of his legal abilities entirely-a man who was the partner of the incriminated one for nine years, of the same political belief, engaged in the same schemes, profiting from the same enterprises ; that is the man that my right hon. friend has had the grace to interpose between truth and the public of this country in the investigation to be held by Judge Cassels. I miss my guess if the people of this country do not condemn that kind of thing. They like to see the game played fairly and they would have som'e idea that it was being played fairly if my right hon. friend had forgotten for a moment political bias and had placed a strong independent lawyer, or if he wanted two lawyers, a strong Conservative lawyer on that investigation and allowed the people some chance. The government by theory represents the people-this government by practice if not by theory represents its own selfish party interests an&

looks after those interests. And, to qualify these two gentlemen as being counsel for the people of Canada Is a misnomer. They are created "by and paid by and they will be rewarded by the party who has called them to thus interpose between a certain investigation and the people who demand it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I rather regret and I am a litle surprised at the course of the speeches of the hon. leader of the opposition and the hon. member for North Toronto. I had supposed when we were going to have a discussion on the report of the Civil Service Commission that we would have a discussion on the best way to improve the civil service of Canada.


George Eulas Foster: We will have that later.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am glad to hear that. I remember that a little while ago the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) had a motion ou the paper for that purpose. He dropped it.


George Eulas Foster: The hon. gentleman knows why I dropped it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Certainly.


George Eulas Foster: The hon. gentleman might state that.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I intend to. My hon. friend need not be so impatient.


George Eulas Foster: I want to keep you from falling into difficulties.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: You need not be alarmed; it is not my habit.


George Eulas Foster: What about that letter-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Will my hon. friend have
patience ?


George Eulas Foster: What about that letter the hon. gentleman got from Japan that he never got, and that he told this House he had when he never had it ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend dropped that motion for the purpose of discussing civil service reform. I had hoped he was going to discuss that question to-night, but instead of following his better bent he has taken up the role of a partisan and indulged in one of his usual speeches of that character. The leader of the opposition in his opening remarks said that when he read the report of the Civil Service Commission he thought, from a certain phrase in it, that it was a campaign document.


Mr.  R. I.@: ,. BORDEN. Of the Liberal party.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Of the Liberal party. I suppose my hon. friend had his mind so occupied with the idea that he intended to make a campaign document of this for the Mr. FOSTER.
Conservative party, that he thought it was intended for that purpose.


Robert Laird Borden: It spoke for itself.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It speaks for itself and if my hon. friend tries to he can find a great deal of good in it. But he prefers to try to make a campaign document of it and to turn it to his party political purposes rather than to draw from it anything for the benefit of the Civil Service of Canada. The hon. gentleman mentioned the fact that in a speech at Halifax last summer he laid down civil service reform as one of the planks of the Conservative platform. I believe he did on that occasion, but while I followed with some interest his tour throughout Canada I saw but little, after he left Halifax, of many things he had in the Halifax platform and I do not remember-subject to correction-that he dealt very insistently in other parts of the Dominion on that plank of his platform.


Robert Laird Borden: On 90 per cent at least of the occasions on which I spoke I addressed myself to that subject.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I accept the hon. gentleman's statement, but judging from the press reports of his various speeches I fear that part of them did not make so great an impression on the public or on the newspaper reporters who heard him as other parts of his speeches did. At all events, to-day the hon. gentleman is attempting to make a campaign document out of the report of the Civil Service Commission. I regret that. I spoke from the heart when I said that I would have hoped that we might discuss civil service reform and not party politics. However, my hon. friend is free to take whatever course he pleases. Now, the civil service reports which have been before the public of Canada from that of 1881 to that of 1908, are all full of strictures upon the political aspects of the civil service and of remarks about the evil effects of politics upon the Civil Service of Canada. I have no doubt whatever- speaking for myself and I think speaking for the inmost thoughts of everybody in the sound of my voice-that political influences are a serious detriment to the civil service, and that the result of political influence in this country is the same as it has been in England and in the United States in years past before civil service reform had been forced upon the people.
My hon. friend quotes these strictures in the report of the commission of 1908 with the evident intent of trying to hurt the present government, as though those strictures were only and entirely levelled at the civil service under the administration of the present government. I have here the report of 1881, which says this:
While there exists in the public mind a very general belief that the civil service is



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
not been sufficiently guarded against the evil effects of political patronage.
They wind up with this statement.
Politioal patronage is responsible for other evils, and we do not hesitate to express the conviction that many unnecessary civil offices have been retained, and that new places have been created, for no better purpose than to provide for the followers of influential politicians.
The recommendations in that report were directly in the line of competitive examinations under an independent civil service board. A law was passed in 1882, based largely on this report, but the essentials of the report were not carried out in that law, inasmuch as no independent board of civil service commissioners were appointed, and no competitive examinations were inaugurated. The result was that the civil service went on from 1881 very much in the same way as it did before. But we come to the report of 1892, made when the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Poster) was a member of the government, and what do we find in that report? We find the same condition of affairs described exactly as it was in the report of 1881. Referring to the report of 1881, the report of 1892 says:	[DOT]
Following this report a new Civil Service Act was passed in 1882, which provided for examinations to test the qualifications of candidates for positions in the public service, and also for the examination of candidates for promotion. This Act, although not going so far in its provisions as was recommended by the commission, has been amended year by year, with one exception, from the time of its being first placed on the statute-book until the year 1889, and so far as the commissioners have been able to observe, the amendments in general have tended in the direction of the relaxation of the provisions of the original Act, and the consequent prevention of its intention from being carried out.
They say further:
The principal recommendations contained in the Bill are (1) the appointment of a Civil Service Commission, and (2) the adoption of the principle of appointment by open competition.
They wind up thus:
It is possible that publio sentiment in Canada may not as yet be ripe for open competition generally, and it may not be possible as yet to eliminate altogether the power of politics in making appointments; but if the recommendations of your commissioners be accepted and strictly adhered to, the public service at Ottawa will, they are convinced, in the course of a few years, be better for the change. Intelligence and capacity will meet with their due reward, politics and favouritism will cease to dominate, the service will soon become attractive to many persons who now seek other avenues of employment, and in general the title of publio servant will be an honour to be coveted. The

[Stage Direction]
doors to appointments and promotions in the service will open only to capacity and honesty, and no man or woman who aspires, as all have a right to aspire, to any such position, will have occasion to seek or use any influence less honourable than his or her own merit and fitness for office.
That was their recommendation. My lion, friend from North Toronto has stated to what extent his government carried out that recommendation. He says that they passed a Bill for insurance of civil servants. That was not a reform of the civil service; it did not embody in any way the removal of political patronage. On the contrary, it simply aided to a certain extent those civil servants who were already in office. He says that they approved of the Superannuation Act. I dare say that is true, but that does not in any sense imply a reform of the Civil Service Act or the carrying out of the recommendations of the Civil Service Commission regarding political influences. But my hou. friend says that they introduced a Bill and that the right hon. the First Minister moved the six months' hoist of that Bill. But why did he do so? Because the Bill was inadequate and inefficient, and did not carry out the recommendations of the Civil Service Commission. I have here the ' Hansard ' of that day. Mr. Costigan, in moving the second reading, said that the Bill perhaps did not contain all they intended to put into it. Mr. Laurier then went on to say that the Bill had been introduced without a word of explanation, but we now had its provisions and he added:
If I understand the Bill rightlv, what the hon. gentleman proposes, under the name of oivil service board, is simply a detective agency to look after the civil service. Look at section i of the Bill, and see what are the duties it is proposed to place upon the supervisors of civil servants. ... At all events his duty is to see whether or not the clerks are properly discharging their work. I submit. in all conscience, that the minister under whom the department may be, or the deputy minister, or the chief clerk of the department, are quite competent to do that.
That is the doctrine of the ministerial responsibility which this government have always advocated and endorsed, and it was because of that reason the leader of the opposition at that time moved the six months hoist. He said :
The Bill did not introduce an independent board of commissioners and did not carry out any of the recommendations of the commission of 1892.
Mr. Casey then made a speech. Mr. Casey was one of the first who advocated civil service reform in this parliament. In 1880 or 1881 he introduced a civil service Bill, and it was largely in consequence of the speech he made on that occasion that the government appointed the commission Mr. FISHER.
of 1881 and that the statute of 1882 was placed on our statute-book. In this debate Mr. Casey aslo spoke. He said :
As to the official proposed to be created, to be called the supervisor of the civil servants, my leader has apparently expressed all the objections to such an appointment, and I will not add anything to what he has said. As to the creation of a civil service board to examine candidates for admission, promotion and so on, so far I can go with the government. But I intend, at a later stage, to propose an amendment carrying out more efficiently what one would understand to be implied by the appointment of an impartial and non-partisan board to manage the affairs of the civil service. I believe that the conduct of the civil service should not be on partisan lines but that appointments and promotions and other proceedings should be dictated by a board appointed as judges are appointed and as the civil service board in England are appointed, during good behaviour, and not responsible to any political minister of the day. I believe the service should be conducted on business principles, that appointments, promotions and all other matters connected with the service should be carried on as in a bank or insurance company or any other institution of that kind.
The result was, not that a vote was taken and the Bill defeated, but that, after the discussion, Mr. Costigan said :
If the House will allow me. I will withdraw the motion for its second reading.
Mr. LAURIER, Certainly.
Mr. COSTIGAN.: I can move the second reading another time when the amendments are prepared.


Wilfrid Laurier: When you choose to do so.


Mr. COSTIGAN  .@: I move that the Bill be read the second time to-morrow.


Mr. CHARLTON.: Will to-morrow ever
come?
To-morrow never did come. The Bill died a natural death. It was an abortion when introduced, and it never came into being.
I wish to say a few words with regard to the report of 1892. I have alluded to some of the recommendations of the commission of that day and to some of their statements regarding what they found in the service. I find here an interesting letter from Mr. Le Sueur, one of the best known and oldest civil servants in Ottawa who has since left the service. In this these words lie characterizes the service at that time :
Politics I need not define. We have it with us always, and we know what it means. The present question is, how does the intrusion of politics affect the public service? It affects it in many wavs: '
1.	By crowding it with unnecessary hands.
2.	By introducing into it, at times, inefficient or other unsuitable persons.
3.	Bv interfering with the due course of promotion.
4.	Bv interfering with the exercise of necessary discipline.



APRTL 30. 1908

[Stage Direction]
5.	By interfering with the due course of departmental procedure.
These are the Drimar evils of some of them. The secondary (in the sense of derivative) evils are to be found in the moral effects upon the service at large of these attacks, if I may so call them, upon the integrity of its organization and methods. How can industry be enforced in an overcrowded office? How can a proper standard of work be maintained where same are markedly inefficient? How can the moral of the service be kept at a high point if justice is trifled with? How can an officer who is not supposed to be a political partisan enjoy the highest measure of selfrespect if he is compelled, or thinks himself compelled, to act as a partisan?
That was dated January 2, 1S92. Sir. Le Sueur was then secretary of the Post Office Department and well qualified by his experience and honesty to pronounce upon it.
Sly lion, friends have quoted a lot from the present civil service report. But there Is a word or two in it which they were careful not to quote and to which I would refer them. Referring to tile commission of 1892, the commissioners say :
Your commissfoners regret to state that in their opinion the hopes of the members of the former commission have not been realized. The provisions of the Civil Service Act and its amendments have not made the service any better. In fact the Act has been so amended, re-amended and whittled down, that the public service, the. commissioners believe, not only at Ottawa but elsewhere throughout the Dominion, has fallen back during the last fifteen years.
Fifteen years took them back to the report of 1892 ; and it is curious to relate that since 1896, when this government came into power, we have not made any amendments to the Civil Service Act. It is the same Act, whittled down and made so poor and useless by the party opposite that it was ineffective.
Robert Laird Borden: The expression ' whittled down ' probably referred to the repeal, in individual cases, of the Act from session to session.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think so. Coming immediately after the quotation from the report of 1892, I took it to be an endorsement and corroboration of what was said in that report.


Robert Laird Borden: Was there any Act between 1892 and 1896 whittling or cutting down the Civil Service Act ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not know that there was, but there was nothing to improve it, and the late government had the opportunity of improving it.
My hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) and his colleague (Mr. Foster) talked a great deal about the Department of Marine and Fisheries and the strictures thereupon. I shall not go into 249}	,
that matter except to point out that in the report of 1892, while the language is not so extreme or violent, the same thing is actually referred to. In my opinion violence of words and extreme language do not add force to strictures or make them any more applicable or true. Tre report of 1892 contains this remark about the purchases:
This is fully treated pf in the separate report on revenue and expenditure, but generally it may be stated that there has been a tendency in some cases to purchase in such a manner that the government pays retail prices for wholesale quantities.
In another part of the report it goes into that much more fully and deals with it almost as extensively as the report of 1908, but not in such extreme or violent language. I wish to deal with some of the things my hon. friend from North Toronto has said tonight. But first, let me say that I will try to keep to the question of the civil service and the Civil Service Commission. I do not think it is profitable in this or any other debate to drag in and dilate upon and picture in glowing words questions-that have been discussed and threshed out and disposed of in this House years ago. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) talked about the Department of the Interior. He said that no doubt certain things would have been discovered if the commissioners had gone on and devoted their attention to that department. He instanced certain questions in regard to the disposal of public lands and timber limits in the Northwest. He knows, no one better, that these very questions have been discussed here one or two or three years ago, have been disposed of by votes of this House that all his accusations and insinuations and those of his colleagues in the opposition have been completely answered and disposed of, and that since that time, in byelection after by-election in the country, these same questions have been paraded before the electors; the electors have been appealed to on these questions to defeat the government candidate and the series of government victories has been almost unbroken. What is and what can be the object of the hon. gentleman bringing up and resuscitating these things ? Is it simply to give himself the pleasure of the glowing word-painting he so often indulges in ? Is it simply to give himself the pleasure of gloating over imaginary scandals which he thinks may affect the country and that by constant repetition he thinks these things will come to be believed and so affect public opinion ? There is no fair or decent politics in such a course, but the hon. gentleman returns to these matters over and over again and deals with them in a xvay which I am disposed to characterize in words that would hardly pe decent or proper to use in parliament.


Alexander Johnston: It was properly characterized In the Public Accounts Committee and declared to be a lie.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The hon. member for North Toronto reproached the First Minister because he had spoken briefly in answer to the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Borden). It is not always by any means the length of the speech that proves its effectiveness, in fact it may be said in general terms that the effectiveness of a speech is in inverse ratio to its length and that instead of quoting details of all kinds, instead of repeating over and over again, it is better to go to the heart of a question, to put the salient points before the House and the country and to deal with it on broad, statesmanlike lines, and I venture to think that the half hour of the right, hon. the leader of the governmet (Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier) was quite sufficient to reply and effectively reply to the two and a half hours of the leader of the opposition. I believe, too, that a reply can be as effectively made to the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) in a much less time than that hon. gentleman spoke. He said the leader of the government had been on the wrong side. We have heard that for 12 years, we heard it when we first came into power, it was blazoned by the Tory speakers in the House and in the country that the Liberals had not the instinct of government and that it was impossible for us to have more than one term in power. Tbe results of 1900 clearly showed the error of that argument. We had the same thing for the succeeding four years from 1900 to 1904, and again we went before the people, and again these hon. gentleman's lucubrations, again their aspersions were declared to be absolutely without foundation. Since 1904 the same kind of thing has been going on and there is absolutely no indication that my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has in any way lost his cunning, or lost that keen, comprehensive ] tower of seizing the essentials in great public questions and being on the right side, the side which the people will endorse and support every time.
The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) then began to criticise and discuss the remarks of my right hon. friend. He caught him up on the statement that Mr. Justice Cassels was appointed to complete the inquiry. He knows perfectly well, every one knows perfectly well that it was not the general inquiry that it was suggested Judge Cassels will complete ; it is simply the question of the dishonesty of officials in the Marine Department which he is to complete. The commissioners made their report in general terms, they did not even make a direct accusation, but they indicated and showed they believed there was dishonesty on the part of certain officials Mr. FISHER.
there. It was to complete that part of the investigation, to finish up that question of dishonesty, to either acquit these officers of the aspersions upon them or to prove that they were guilty and enable the government to punish them In accordance with their guilt. In that sense and in that way Judge Cassels is to complete and round out that portion of the work of the Civil Service Commission ; but upon the other question it is not intended and nobody suggests that he should supplement the other parts of the report either in regard to the investigations in the department or recommendations as to civil service reform. In respect to these matters the Civil Service Commissioners completed their report. The hon. member for North Toronto said that the appointment of Judge Cassels was for the purpose of contracting the Minister of Marine and Fisheries out of his responsibility. If Judge Cassels was to undertake to investigate the management and the efficiency of the organization of the Department of Marine and Fisheries it might be said that he was appointed for the purpose of contracting the minister out of his responsibility. But he was not so appointed and it is not his business to do any work at all in connection with that part of the administration of the Department of Marine. The Minister of Marine, assuming his full responsibility as a minister, is quite prepared to do that, is doing that and is quite competent and able to do that, and I have no doubt whatever that with the help of the information which may be supplied him in regard to the dishonesty of officials and with the details as to the organization of the department which have been to a certain extent supplied him by the report, the Minister of Marine will be the better able to carry out his reorganization of that department and will succeed in doing it at no distant time.
The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) spoke of the government having discussed what we were to pay Judge Cassels for his work. I can say to the hon. member absolutely that there was no discussion as to what Mr. Cassels was to be paid or whether he should be paid at all. He was simply appointed because we believed him to be the proper and right kind of man to carry on the work for which he was appointed. It was not a question of payment. If he had wanted pay there is no doubt that the government would have been ready as the country would have been ready to pay him a fair amount for the work. He undertook to say he would not do it unless it was done without reward. All honour to him for that. All honour to him for it, I am glad he has done so. But the government have never proposed or suggested to Judge Cassels what reward he should get, or whether he should get any reward at all. Sir, in the appointment of Judge Cassels the government did



APRIL 30. 1903

[Stage Direction]
not discuss the matter with him, because we did not wish him to think for a moment that we were making any bargain with him. Judge Oassels was selected by the government because he was thought to be a suitable man and competent for the work, and I have no doubt he will carry it out in the way intended by the government and the way it ought to be carried out. But the hon. me'mber for North Toronto, without any evidence on which to base his opinion, without even having had the decency to ask the government a question on the subject, coolly jumps to the conclusion that the government have discussed and agreed upon the reward they should give Judge Cassels, when as a matter of fact nothing of the kind was discussed or even thought of. Sir, that is the way in which the hon. member for North Toronto builds up a fabric out of his own imagination, and by his word painting makes it seem almost real; then it goes out to the country, as It will be reported tomorrow, that the government have arranged to bribe Judge Cassels by appointing him to this work and giving him a large reward when, as a matter of fact, nothing of the kind was thought of. But it is the habit of the member for North Toronto, followed unfortunately by many hon. members opposite, to make baseless charges, and for the Conservative press to state them as facts, even though they are immediately denied afterwards.
Sir, the hon, member for North Toronto and the leader of the opposition have spoken of their desire to help us carry into effect amendments to the Civil Service Act. I am glad to hear it, I hope they will loyally fulfil their promise when the opportunity arises. But when they choose, in a discussion of so important a subject, to mix up the question of civil service reform, which ought to be discussed without partisanship, with a political attack upon the government in a formal motion of want of confidence, I can hardly believe in their sincerity or in their desire for civil service reform. I hope they are sincere, and when the government brings down a Bill to amend the Civil Service Act so as to make the service more efficient, I will be glad of the cooperation and endorsement of hon. gentlemen opposite. Sir, I do not intend to go into the question of civil service reform tonight beyond saying this, that I hope before the end of this session the government will be in a position to introduce a Bill to amend the Civil Service Act. I hope and trust that that Bill will make the Act more workable, and will improve the public service, and 1 believe that can be done on the lines of the reports and recommendations of the three Civil Service Commissions who have made reports to the government of Canada. I would be glad indeed if the present government were able to do what former governments did not do, although they had before them the reports
and recommendations of commissions of their own appointing. But they never acted upon them, and the result is that today the civil service of Canada is no better than it was 25 or 30 years ago when the Act of 1868 was in force. X hope that before long this government will be able to carry out a great reform of this kind, and thus justify its name as a reform government.
Mr. A. BRODER (Dundas).: I would not have risen to speak on this occasion were it not for some remarks that the leader of the House saw fit to direct against myself when I was unfortunately absent from the House.
I have taken the trouble to find out what he said, and I desire to make some reply. He referred to me as having made certain statements before a farmers' meeting. I want to say to the right hon. gentleman that the statements he refers to I made, not before a farmers' meeting, but in this House, and in his own presence. X made those statements here, and I will take the liberty of repeating them again to-night, as I shall repeat them again in the country. I was very careful to quote the figures from the government blue books to prove my statement. I have yet to learn whether it is appealing to the lowest sentiments of any class of people when you ask them to compare the expenditure of one department of government with that of another department. That is the position I took, and if the right hon. gentleman sees fit to accuse me of using indiscreet language, perhaps I could remind him of an occasion, even in this parliament, when the most indiscreet language ever used in this parliament was used by the right hon. gentleman himself, and in my presence. If I may be allowed to refer to a past debate-the right hon. gentleman himself has referred to it-I allude to the statement he made in the discussion of the Japanese treaty, when he drew on his imagination to picture the combined fleets of England and Japan facing a common enemy in the Pacific ocean. Now, Sir, that speech was adversely criticised in the English press. Everybody knows that at that particular time there was a good deal of friction between the United States and Japan. If my statement was indiscreet, what are we to thiDk of the statement of the right hon. gentleman who is at the head of the government, and with whom your humble servant cannot be compared? Now, when I referred to the expenditure in the Militia Department, I made no criticism whatever of that department further than to say that this government was spending $11 on that department to $1 that they were spending on the great avocation of agriculture. I say that is true, and I will give the figures. I quoted from the government blue books of 1906. because that was the last full year of which we had any record. Turning to page 34 of the Public Accounts,

you will find this statement: Arts, Agriculture and Statistics, $003,500.34. Now, I have deducted from those figures the items which have no reference whatever to agriculture. For instance, Archives; would the right hon. gentleman tell me what these have to do with agriculture or produce of any kind that is raised on the farm ? The ' Patent Record '-what has that to do with the farming interests of the country? Census and Statistics-does that belong to the Agriculture Department any more than to any other? Criminal Statistics-does the hon. gentleman want to say that the criminal class are found among the farmers of this country? That is what his book says, the criminal statistics are charged up to the farmer. Here is the Year Book. I do not know that any man can say in whose interest that book is issued. It is not in the farmer's interest. For general statistics there was an expenditure of $14,-111.S5. Is that in the interest of the farmer any more than in the interest of any other class of people? Then, we find ' historical data re Acadian families.' Is that in the interest of agriculture? 'Quinquennial census, Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan ' called for an expenditure of $4,980. Is that in the interest of agriculture? After deducting these items I find that we have spent, in 1906. $518,976.56 in the interest of agriculture. As against that you take Militia and Defence and you find that there was an expenditure for that service of $4,294,124.62 chargeable to income and of $1,299,875.65 chargeable to capital account. Taking these figures it is within a few cents of $11 for war to $1 for agriculture. I say that should not be so. The right hon. Prime Minister said that he hoped we would never have the conditions of Germany, France and other European countries which have such heavy expenditures for war. Well, let us see. I hope we will never be in that position and the fact that we are not in that position and are never going to be in that position is a justification for my statement. Now, we will take France and these other European countries which have to be on a w'ar footing all the time. The peace of the world is in the balance and it would be jeopardized if these nations did not keep upon a war footing. Nothwithstanding that France is kept on a war footing, what is her expenditure for agriculture ? I am taking the figures which were given in a report to the president and Senate of the United States and which are thoroughly authenticated. Nothwithstanding the statement I make about these countries, France spends on agriculture yearly $9,200,000, as against an expenditure in Canada of $518,000 ; Austria spends $9,270,000 ; Hungary, $9,400,000 and Russia, which has had a most strenuous war, spends $25,280,000. Russia is our future rival in the sale of agricultural products. Japan spends $3,-Mr. BRODER.
750,000 a year, the United States, $10,000,000, and Canada. I repeat, $518,976.56. While the expenditure of other departments has been increased from one to threefold, the expenditure in the interest of agriculture has stood still. The commission, whose report is under discussion this afternoon, have criticised more severely than anything else the Department of Militia and Defence. What do they say ?
The expenditure in this department is going up by leaps and bounds.
I want to ask this House if the militia of this country is any more effective than it was ten years ago? You have machinery enough for an army of 125,000, but you have only 38,000 men. You say that this is the framework of an army but there is no permanency in the rank and file because you drill them once a year instead of for three years which is a mistake. You have done away with the three year rule.


Frederick William Borden: No, that has not been done. The term of service has never been changed from three years to one.


Andrew Broder: I stand corrected. The commission proceed to say that:
In the estimates lately submitted to parliament for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1909, appropriations are asked for aggregating $6,500,000.
Is there a justification for that? With an expenditure of $518,000 for agriculture I say that my criticism is a fair and just criticism and it is a criticism that ought to be made. So much for that
I want to say before I sit down that I am pretty careful in the statements which I make and that I do not make statements without taking the trouble to verify them. I propose to give the expenditures for a few years in the Militia Department. I am quoting from the annual report of the Militia Council published last year and what do they say? If you take the men in the field, as detailed in this report for 1906, you will find a large preponderance of officers-an officer for every two and a half or three men. That is the bones of an army with a vengenee. The statement of the expenditure by the Department of Militia and Defence since 1896, is as follows:
Year.	Expenditure.
1896-	7	
$2,413,6511897-	8	
1,688,2131898-	9	
2,500,6351899-	1900	
3,624,6541905-6	
5,594,009
My figures are taken from the public documents and I am usually pretty careful to see that they are verified before I state them. The right hon. First Minister has expressed his regret that I should have stated these facts but all I can do is to tell

the truth. X am not going to say anything I should not say even to please the right hon. gentleman.


Richard Blain: Will you speak before the farmers any more?


Andrew Broder: I will if they want me. I never force myself on any meeting and I do not intend to. I wish to say that I am not going to be responsible for what the press say about me. I see that one paper says that I said there were less people in this country than there were in 1896. I am not accountable for that and X never made such a statement. I am simply accountable for what I say in this House and elsewhere. With regard to civil service reform, we hear a lot about the sinner who used to live in this country ten or fifteen years ago. It does not make any difference about who that sinner is or where that sinner is now. It is the sinners we have here that we have to deal with. That there are sinners the report of the commission has made plain. In 1891, when there was trouble in one of the departments, several civil servants were expelled, a minister of the Crown was sent into private life and some prominent party men were prosecuted in the court. Now, will these hon. gentlemen go that far and deal with those who are guilty? If they say they will we will see a very curious condition of things in this country. It will not strike one department only. Irregularities may grow up under any administration and with the large business of this country there may be an incentive to men to go wrong, but the men who are at the bead of affairs are chargeable with the responsibility of keeping things right side up and if they do not do it they are guilty and not the other people. They are the men who are responsible. If everything were in a flourishing condition in these departments you would hear hon. gentlemen opposite taking a lot of credit to themselves. Now, since things have gone, these gentlemen say: These things do not belong to us; this is an heirloom that we got from the old Tory party; we have inherited this trouble. You have inherited it but the child has grown on your hands and when you talk about rascality-shall I use that word?-it is pretty severe-the Conservative party may have sinned, but, as compared with hon. gentlemen opposite, they were in the primer when these gentlemen were in the fifth book. That is the plain . English of it. The interests of the country and the interests of public life demand that a thorough scrutiny and investigation should be held under the control of these gentlemen who have the right to see that the public departments are cleansed of what is not proper, and that the public service of the country should have that honest deal which it is entitled to from any government no matter what its party
stripe may be. I have not criticised anybody very much in this House, and perhaps that is a good thing for myself as well as for the opposite side, but there may a time come when I shall consider it my duty to discuss certain men and certain measures, and then I shall say what I have to say fearlessly and above board. I have never yet taken undue advantage of my opponent no matter who he may be, and I shall not do so in future, but I am going to have fair-play even if I have to fight for it.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: 
Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, he will never dare to do that. He will make insinuations but he will not have the courage to make charges and to expose himself to the consequences. Let him make charges against

me; we will have an investigation and we will find out which of us shall retain his seat in parliament; we will find who will be branded as a slanderer, and who will stand before this country a man who did his duty.


Samuel Hughes: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question ? Did or did not the hon. gentleman in 1896 pursue the same policy which I regret to-day is pursued by certain gentlemen now, of endeavouring to make capital out of the expenditures of the Militia Department? Did or did not he appeal to the fanaticism of the people of his province by stating that Canada was spending money for the purchase of arms for the defence of the empire?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Let me at once say that when the hon. gentleman speaks of the fanaticism of the people of my province he speaks of something which does not exist. There is no fanaticism in my province, and I believe the hon. gentleman knows it. We are broadminded in the province of Quebec. AVe are not ruled by prejudice, we are working for our country and for the advancement of our country. AVe are glad to serve under the British Crown to which we are devoted. And, Sir, when at different times in our history British connection was in danger it was the French Canadian who were there to defend it. AVho in 1775 stood up in defence of the British Crown if not the French Canadians? Who in 1812 fought the battle of Chateauguay and repulsed the American troops, if not the French Canadians? And. Sir, in 1849 when, because of the repeal of tne corn laws in England certain Canadians signed a document in favour of annexation to the United States, who were the signers? Let the hon. member (Mr. Sam Hughes) look at the signatories to that document and he will not find five French Canadians among the number. I tell the hon. member that there is no fanaticism among the French Canadians. The French Canadians are devoted to their country. I resent the insult flung at them to-night by the member for [DOT]Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) and I regret to say that such insults have become a habit with certain members on the opposite side.
Mr; SAM. HUGHES. Would the minister be good enough to answer my question, and I will substitute the word ' prejudices ' for the word fanaticism. He has given us a nice little speech now, but let him answer the question.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I have never appealed also to the prejudices of my countrymen. I know that my hon. friend (Mr. Sam. Hughes) is probably living upon such appeals which he makes against the French Canadians. I know that he has been in the habit of insulting my fellow countrymen.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: 


Samuel Hughes: What Is tnat,
again?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I say that the hon. gentleman is in the habit of insulting my fellow countrymen.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. gentleman cannot show an instance in my whole history where I insulted the French Canadian people. However, I shall reply to the hon. gentleman later.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Let me for a moment discuss the question before the chair.


Mr. LENNOX.: That is a good idea.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is certainly a good idea, and had I not been interrupted, I-would not have digressed. Now, Mr. Speaker, what is the motion before the chair ? Let us read the first paragraph of it, and we will see that hon. gentlemen opposite do not want an investigation made ; they do not want that the truth should be known; they do not want that Judge Cassels should be called on to make an investigation. Here is the way the motion reads :
That the investigation conducted by the Civil Service Commission was confessedly partial and incomplete.
That the proposed inquiry before Mr. Justice Cassels is unsatisfactory and insufficient, inasmuch as it relates to only one paragraph of the report of that commission and touches but a portion of the administration of one department.
So I understand that hon. gentlemen opposite are going to record their votes in favour of the declaration that we should not investigate the charge that is made in the report of the Civil Service Commission that there are men who have no conscience in the Marine and Fisheries Department. Let them read this motion. They do not seem to have read it, because they are laughing now. What does the report of the Civil Service Commission state ? It states that there is a lack of conscience amongst the officers of the Marine and Fisheries Department. I proposed to my colleagues to have an investigation made as to whether that statement was true or not, and I think it was the proper step to take ; I think that the country will commend the action that we have taken. But now we find hon. gentlemen opposite saying ; No, don't make an investigation ; we do not want an investigation made. That is the position which they are going to take. Well, I expect that the House will not agree to such a motion ; I expect that the House will stand by the government in declaring that an investigation must be made, and that we must find out whether there is a lack of conscience amongst the ' officers of the Marine and Fisheries Department or not.

But, Mr. Speaker, let us take from the Civil Service list the names of the officers of the Department of Marine and Fisheries appointed by hon. friends opposite. Is it because they are appointments of the late government-recommended by some members 'who are now sitting in this House- that the hon. gentlemen do not want an investigation ? I think so, Mr. Speaker. Let us take the names. The deputy minister was appointed in 1896 by hon. gentlemen opposite. Take the three chief clerks in the Marine Correspondence Branch; they were all appointed by hon. gentlemen opposite-one in 1879, one in 1873, the other in 1882. Take the Fisheries Correspondence Branch ; the two principal officers there were appointed by the Conservative government-one in 1892, the other in 1869. Take the Accountant's Branch ; the chief accountant was appointed in 1881, the next in 1879, and the assistant accountant was appointed in 1904 under this government. Take the Chief Engineer's Branch ; Colonel Anderson, the head of this branch, was appointed on October 23, 1874, by a Liberal government, and he is a man against whom there is absolutely nothing in the report of this commission. Mr. B. H. Fraser was appointed in 18S9, Mr. W. Bell Dawson in 1894. Take the Hydrographic Survey Branch; the chief was appointed in 1884. Take the Commissioner of Lights' Branch ; the commissioner was appointed in 1893, the assistant in 1883. Take the agents, of whom we have five-one in St. John, one in Halifax, one in Charlottetown, one in Montreal, and one in British Columbia ; of these five officers four have been appointed by the late government. Well, I am sure that our hon. friends opposite are not asked by the officers of the department, to oppose an investigation, as they do by their motion. No ; they want the truth to be known ; they are anxious that the truth be known, and it is only hon. gentlemen opposite who do not want the truth to be known. Are they afraid of something ? But hon. gentlemen opposite say: Oh, but the minister is entirely responsible ; if there has been some stealing in the department, the minister is responsible for it, whether it took place some time ago or many years ago. While the administration of the department may not have been all that it should have been, I repeat that the system in existence there is the system which has existed not only since the Liberals have been in power, but even when the Conservatives were in power, and I am going to prove it immediately.
The hon. leader of the opposition has quoted a great deal from the report of the Civil Service Commission, but he has failed to quote some paragraphs which are very interesting. He was very anxious to condemn me ; he was very anxious to prove that the existing Minister of Marine and Fisheries was responsible for everything that was found in that department. He did not quote page 37-oh, yes, he made a quotation, but stopped short. I quote it again, and this time I will complete the sentence which the hon. leader of the opposition commenced but left uncompleted :
Your commissioners have to confess that the general conclusions which they have formed regarding the administration of the department are most unfavourable. It seems to have a few redeeming features, although there are some, one of which is the presence in the department of some good men, chiefly but not wholly in the lower ranks. With a better organization and better methods these might form the nucleus of a good staff.
I think my hon. friend stopped there ; but there is another phrase which it might be interesting to know, and here it is :
The trouble is not of recent origin but has been long continued and is the result of evil methods and practices persisted in for many
years.
Was the hon. leader of the opposition afraid to quote this part ? The hon. member sitting beside him (Mr. Foster) has been Minister of Marine and Fisheries; he was perhaps one of those responsible for these evil practices ; what did he do to stop them? I might quote something to my hon. friend on the subject of arrears of payment. I need not go very far ; I will take the last report of the Auditor General during the time the Conservatives were in power, and what do I find there ? I find that there have been in those last years some arrears of payments. But if hon. gentlemen opposite want to do me justice, let them read the evidence given by Colonel Gourdeau. If they will read that evidence, they will find that there has been a great change made in the administration of the department. Let them read at page 649 of the evidence, vol. 1, and they will find the following evidence given by Colonel Gourdeau, the deputy minister:
Q. When you have a supply granted by parliament, do your officers try to live within that supply?-A. Yes, under the present minister. There is an order which has been adhered to. First of all, an account is received. That has to go to the clerk who looks after the estimates. If it corresponds with the estimates, he attaches his initials to it. Then it goes to the accountant who checks it. If it is an expenditure for a new boat or lighthouse, it has to stand until next year.
Q. You are trying to keep within the estimates of the year?-A. Yes. The present minister said he would hold the accountant responsible if anything was paid for that was not estimated for, he would take strict measures to prevent recurrence of that.
Q. The present minister has taken steps to keep the expenditure of the department within the appropriations?-A. Absolutely, and is particular in exacting a monthly statement showing how the appropriations stand.

I would like to know if the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) exacted that monthly statement when he saw how the r (fairs of the department were administered.
Q. There was a certain amount of laxity previous to his assumption of office?-A. It was a continuation of what had been the practice under every government. When they had to spend money, they spent it.
There is the best answer to the insinuations of hon. gentlemen opposite. Here is the evidence of a man who has been connected with the service under all the governments since 1867, and who states under oath that the present minister is the one who has made such an important change in the administration of the department. Even under the administration of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), this man says that the old system was existing and there were accounts which were not paid. But I have got here in the Auditor General's Report for 1S95-6 letters showing that the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster)-who, I regret, is not in his seat now-was in the habit of making payments for one appropriation out of another appropriation, without any legitimate excuse. Here is the correspondence interchanged between the department and the Auditor General. It will be found on page 115 Part T of the Auditor General's Report for 1895-6. Mr. McDougall called the attention of the department to the fact that they were taking money-were I to follow the example set by some hon. gentlemen opposite, I should use the word * stealing '-from one vote and applying it to another. I shall not, however, use the word ; I am not the kind of man to use expressions and insinuations absolutely uncalled for. But what are the facts ? Here is Mr. McDougall complaining of the action of the department in ta' ing money from one vote and applying it to another. And I may observe that these irregularities were sanctioned by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster). Would any one believe it ? It was this great administrator. It was not that crazy man, as he described me the other day. That is the language which the hon. gentleman uses with regard to myself, but here is what Mr. McDougall says. The deputy minister thought, of course, that when he could tell the Auditor General that it was the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), then Finance Minister, who had sanctioned these payments, no further difficulty would be made, but here is what the then Auditor General, Mr. McDougall, said :
Now if it were proper to charge these cheques to maintenance, it would have been equally so to charge them to any other vote covered by your credit; so that you see if such transactions are allowed to pass unnoticed, the subdivision of the annual sup-Mr. BRODEUR
plies into separate and distinct appropriations would be a farce, and, so far as keeping expenditure under its proper vote is concerned, parliament might as well vote the whole supplies in one lump sum.
And the deputy minister replies by sending to the Auditor General a letter of the hon, member for North Toronto (Mr. Fos-terl in which he said that this way of making payments was a proper thing to do. There is ample evidence to show that the practice of spending under one vote the moneys belonging to another vote was quite common under the administration of this paragon, the Ex-Minister of Finance (Mr. Foster). Now, let me quote the evidence of another person. Bet me quote the letter of Mr. Gregory, on page 78, in which, writing about the Auditor General's inquiry regarding prices, he says:
I beg respectfully to state that the prices charged by J. J. Murphy, Samson & Filion, Terreau & Racine, are all fixed and agreed upon in advance. If lower rates are expected, I have no idea how you can obtain them. There has been no other system in the service before or since confederation, and it remains with the department to establish means of effecting a change.
I am trying to make a change, and if my hon. friends who, since the two years I have been in that department, have kept on criticising it day in and day out and making insinuations, will give me enough time to make those changes, I will see that the mistakes of administration which were made, even when the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) was Minister of Marine and Fisheries, will be corrected. It appears that I am to be responsible for everything set down in this respect, even for things which happened when this government was not in power. And we are told that we should not have an investigation made by a judge but by an independent commission. Here are officers of the department, charged with being derelict in their duties, charged with having lack of conscience, and who are asking for an investigation. Well, we have appointed Judge Cassels to investigate. But hon. gentlemen do not want a judge to make the investigation. What is it they want? I know what it is. If they were in power they would probably do what they did in 1892, and perhaps my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, who was not then a member of this House, will find extraordinary the procedure which was then adopted by his political friends. Would he believe me when I say-but he would not, I will quote the order in council.


Robert Laird Borden: I always believe you.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Charges similar to these were made against officers of one of the departments in 1891 and what happened ? Were they referred to an inde-

pendent commission as this motion states ? Were they referred to a commission absolutely independent ? Yes. The independent commission was composed of, do you know whom ? It was composed of the [DOT]minister whose officials had been found derelict in their duty, together with two other members of the government of that day. I am glad to say that my hon. friend the member for Lanark was one of those independent members called upon to investigate the actions of the Conservatives. Let us suppose for one moment that I had passed an order in council providing that I should myself make this investigation. You would see these hon. gentlemen rising in the'.r seats and saying: Look at the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, the guilty one, the culprit! he is investigating his own actions ! Here is the order in council passed in 1893, appointing Mr. Dewdney, the minister whose officials were found stealing money. The member for Lanark (Mr. Haggart) was also responsible as a Minister of the Crown for the actions of the officials, yet he assisted in investigating them ; and last but not least, the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) was also on that commission. Here is an independent commission ; that is doubtless the one quoted by the hon. the leader of the opposition in his motion when he speaks of independent commissions.


Mr. HAGGART.: Would the minister tell us what the finding of the commission was ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, I shall read the order in council, although it was rather long.


John Graham Haggart: What was the finding ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The point I wish to make is that the hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) has been complaining that the minister is responsible for the actions of his officers. The hon. member for Lanark claims that too, I suppose ?


John Graham Haggart: Yes.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Then does the hon. gentleman think it was a fair thing for the men who were responsible for the actions of those officers to themselves investigate those actions ? Does he think it was a fair thing to do ?


John Graham Haggart: It was our duty to investigate and we dismissed every one of them.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Oh, no, the hon. gentleman goes too far.


John Graham Haggart: Every one against whom any charge was proved.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: He did not dismiss them all. I think it is not fair. The hon. the leader of the opposition claims that the minister is responsible. Then the hon. gentleman should have dismissed himself, he should have resigned. But no, they cut the heads off the others, the small fry, but they kept their seats in the cabinet. However, the people dismissed them at the next election.
I did not think it would be proper for a minister or members of the cabinet to investigate the mctions of the officers. These officers were not appointed by us, none of those whose conduct will come before Mr. Justice Cassels were appointed by this government; and I thought it was fair and just that the investigation should be carried on by an Independent commission, not an independent commission such as my hon. friends opposite, but a judge, a commissioner in whom the country would have confidence in order that justice might be rendered to all parties. It is Interesting thus to read what has been done in the past and then to see the indignation of my hon. friends opposite. We have seen something of this to-day. We know that the hon. gentlemen had before them the report of the other Civil Service Commission, urging the appointment of an independent Civil Service Commission. They have done nothing, but to-day they are urging strongly such a change in system. When they were in power they never found it advisable to make the change which was recommended in that report.
Much has been said with regard to the expenditure of the Department of Marine. It is true that our department has spent money and we have been obliged to spend money. Why ? Because when the hon. gentlemen were in power they did not do their duty to the country. Take the case of Aids to Navigation. Will anybody deny the importance of having aids to navigation in order to help our shipping, in order to improve our trade, in order to add to the wealth of our country. Will hon. gentlemen opposite deny that ? We must judge them by their policy in the past; they were letting everything go to decay ; no aids to navigation were provided, no proper facilities were given and what was the result ? I shall quote some very eloquent figures which will show to this country that this government has done its duty with regard to transportation, with regard to aids to navigation, in such a way that we have reduced materially the rate of insurance on goods going to or from Canada. I have here the figures which will show the rates of insurance from Montreal direct to ports in the United Kingdom on provisions and merchandise and on grain, under the Conservative government and under this government:

Rate on Provisions and		Rate oi
Time. Merchandise.		Grain.
	Cents.	Cents.
Under Conservative government	814	99Under Liberal government, 1901	634	78Under Liberal government, 1902 	554	78Under Liberal government, 1903 	49	56Under Liberal government, 1901	13	50Under Liberal government, 1905 	37	41Under Liberal government, 1906 	45	45
Thus there was a reduction on. provisions and merchandise of 39} and on grain of 54 cents. How much does that represent to the country ? I contend that it represents to our consuming classes and our exporters millions of money each year; it represents more money than we have spent
Perhaps it will not be sufficient for me just to state those figures, hon. gentlemen may say that they are not correct. I have in my hand resolutions passed by the Board of Trade of Montreal, the most important Board of Trade in Canada, approving of the action of the government, approving of my own actions with regard to aids to navigation. I shall read these resolutions and also the resolution of the shipping federation :
The Montreal Board of Trade,
Montreal, November 15, 1906. Hon. Mr. Brodeur,
Minister of Marine and Fisheries, Ottawa.
Sir,-I have the honour to communicate the following resolution adopted yesterday by the council of this board after hearing the eulogistic reports of our president and the representative of the shipping interests upon the work of your department in improving the navigation of the St. Lawrence route,-
Resolved, that having received from the president and the representative of the shipping interests on the council their reports on the annual departmental inspection of the channel, which inspection,, by the courtesy of the Hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, they attended, the council of the Montreal Board .of Trade hereby expresses its appreciation of the manner in which the Dominion Government has met the desire of the country that a generous expenditure should be made for the nnrpose of improving our national waterways from Montreal to the ocean, and the. council further expresses its gratitude to the hon. the minister and to the engineers of his department for having so readily and promptly met the various specific requests for channel and lighting improvements made by this board and the shipping federation.
Here is also the resolution of the shipping federation:
Resolution unanimously adopted at a general meeting of the members of the Shipping Mr. BRODEUR.
Federation of Canada, held in their board room in the eitv of Montreal, on Wednesay, November 21, 1906, of which the following is a true copy of the entry duly minuted.
Be it resolved that the Shipping Federation of Canada, duly record a vote of thanks to the Hon. L. P. Brodeur, K.C., LLB, Minister of Marine and. Fisheries, for the opportunity giving the members to inspect the St. Lawrence ship channel and the works connected with the aids to navigation.
That this federation is extremely gratified with the permanent and substantial manner in which the many undertakings are being carried through, and consider that great credit is due to the government and to the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, for the way in which this national work is being done. The beneficial effects have already been felt in the low-ering of insurance rates by the St. Lawrence route, which not alone benefits the ship but also the producer in the west.
That the members of this Federation are pleased to note the able manner in which the minister has mastered the many details in the short period which he has held office.
Similar resolutions were passed last year also. I appreciate highly what is contained in these resolutions of the Montreal Board of Trade and of the Shipping Federation, I care far more for them than I do for all the criticisms which hon. gentlemen opposite have directed against me. I will quote also the last report made by the president of the Shipping Federation, Mr. Hugh Allan, not a man who is connected with this party; he has never been a Liberal, he belongs to a Conservative family, and I think has always been a Conservative. Here is what he says:
The lighting of the river and gulf has not only been very much improved, but the attention to lights has left nothing to be desired. The attention of the department when a defect has been brought to its notice has been prompt and the service generally first class. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries is to be congratulated on the vast improvements he has made in this department, which no doubt has been brought about largely by the formation of the lighthouse board.
I suppose there is not a man on the other side of the House who would dare to say that Mr. Hugh Allan is not qualified to speak on these questions with intelligence and impartiality. I think I am able to say that since I have been in this department I have done my best to remedy any evils which may have existed in it. I have done something since I have been there. When my hon. friends opposite were in power they had in charge the administration of the Montreal harbour, and what a condition it was in! Ask any man who was connected with the shipping interests in Montreal, and he will tell you that they could get nothing done by the government; the government would not move because the hon. member for North Toronto did not want any money to be expended. Well, Sir, we do not belong to that class of men.



APRIL 30. 1908

[Stage Direction]
We do want money to be expended, but expended only in such a way as will expand and develop the country, and make of Canada a great and magnificent nation. The lion, gentlemen say that I bave done nothing for the Montreal harbour since I have been in office. Well, I had been there only a few months when I introduced a Bill changing the system under which the harbour works had got into a muddle. That new system has been in operation for about a year, and I am sure that every man in this House who is acquainted with the facts would be obliged to commend the work which has been done by the new board. This is something which I have done. What did my hon. friend from Lanark (Mr. Haggart) do when he was minister, for the purpose of improving the Montreal harbour? Absolutely nothing. It is this government who are building up the harbour of Montreal, and we intend to give to Montreal a harbour which will be a [DOT]credit to this country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I came into the department in the month of February, 1906, immediately after the opening of the session. Since that time I have been employed in that department at least .fifteen hours a day. It seems to me that a minister who lias devoted so much time to his department as that, should receive some commendation from the country, if not from the members of the opposition. I do not shrink from the labour. I have health and I have strength, and as long as I am at the head of this department I am willing to sacrifice my health and strength in order to make the department a credit to this country, and in order to remedy the evils and mistakes which were committed by hon. gentlemen opposite when they were in power. Eleven ministers have passed through that department, of these seven belonged to the Conservative party and four to the Liberal party. Is it right that the responsibility for all the mistakes which were made in that department during all those years should fail entirely upon the shoulders of the present minister? I do not seek to evade any responsibility for which I am chargeable, but I refuse to be responsible for any acts committed by my predecessors. I will not stand responsible for the mistakes made by hon. gentlemen opposite, the accumulated mistakes they made while in charge of that department. I am going to change all that, and I believe the work will be done in such a way as to satisfy the country.
Some reference has been made to several statements made in the report of the Civil Service Commission. The hon. member for North Toronto quoted their reference to flour, and I think the leader of the opposition also alluded to it. I think he also referred to the question of coal. We had a coal contract with a man in Prescott. That coal contract was given after public tenders
had been caleld for. I gave it to the lowest tenderer as I usually do. I found out that when hon. gentlemen opposite were in power they did not always give contracts to the lowest tenderer. They had some particular friend and I am going to present a report to the House on this subject from which a good many illustrations of this fact will be derived. Hon. members of this House will be edified by the knowledge of how hon. gentlemen opposite were carrying on affairs of the country and by the evidence which will be afforded of the mistakes, extravagance and maladministration of hon. gentlemen opposite. That coal contract, as I have said, I gave to the lowest tenderer. The price quoted was a very low one at the time but the tenderer found it possible to quote the price. I gave him the contract and I took the precaution to state in the contract that we could extend it for two years if he so desired. It was a very hard clause but it was a clause which was put in the contract and when the year expired, although the coal was very cheap at the price, I thought of extending the contract for two years. The contractor came later on and asked to be relieved of that clause in the contract. An officer of the department in whom I had reason to have confidence and who was also appointed by the old government, made a report to the minister, or to the deputy minister, which was as follows :-
Mr. James Buckley, of Prescott, who furnished anthracite coal to this department at $5.75 per ton, states that this coal was furnished at a considerable loss to him. The coal cost him $6.25 and he is now willing to continue the furnishing of the anthracite coal at cost price, viz., $6.25 per ton. I recommend that Mr. Buckley's oiler be accepted; and as he has furnished coal at a loss in the past, that 5 pen cent profit be allowed him for coal in the future. Anthracite coal in Ottawa costs from $7.25 to $7.75, and the regular price at Prescott is $7 per ton.
.	(Sgd.) W. W. S.
That means W. W. Stumbles. Mr. Fyshe, in his report, quotes that memorandum and adds the following, which will be found at page 35 :-
This was agreed to.
Meaning that the department, or the minister, had accepted the recommendation which was made to increase the price of the contract. I do not want to find fault with Mr. Fyshe, but I thought before charging the department or the minister with having agreed to that he should have taken the precaution to go and see the minister and ask him what had really taken place. I have never seen him to discuss this question with him, but if he had come to me I would have been very glad to have shown him that in spite of the recommendation which was made I wrote across the document, on
[Stage Direction]
the 17th March, 1907, the following: ' Carry out the contract. Sgd. L. P. Brodeur,' I cannot understand how Mr. Fyshe came to declare in his report that this was agreed to when the contrary had been done and when X had given instructions that the contract should be carried out. More than that,
I have gone over all the payments which have been made before and since this document has been on file and Mr. Buckley has been obliged since that time to deliver the coal and was paid for it at the price formerly agreed to and consequently that part of the report which deals with this question is absolutely incorrect.
In another case which is quoted I find the same mistake. It will be found at page 34. The statement is somewhat long but I suppose it is better that all the facts should be known and therefore I am going to quote it all: '
A list of prices paid in Quebec
[Stage Direction]
I call your attention to that expression.
-was, in February last, submitted to the manager of the shipyard at Sorel, for comparison with the prices which he was paying there; and in his reply he stated that the prices generally were about 50 per. cent higher than the prices being paid at Sorel. One item objected to was the purchase of a certain brand of flour at $6.95 a barrel. When this was inquired into at the instance of the Auditor General the agent replied: ' These
are 

's prices, and the same prices are
charged by every flour dealer in Quebec for the same brand of flour. These brands cannot be bought for less here. If as good flour can be bought in Halifax for $5.20 per barrel it would pay the department to import it from there. There are other brands of flour
that can be bought in this market from 
[Stage Direction]
and others at $6 upwards, but not less than $6. suitable for our purposes. Our people generally choose the best, for the reason that it is subject to changes of temperature which might cause it to harden or sour, as has often occurred with ordinary flour/ And he adds later on: ' Referring to the matter of flour, there is but one flour dealer on the patronage list. I beg respectfully to sugfest that you place one or two more on the ist of such dealers/
The last part of this letter has been quoted by my bon. friend the leader of the opposition. I will come to that in a minute. But the commissioners, in their report, state that the list of prices paid in Quebec was submitted to the manager of the shipyard at Sorel. I must take exception to that. It is true that an account certified to by Mr. Gregory was sent to the department and the department refused to pay that account; so, the account was not paid. Now, Mr. Fyshe goes on and states that this was inquired into at the instance of fhe Auditor General. I must take exception also to that; this account was never referred to the Auditor General. This account, as I have already explained, came to the depart-Mr. BRODEUR.
ment and was, under my instructions, sent to Mr. Desbarats, at Sorel, who knew exactly the price which should be paid and the Auditor General, up to the time that his report was brought before this House, did not know of this account and the account had not then been paid. I am sorry that these mistakes have happened. My hon. friends are going to take this document and spread it all over the country. I suppose they will not take the trouble to publish as extensively the remarks I am now making and they will no doubt go to the people of the country and say: Look at the Department of Marine and Fisheries, how corrupt it is; they paid $6.95 for a barrel of flour.
Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps the minister will tell us how much was paid.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I could not say offhand how much was paid, but we did not pay that amount. I will, on a future day, give the information. Reference has been made also by the hon. leader of the opposition to the fact that there was only one person on the patronage list at Quebec from a statement made by Mr. Gregory. Mr. Gregory makes that statement, but if the hon. gentleman had read the whole letter of Mr. Gregory he would have found that Mi. Gregory states formally that he had gone over to see not only the Liberal flour dealers but the Conservative flour dealers of Quebec and that the price which he puts in his account and which he certifies was the price which was asked in all of the houses there.


Robert Laird Borden: What page is that?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Page 92. I quote from this letter :
Now before writing this answer to your letter, I beg to state that I have made inquiries among the dealers in flour, pork and all the other articles mentioned, not only among the friends of the administration but outsiders also, and the prices quoted are Quebec prices, and these prices, bv tender as far as possible were obtained from dealers in Quebec, friends of the administration, and submitted for your approval by my letter of the 18th March, 1907.
I think that disposes of the charge made by the leader of the opposition that there was only one flour dealer on the patronage list and that the prices paid were so high on account of that. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) has referred to Mr. Willie Walsh, and to Mr. W. Leo C. Walsh, who, he says is the same man. The hon. gentleman led us to believe that the agent at Quebec had received positive instructions from the then Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Prefontaine), and from the then Minister of Justice, and that the agent had no discretion but to purchase from Mr. Walsh. But let us see what

the evidence is. Mr. Gregory in a letter of March 10, 1905 (it should be 1906) is thus quoted In the report:
Gregory replies that stuff was purchased on direction of the Hon. R. P. on the wharf at Quebeo who directed me then and there to give a good order to the agent of McColl Brothers & Company, Mr. Leo C. Walsh, who stood beside him at the time. That was over a year ago. I gave an order to Mr. Walsh as requested.
I may say that after coming to the department I ordered an inquiry into this matter and it is the reply of Mr. Gregory that is here referred to :
I gave an order to Mr. Walsh as requested, and when the goods arrived I was somewhat surprised at the size of the package, and I refused to take them and a lengthy correspondence took place between McColl Brothers & Company and myself on the subject-in fact I declined to give them any more orders, subsequently I received a letter from the late mmister as well as another from the Hon. Jnr. Fitzpatrick, copies of which I herewith inclose. An opportunity some time after occurred when I saw the late minister here and spoke to him as it seemed to me that that farm had taken advantage of his kindness about the matter. He told me to keep the goods and try to get rid of them to the best advantage, which 1 did by distributing them round where X understood the Kantslip could be used on belts, &c. If any has been sent where It was not really required I shall see jat j as remo^ea where it can be used to advantage.
In order to understand the sentence which follows, I may refer to what was done by me when I came into the department. There were constant statements that certain things had been ordered by the minister verbally and I gave positive instructions that in future^ no excuse should be offered tliat the minister had given instructions unless reports were made right away by the officer who was receiving the orders. I do not want to charge anybody particularly but I found there was a tendency to cliafge the minister with having given verbal instructions. In the letter above quoted the a?ei1,	was done on the instructions
of Mr. Prefontaiue. But there is a letter of May 6, 1905, bearing on that, and which I may read :
W. Leo C. Walsh, representing McColl Brothers & Company, will call on you probably Tuesday in reference to some oil. If oan give him an order I will feel obliged
It was, therefore, left absolutely in the discretion of the officer and he could give the order or not give it as he pleased. How, the letter from the then Minister of Justice (Sir Charles Fitzpatrick) is quoted as follows :
May 3, 1903. Dear Mr. Gregory,-Young Willie Walsh, who represents McColl Brothers & Company, Montreal agents for Vesta
boiler compound, has asked me to say a good word to you for him, and if the material is as good as represented, I hope you will place some orders in his way.-C. Fitzpatrick.
Now, what harm is there in those letters; what deduction can be drawn from them that they are not proper letters to write. Fortunately we have the correspondence bearing on this matter and we see from it that the officer was simply told that if he needed any oil he might purchase it from this young man. Mr. Gregory concludes his letter of March 6. 1905. by stating :
_ The new system now established of informing you immediately of any order I may receive from the minister or deputy minister verbally will avoid for the future any misunderstanding.
That is perfectly true. When I saw that representations ' were made that verbal orders had been given by the late minister, I ordered that in future the verbal orders of the minister would not be sufficient and that written orders would be required. My bon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) was Minister of Marine and Fisheries for many years and if he ever should become minister again this ruie of mine will probably assist him so that he may not be responsible for acts which be never intended to commit. Now, there is another little thing in this report which though not very important in itself may be magnified in certain quarters, and I think perhaps I should avail myself of this first opportunity to make a reference to it. There is a rather peculiar insinuation to be found at page 226 of the report and a most uncalled for insinuation it is. The Department of Marine and Fisheries had for years been purchasing buoys from German firms. I may say en passant, and it may perhaps surprise the House to know, that when the hon. member for North Toronto was minister he also bought some buoys, but strange to say he paid a higher price for them than we are paying now. It will be a surprise to many gentlemen to know that the present Minister of Marine and Fisheries who is said to be so extravagant is paying less for these buoys than did the member for North Toronto when he was minister. Well, at page 226 an order in council with reference to the purchase of buoys is quoted as follows :
The undersigned observes that the Willson low pressure gas buoys are manufactured in Canada, while the welded compression buoys heretofore used were manufactured in foreign countries (G. B.?).
Now, it would seem that the comment 'G. B.' is an insinuation that I consider Great Britain to be a foreign country. Of course that is absurd, but I have a doubt that the hon. member for Haliburton (Mr. Sam. Hughes) in reading that over to his electors would take great unction from this

insinuation made by Mr. Fyshe and say : Look at these French Canadians, look at this man referring to Great Britain as being a foreign country.


Samuel Hughes: If the hon. minister will permit me, I would not take him for a second to be typical of the honest French Canadian.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Well, Mr. Speaker, I may say that this remark-not the remark made by my hon. friend, but the remark at page 226-tending to show that I declared that Great Britain was a foreign country is absolutely incorrect; because we did not buy the buoys from Great Britain. We bought them from Germany, which certainly is a foreign country; and I think I was right in suggesting that it would be better for Canada to purchase her buoys in Canada than in Germany. I thought I should take this opportunity to put the facts of this matter before the country.
I have spoken longer than I had intended; but I thought it was my duty to say a few words to-night in regard to the insinuations which have been made for some time, not only against myself, but also against the Department of Marine and Fisheries. A few months after I took charge of the department, I saw that the system of accounting there was bad, and I thought that I should get somebody to make a thorough investigation, to find out whether the system of book-keeping we had there was good or not. Because I have done that; because I have tried to bring about some reform in my department; because I tried to provide the means of ascertaining every day what the expenditures in my department were, and of making comparisons every day and every hour to see whether the expenditures were too high or not, and whether they compared favourably or unfavourably with those of former years ; because I took these means of saving thousands and thousands of dollars to tlie department, I stand charged before the country by hon. gentlemen opposite as having been extravagant in providing that system of accounting. No, Mr. Speaker; it is the best thing I have done, because now we can ascertain whether the affairs of the department are properly administered or not. During the time my hon. friend from North Toronto was Minister of Marine and Fisheries-a man of such great administrative ability that he declared the other day that the present Minister of Marine and Fisheries was a fool or something of the kind

he did not do himself the credit of establishing a system in the department by which the books would show every day a trial balance. .1 thought it was absolutely necessary in such a department to have books which would show every day how the affairs of the department were going. We have that reform, and I have hoped that it would bring other reforms. But I repeat what I stated a Mr. BRODEUR.
few minutes ago, that I have had no time since I have been in the department. As I have explained immediately after I came into the department, in February, 1906, the session came on. After the session I ordered the investigation, and left for the maritime provinces. I thought it was necessary for the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to go and see those provinces. I have not yet had time to visit British Columbia, though it is important that a Minister of Marine and Fisheries should visit that fine section of our country. In November, 1907, this session began. I have attended all meetings of council; I have worked with my colleagues preparing for the work of the session. As I said a few minutes ago, I have worked not less than 15 hours a day in the administration of the department, devoting all the strength I have to placing it on a proper footing. In the month of February, 1907, I was called on by the Prime Minister to go to the Colonial Conference. In June, 1907, the Prime Minister asked me to accompany the Minister of Finance to Paris to negotiate the French treaty, a treaty which I claim is a credit to this country, but which meant for me a great deal of labour. But, Mr. Speaker, I came back here in the month of October last just before the session began, and this House has been in session almost ever since. And so, Mr. Speaker, since February, 1906, I have been engaged constantly in* my parliamentary and departmental duties, and this session I have been spending a good deal of time in answering the base insinuations'made by hon. gentlemen opposite. Mr. Speaker, I think I have done my duty; I think I have done my share of work; but I do not object to work, In spite of all the insinuations which have been made against me, I will continue Jo do for my country the work that may be expected of me, and I will continue to reform the department with the view of placing it on a proper basis.
fir. SAM. HUGHES (Victoria). Mr. Speaker, I will not attempt to follow the hon. gentleman in his peregrinations in regard to the administration of affairs in his office or in regard to the alleged insincerity of hon. gentlemen now in opposition with reference to their conduct when they were in power. His whole speech has very little relation to the motion made by the hon. leader of the opposition. I would not have spoken at all on this subject had the hon. minister not undertaken to read the member for Dundas (Mr. Broder) a lecture on his conduct in speaking in general terms on the expenditure in the Militia Department for political purposes. At the time it struck me as an apt illustration of the old adage about Satan reproving sin. When I asked the minister if he had not in 1896 used his position as a prominent member of his I party, throughout the length and breadth

of the province of Quebec, to appeal to the fanaticism-I use the term advisedly, for all people have more or less fanaticism-of his fellow countrymen iu regard to the expenditure for the purchase of rifles for the volunteers of the Dominion of Canada, he played the old game and said that it was an insult to the people of Quebec. 1 want to tell him that the insult comes from himself when he so belittles the intelligence of the people of Quebec as to resort to such tactics. No man should ever remain in public life who would seek to mislead the people directely or indirectly. Let the hon. gentleman stand up and deny that on that occasion, as on others, he appealed to the prejudices of the people, even going so far as to appeal to the mothers: Are you going to vote for a Tory government in order that they may take your money to buy rifles with which to arm your sons and compel them to go and fight the battles of Britain the world over? That is the line of policy which was followed by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and yet he has the nerve to get up and reprove the opposition for their strictures on the conduct of the government in connection with the civil service report commission.
If there is anything wrong in the expenditure of the Militia Department, the proper place to take that up is when the Militia estimates are before us. In the commission report there is no charge of improper expenditure against that department, but of extravaagut expenditure, and when the estimates are under discussion, I shall be prepared to criticise them to the fullest extent. But, no doubt the newspapers supporting the Minister of Marine anil Fisheries will be placarded to-morrow with big head lines describing the insult offered the people of the province of Quebec because I have pointed out the misconduct of the minister in following the line of policy he did when he attacked the late government for its purchase of rifles for our militia.


Mr. TALBOT.: We do not give you so much notice as that in the province of Quebec.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. gentleman should confine himself to the study of entomology for that is his specialty. In the year 1885, when the Jlinister of Marine and Fisheries was appealing to the fanaticism of the people of Quebec and opposing law and order in the Dominion, I had the honour of endeavouring to assist in maintaining law and order and of defending my French Canadian fellow countrymen. I took the opportunity of defending the 65th French Canadian regiment in the Northwest and of pointing out the splendid service they had done, but the hon. minister was wasting all his sympathies on the rebels and condemning the government for calling on the French Canadian regiments to go to the front. I stood for law and order, regard-241
less of race or nationality, and my sympathies were with all his felow countrymen who stood with me. I have faith in the progressive spirit, in the honour and in that love of liberty which is characteristic of the French race, and I believe that as soon as our French Canadian fellow countrymen learn-and they are learning rapidly-that many of their leaders on the other side have for years deliberately gone from hustings to hustings and misled them, and then have turned around in their clubs and association rooms afterwards and told stories about them and laughed at and mocked them, they will administer swift vengeance on those men who have so long deceived them. I would not at all regard the Jlinister of Marine and Fisheries as one of the class to which I have referred as honourable and progressive and lovers of freedom and of law and order. The hon. minister referred to the work done by the people of Quebec in 1775 and I am quite ready to commend them for what they did. But our good countrymen of that province at that time sold their wares to the United States troops as well as the British troops. In 1812 they did splendid service for the old flag of Britain, but their own writings at that time and their own appeals show it was rather the dread of being under the republic than love of Great Britain which caused them to do such splendid service. The reference of the hon. minister to the annexation manifesto is entirely erroneous.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: I rise to a point of order. I would like to know what these references of the hon. gentleman have to do with the question before us.


Charles Marcil: He is merely giving a personal explanation and must keep within reasonable limits, and is only giving that personal explanation in the course of his reply on the amendment before the chair.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: If the hon. gentleman stands as an interrogation point, I can understand what he means.


Samuel Hughes: The issue at that time was not Cobdenism but ' no pay to rebels.' That was the reason which brought about the annexation movement at that time. The hon. minister referred to the remark of the hon. member for Dundas (Jlr. Broder) with regard to the expenditure on militia. Let me point out what the minister himself said on April 22, 1890. Speaking on the vote of $1,000,000 for arms and ammunition for our militia, he said :
There is one feature in connection with this which puzzles me. We have over and again been told that in the event of a war taking place in Canada, of Canada being invaded we could relv on Great Britain's protection, and that the only ground for not severing the colonial tie was that should international difficulties arise, we



might rely on England's strong arm. Now, Sir, I am sorry to hear under the circumstances that the government, for the purpose of arming Canadian militia, have made their purchases not from private contractors hut from the war office in Great Britain and that we are asked now to foot the bill. Is that the protection we have been promised by Great Britain? Is that the position in which we stand as a colony? I think we are entitled to an altogether different treatment, at the hands of Great Britain. On the other hand, I do not think the war department is in such a hurry to get their money that we should be asked for a vote of money now.
Other members in sympathy with the minister took similar lines. I merely rose to make this explanation and to express my intention of supporting the resolution of my hon. leader. While with regard to some of the departments general criticisms are made by the Cjvjl Service Commission, with regard to the Department of Marine and Fisheries, specific charges are preferred. Those charges should be probed to the bottom and a commission appointed to follow out in the other departments all those questions which have been raised.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Reference has been made to the expenditure on the militia and it is charged that that expenditure is too large in comparison with the expenditure made on agriculture. Does the hon. gentleman agree in that ?


Samuel Hughes: I have one rule in public life, quite unlike the practice and policy of the hon. minister and his administration of his department, and that is to let in the broad light of truth and justice. Let the broad light of truth be shed on every transaction and every department. But as regards military expenditure, I want to point out that the United States are expending between $5 and $6 a head this year on their army and navy and Canada is spending about 75 cents per head. Providing the money is properly expended and not too much goes in fuss and feathers, I shall not cavil at this expenditure, and I have no hesitation in saying that the militia expenditure of the Dominion is far below what it should be.


William Humphrey Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I must first congratulate the Minister of Marine and Fisheries on his speech as to what he has done for the country and what he proposes to do. I have heard it so often this session that I have come to admire it more and more every time I hear it, and I have no doubt that, surfeited as the hon. gentlemen are with the laudations he showers on himself, some one will rise and say something on behalf of the minister, for God knows he needs it, as no one has said anything in his behalf this session. The minister is trying to attract the attention of every one in the country to himself and it has been on him every year since he came to this House.


Samuel Hughes: He happened to be Speaker of this House and immortalized himself by being the most profligate spender of money ever in that office. He talks about juggling with accounts ; the accounts of the Speaker for that year were so enormous that he had actually to juggle them to the amount of over $8,000 into the account of the Minister of Public Works.
Who is the minister and what has been his past conduct ? He was Minister of Inland Revenue and was then transferred to the Department of Marine. He sat in this House and in committees [DOT] and heard the Department of Marine assailed. He saw that in that garden of the grafter and that paradise of the plunderer they had been permitted to roam at large, that the department was approaching to the notoriety of the Public Works Department, he heard of its waste and saw it and on coming into power in that department he was the first man to extend the right hand of fellowship to the grafters who had been in that department for years before he entered it. He cannot deny that. Merwin and Brooks were the only men with whom he wanted to deal. These grafters who had pilfered, pillaged and plundered the money of the country were the first he dealt with. I do not wonder he does not wish their affairs to be inquired into. Does any same man believe that these grafters who plundered that department for years did not share up with somebody? And it was not with the subordinate understrappers of the department either that they were suspected of dividing up.
When he came in as a new minister to the department it was to be expected that he would have kept Brooks, Merwin and the rest of the grafters out of it, but they were the first men who introduced themselves to the minister. They knew, that of all the ministers they could best deal with him, and they have been doing very nicely too. Look at their accounts for a couple of years. In 1907, Merwin's account was over $50,000, and Brooks was over $60,000 ; actually when Merwin had not the money to float himself along the Minister of Marine and Fisheries took that grafter by the hand and helped him to the bank. One would imagine the minister would not dare to stand in the House and ask for consideration when the records of the grafters proved that again and again lie took them in hand. A man who desired to have every stigma of disgrace removed from the department, would have told them to stand beyond its doors. But you do not get the Minister of Marine and Fisheries doing that. He knew, his deputy told him that a man in his employ named Roy had been padding the pay-lists. Did the minister at once dismiss Roy? Was he suspended? No, the minister gave him a better position,



A. W. OWEN,

[Stage Direction]
Accountant.
Ottawa, August 21, 1907.
What is the end of this? Why an honest man is turned out by this minister, but a thief, Roy, is kept on and promoted. Yet this minister talks about the way he is conducting that department. No one on that side of the House will take up the cudgels on his behalf. Let us see another case showing his treatment of men who are anxious to get honesty and decency in this department. At page 81, I find a memorandum for the deputy minister from A. W. Owen :
I attach an account received from the agent at Quebec, dated October 6, for five large Morris chairs covered in plush at $18 for the ' Montcalm.' I do not see any authority given to the agent for this order. I am to request von to he good enough to initial the account for payment, if correct.
When this unfortunate man tries to bring in a little honesty into the department he is kicked out, body and boots, by the minister, but his bosom friend Roy, who pads the list, and the investigation* into whose conduct has been delayed by the minister for from 16 to 18 months, is still in the employ of the department. It is high time that the minister should stop prating about the honesty prevailing to-day in his department and making reflections on those who preceded him. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries sat in this House from 1891 to 1896 ; the Minister of Militia sat in this House prior to that, the Minister of Customs also, and I challenge either of those hon. gentlemen to show one single case under a Conservative Minister of the Marine Department where there was an allegation of thieving or wrong doing by an official. I challenge .them to instance a case of graft in that department. They must sit quiet, because they cannot prove the contrary. I will refresh their memory however by one case that occurred in that department. There was a man employed in a menial position, a cook on one of the vessels of the government in Georgian bay, and he was approached by a store-keeper in the town of Parry Sound and asked to do his trading with that store, and in consideration of his dealing there the store-keeper paid this cook $40. That happened in 1892. As soon as the case was reported in the newspapers and a charge was made, Sir Hibbert Tup-per caused an investigation to take place before the county judge of the county of Bruce, Judge Kingsmill, I think it was, and what was the-result ? The result was that the man was at once dismissed from the service. Hon. gentlemen cannot find during all the time that Sir Hibbert Tupper was the head of that department a single charge laid at his doors in reference to middlemen or any go-between.
Mr. DEVLIN.: Was the minister held responsible ?


William Humphrey Bennett: No, because as soon as the matter came to the minister's notice he had it inquired into and dismissed the official. I will say something further that will be interesting to hon. gentlemen opposite. The store-keeper who prompted this unfortunate cook to fail was a man named Johnston, and to show the fitness of things, this same Johnston is to-day Mr. McKay's candidate in the provincial election, a proof of the old adage that birds of a feather flock together.


Charles Ramsay Devlin: Who was the judge appointed to investigate ?


William Humphrey Bennett: Judge Kingsmill of tlie county of Bruce, I think he was retired at that time. Now one would imagine that this department which is so far above reproach, would have some champion here on its behalf, but it appears on this occasion, ns on every other occasion, that the minister himself has to come to its rescue, while the man who is to blame for the whole thing is the Premier. He knew the antecedents of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, knew of his expensive tastes as Speaker of the House, knew that he was not a business man. and for that reason, considering the position the department was in, some person should have been put up to defend it other than the minister. The hon. gentleman has demonstrated his utter unfitness, despite all his self laudation, to conduct that department, by the fact that although these men Merwin and Brooks, were proved in the committee to have been guilty of illegal and improper relations with that department, these were the very first men that the minister dealt with and is dealing with to-day in that department. The minister cannot deny it, he sits there and assents to it. He sat in that committee and heard of all this grafting carried on by these men. and as long as the hon. gentleman is the head of that department I will venture the prophecy that Merwin and Brooks and the rest of them will find no more congenial field to do business in than the Department of Marine and Fisheries.
Now I think this department is getting a little too much attention paid to it, because after all, while I believe thousands and thousands of dollars have been dissipated there, it is a mere bagatelle, for the greatest thieving department in Canada today is the Department of Public Works, and has been for years. It is conceded to be the greatest thieving department, and I am not making any reflection on the present incumbent of the office, because he has only been there a short time. But here is a department that openly has as its chief officials men who have committed and admitted for theft of public funds. The minister knows it, and the Prime Minister knows it, and every member of the Cabinet knows it. They have heard the case of the secretary of that department discussed on this floor half a dozen times, the man who took by misrepresentation upwards of $300 of public money and to-day he stands right in that department as the second official, practically, in point of salary and responsibility. The Minister of Public Works cannot dispense with his services nor can any other minister, because he is the man through whose hands pass all the public tenders involving millions of dollars. Take another official that the hon. gentleman has under his control, take the case of one of his chief engineers, Mr. Louis Coste. Where does he stand to-day ? Why he stands here self confessed in the committee Mr. DEVLIN.
room that he was in receipt of money, not only from the government, but also from a company for whom he was making a large valuation upon which depended a grant to them of over $300,000 by this government. And this Mr. Coste is still in the employ of the department, paid $3,000 a year as an engineer, a further sum of $1,500 being attached to his salary as waterways commissioner. How can people have confidence in the departments when officials of this stamp are at their very head, and who apparently hohl the minister by the throat, because the minister cannot dispense with their services. The public know that when corporations and grafters move up on this department they can do what they like with it.
Yesterday I cited the case of the Reid Company who sell office supplies to this government .selling over $350,000 worth in the past few years. Why, Sir, look at the record in reference to one matter alone. It was necessary, at least a request had been made, that certain files should he placed in the Post Office Department. The Department of Public Works secured an estimate from this Reid Company of the cost, and the Reid Company gave them an estimate that the cost would -be $30,000. Actually a vote was taken in the estimates for $30,000. But on account of the opposition of the Eclipse Company, by reason of the fact that there was competition engendered between the two, the Office Specialty Company did the work for $10,000 that they had" estimated would cost $30,000. Why, Sir, companies like this Reid Company think that they can actually go into the departments and give an estimate for $30,000 for certain work and be paid that amount. Fortunately for the country, by reason of the Eclipse Company, I assume getting wind of it and forcing the competition, the Specialty Company only got $10,000 out of the government Instead of what they had figured on getting.
Now I do not propose to go at length into the subject of the greatest stealing that is going on to-day in Canada, and that is in reference to the matter of dredging. But I want to say that if Judge Cassels or any independent and honest man could only go into that matter, there would be a repetition of the scandal that occurred in the United States in the case of Gaynor and Greene who are in the state penitentiary for thieving in connection with dredging operations. Look at the whole matter as it stands to-day, look at the men dealing with this department. There was no sooner a change in the government than this Mr. Bowman, M.P.P., and Mr. James Conmee, M.P., at that time in the local legislature, bounded into the dredging business. Then we find Mr. MacKay, the present leader of the Ontario opposition, bounding into the dredging business; and not to be behind them, we find Mr. Horton, of Goderich, bounding into the dredging business. And who is



APRTL 30. 1908

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Horton ? Why, Sir, Mr. Horton is the man who stood convicted in the West Elgin trial of introducing innocent young men to Pritchard in order that he might teach them to become ballot thieves. This gentleman is one of their dredging contractors too. Then we have this Ottawa company blossoming out, having among its members the son of the senior member for Ottawa (Mr. Stewart). The people do not expect anything straight in connection with this dredging business and they have not been getting anything straight. Only the other day, after the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) was importuned and begged for three months to continue contracts of this kind, or a number of them at all events, tlie minister consented to do that. But, it took three months for the minister to get coaxed into it. I do not know what moved the minister in the meantime to come down. I do not know how the minister was coaxed and I do not know whether the minister was persuaded but, wonderful to relate, it took three months to persuade the minister to have an order in council passed. He got it passed at last but the right lion. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) made him take it back again within a few days after he had heard the exposure in this House. The minister nods his head.
William Pugsley: Shakes his head.


William Humphrey Bennett: Well, shakes his head. As I said before the miuister is the greatest withdrawer in this country. He was a well known bluffer in his own little province and he tried it on when he came here. He told us of all the charges he was going to make against the leader of the opposition and that lie was going to drive him out of public life. Was he not going to do that? He never drove anybody out of public life.


William Pugsley: I defy the hon. gentleman to show that anywhere or at any time I ever intimated that I was going to drive the leader of the opposition out of public life or that I have ever said that I was going to make any charges against the leader of the opposition.


Haughton Lennox: What about it at the Opera House?
Mr. BENNETT I have not the words of the hon. gentleman under my hand at the present time.	[DOT]


William Pugsley: You canot find any such words or anything suggesting them.


William Humphrey Bennett: However, I have only this to say that very little attention is paid to anything that the hon. gentleman does say.


William Pugsley: There seems to be a good deal of attention paid to things that 1 do not say.


William Humphrey Bennett: If, as I have read in the paper, the government of New Brunswick make an investigation into certain dealings of a certain member of the late government with a certain railway company I do not think we will have the hon. gentleman in this House very much longer. The Minister of Public Works was taken to task over this dredging matter by the other members of the government.


William Pugsley: No, Sir.


William Humphrey Bennett: Well, then the minister did not back down of his own accord.


William Pugsley: Yes, Sir.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


William Pugsley: He did not back down at all. Whatever he did he did of his own accord.


William Humphrey Bennett: That being the case it proves him to be a weak vessel because, the minister, after considering for three months and arriving at a decision, in a single night changes his opinion. The minister might tell us that and we may believe it or we may not believe it. But, if the searchlight was let into the Department of Public Works what a parade there would be. Talk of those who would flit, there is the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham), whose bosom friends, Lott and Shibley, we found skiping to the United States. The departure and exodus of Lott and Shibley from Ontario, the Sabbath sojourning friends of the Minister of Railways and Canals would be nothing to some of these dredging contractors. The minister knows it, and he is afraid of it. Look at the Minister of Railways and Canals laugh. That is the way he laughs at his unfortunate friends. They got caught, and he is here. Well, every dog has his day. They may have the laugh later on. But the Minister of Public Works has been in the department a little while, and, as a shrewd man, he knows what has been going on during the past few years in that department. He cannot see those appalling rows of figures, up into the millions of dollars, without asking his engineers what there is to show for all this money, and his engineers can only tell him that there is very little or nothing to show for it with respect to these dredging operations because there' is not. Any man knows that who looks at the matter for a moment. Supposing that Mr. Courtney, Mr. Fyshe and Mr. Bazin had gone into this department, and suposing that they had taken up these dredging operations, what a revelation there would have been. They would have found that these little paltry dredges that were for years paid by the government $70 or $80 per day were earning $250 and $300 per day, and that dredges that under ordinary circumstances should earn, if honestly operated, about $250 per day were earning $500 and $600 per day. The minister has been told by the officers in his department, I

760S
have no doubt, that there is something wrong about it, and as a consequence he is looking into the matter, and I think he should look into the matter. I am going to give a few figures to show how these dredging operations are carried on at the expense of the people of Canada. I am going to take a little dredge owned by the Penetanguishene Dredging Company, and I am going to take random months and weeks. According to the public accounts, at one time she is earning $137 per day, at another time $144. at another time $151, or running up over $150 per day.


An hon. MEMBER.: Of how many hours?


William Humphrey Bennett: That is a 12-hour day. If that same dredge had been working by the hour she would have earned $100 a day. Here we have a steal of $.300 per week or $1,500 per month and, in the season, a clear steal of $10,000 by a dredging plant that would not sell in the open market for $5,000. The minister has got terrified since he came into the department by these dredging operations and he has told the inspector that no matter what he states lie cannot take his word, but that the inspector must make a solemn declaration and he will hold that over his head, and threaten him, and if it is not true he will prosecute him for perjury. The minister has awakened, and I think that is one of the reasons why the government do not want to have an inquiry into that and other departments. In conclusion, I want to say that it is patent at the outset that the inquiry which we are going to have is going to be a farce. That goes without saying. That is making no insinuation whatever against the judge to whom the investigation has been entrusted. Mr. Justice Cassels is simply going to be powerless in the whole matter because the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) has told us that Mr. Watson and Mr. Perron have been secured, and Mr. Watson and Mr. Perron are simply to hand out the case to the commissioner for adjudication. Mr. Watson is fairly well known in Ontario, and the West Elgin horror is still fresh in the memory of every one. Mr. Watson actually fell foul of Judge Barron in that case as prosecuting attorney. The judge insisted that certain things should be inquired into, and Mr. Watson thought they should not be. This government do not want the whole facts to come out, and it is apparent that the whole thing is simply a farce. We have proven that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has been dealing with these grafters who were in his department for years before he came in. There is no charge laid at the doors of the officials that there is a lack of conscience on their part. That charge is laid at the door of the minister himself, aud the country will treat this whole inquiry with the contempt that it eminently and richly deserves because of the farcical aspect that it presents.


William Humphrey Bennett: I-t would be really in the interests of the country if the government could be constrained to accept the very reasonable proposition which I submit

let the opposition have the choice of one lawyer at this investigation. But, that is something that they do not propose to do. They are going to endeavour to whitewash the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and they are going to preclude any inquiry into the Department of Public Works. With the exoaas of Lott and Shibley I suppose that they imagine that no other leading Liberals could be well spared from the country at the present time, and therefore the Department of Public Works is not going to be inquired into. I propose to vote for the motion presented to the House by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, believing as I do that the fair sense of the people of this country regards the disbursements of public money by this government as being improper in the highest degree. It is evident that there has been grafting and thieving going on in every department of the government, that the middlemen have been given a free hand and there is every reason to believe that wrong-doing will be laid at the doors of men whose names have not as yet been disclosed. There is no doubt in the world that if there were a full and searching and thorough inquiry before these three commissioners, or before Judge Cassels, if he were unfettered in his powers, there would be an exposure that would startle the people of the country, but which, no doubt, in the end would do good service to the Dominion as a whole, and to the honest administration of public affairs for all time to come.


Mr. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington).: Personally, I do not like to take part in the debate at this late hour, nor do I like particularly following the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Bennett). However, while I do not desire to pay much attention to the hon. gentleman's remarks, there are among many of the harsh words which slipped so glibly from his tongue, one or two sentences which call for some reference It is now ten years since I first heard the hon. member (Mr. Bennett) make a speech, and his speech of to-night was very little different from the speech he then delivered in a by-election in South Ontario. Even in these early days of his political career the words : graft, grafters, ballot switching, pillaging, plunder, rolled just as glibly under his tongue as they do now.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. gentleman must confess that the overthrow of the Ross government amply justified my words on that occasion.


Hugh Guthrie: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Benentt) has so accustomed himself to that language that I do not think it is possible for him to rid himself of the habit. But,

not only in the eyes of members of this House, but in the eyes of the people of the country the hon. gentleman is regarded in the light of the small boy in Aesop's Fables who continually called wolf, wolf, until when the real wolf came no one would believe him. And so, if the hon. member should ever happen to come across a minister, or a member of parliament, or a civil servant, who is derelict in his duty not one man out of 100 men would believe the member for East Simcoe, if he said so.


William Humphrey Bennett: I suppose probably the country would believe


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


William Humphrey Bennett: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Guthrie) allow an interruption.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


William Humphrey Bennett: All right then.


Hugh Guthrie: There was one remark made by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) to which I shall refer. He said there was not a member on this side of the House prepared to get up and say a word in justification of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. Well, while I am not a prominent member on this side of the House, I know full well I voice the feeling of every member here when I say that we have the most absolute respect for and the most absolute confidence in the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and that we all recognize his ability, his integrity, and his desire and intention to do everything that is right and proper, and nothing that is wrong or censurable in the administration of his department. X may tell the hon. member for East Simcoe that it is not altogether courteous or chivalrous-I don't suppose he cares much about that for he does not accustom himself to the language of chivalry-I tell him it is neither courteous nor chivalrous nor fair to use such language as he has to-night used in reference to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. In the custom of chivalry when you cast down the gauntlet and asked some one to take it up, the challenge was made and answered. And to-night I would cast down the gauntlet to the member for East Simcoe and I offer him this challenge: If you can show that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has been guilty of the slightest jot or title of dishonesty in connection with the administration of his department, I will take back all I have said in commendation of that hon. gentleman. And I say to the member for East Simcoe : If you do not accept that challenge theu in the language of chivalry, if you lived in the old days, you would be spoken of as a coward, a poltroon, and a backbiter. I wish to draw the attention of the House also to another statement made by the hon. member for East Simcoe which I think was particularly unfair and misleading. He read from page 34 of the Civil Service Commission report the words : ' There would also seem to be lack of conscience,' and he said that contrary to the statement of the Minister of Marine, that reference was not made to officers of the department. Now, let me ask-not the member for East Simcoe- but let me ask any other member of this House to read the paragraph in which that sentence occurs and to see if it does not apply to the officers of the department, just as the minister has said. It is all in one paragraph and the paragraph goes on :
If no one gets any benefit from trade with the government except the trader then it must be clear that in these great purchases made for the government, without discount, its officers must be assisting the trader to get better prices from the government than he can get anywhere else, for everywhere else he has to give discount. In other words, some of the government's officers are serving two masters, and apparently succeeding with both- scripture notwithstanding.
It will be seen therefore that in both instances, the reference is to the officers of the department and not to the department as a whole and not to the minister.
I shall not take up any more time in discussing statements made by the member for East Simcoe, but I should like to refer to a few other things which have arisen in the course of the debate. It is perhaps my misfortune that whenever I have to make reference to the hon. the leader of the opposition and to the hon. member for North Toronto, I never have the pleasure of having them before me. However, I do not propose on account of their absence to hesitate saying that which I have to say with reference to their utterances of to-day. This motion, and the speech of the leader of the opposition were evidently launched for the purpose of circulating if possible more fully than it has been amongst the electors, the report of the Civil Service Commission, because fully 50 per cent of the speech of the leader of the opposition was made up of quotations from that report. The speech of the hon. member for North Toronto was his old pre-election harangue and if any one will take up the Toronto ' Mail and Empire ' of about two weeks ago and read the speech then delivered by the hon. gentleman before his constituents he will find it is almost identical with the speech he delivered here to-night. I do not believe that either the hon. leader of the opposition or the hon. member for North Toronto seriously believe in the motion which they have placed in your hands, Mr. Speaker, on this occasion : but they are serious enough in their desire to spread broadcast throughout this country certain statements which may be taken from that report, isolated from the context, and which when so treated are positive slanders

against the persons at whom they are aimed. The hon. member for North Toronto acquitted himself with that force which he usually exercises when he addresses this House ; but I must tell him that much clapping and slapping of the hands, much pounding of his desk, much gesticulation, does not add emphasis to his remarks, in the opinion of members on this side of the House, although such actions on the part of the hon member may and so call for loud applause from a band of his admiring followers. Now, what did, he bring up which the House was not already in possession of ? He went over the old land-deal scandals, or so-called scandals, the charges of impropriety in connection with timber and irrigation companies, charges which have time after time been investigated in this House and disposed of, merely to give what in his opinion was justification for a more extended inquiry than is proposed to be had before Hr. Justice Cassels. But he seems to forget that which we all remember, namely, that there had been the fullest, freest and fairest investigation of all these matters, from the original documents, in the Public Accounts Committee and otherwise, and therefore there is not the slighest necessity for any further investigation or discovery. But the hon. member for North Toronto said that the government were inclined to repudiate the commission, to find fault with it, to sneer at it. Now, I do not find, in any statement which has been made to-day by any one on this side of the House any such insinuation either on the part oi the government or on the part of any member sunnorting the government. On the contrary, the government realize that this is a report made by their own commission, am 1 am satisfied of one thing, though I do not know the minds of the government, that having received that report from a commission appointed by themselves, they are going to give its recommendations all the weight and authority that such recommendations coining from such men should have. They are not going to treat the report as such reports were treated by Conservative governments in the past. I have no doubt in my mind that if the administration of the various departments to-day is found wanting in any respect, though I do not admit that it is, the reason is that the Liberal .party did not take such action as they would have been justified in taking in the year 1S96 when they obtained power. The party which introduced into this country and into the civil service of this country that iniquitous system known as the spoils system was not the Liberal party. There was a civil service in this country before confederation. Under the Act of Union of 1841 we had a civil service, and it continued until the year 1867. In the year 1868 a new service had to be instituted;


Hugh Guthrie: there were new provinces, new requirements, and new services to he performed. So that in that year was passed the first Civil Service Act, and a very crude affair it was. In the following year was appointed the first Civil Service Commission. That commission was to find out what was requisite in the way of a civil service for the country. That commission made its report, and in pursuance of that report the first civil service was established under the coalition government, though the premier was the late Sir John Macdonald. The coalition system did not work very - well and did not stand very long; and shortly after confederation, instead of carrying out the idea of the fathers of confederation in regard to the civil service or the Senate, the spoils system was introduced deliberately, and appointments were only made to the civil service or to the Senate of political partisans of the government of the day. That was the first real introduction of that system into this country, a system which has for its motto, ' to the victors belong the spoils.' That system was continued. I do not say that the Mackenzie administration did not continue it as well as other administrations; but I do say that after the year 1878, after the Mackenzie administration went out of power, the system received fresh vigour at the hands of the Conservative administration which came in for a second time. It is well known that many of the Liberal appointments made at the close of the Liberal administration were deliberately set aside by the government of Sir John Macdonald and the places filled by prominent Conservatives. That surely was the maintenance of the spoils system. There was much outcry and much comment at the time, and it was on account of that that the Civil Service Commission of 1880 was appointed. How did the Conservative government of that day treat that commission ? They appointed it, I think I can safely say at this time, for the purpose of fooling or hoodwinking the public. They had no real intention of taking the civil service out of politics, but their commissioners had that intention, and the only real suggestion or recommendation which that commission made, the most pointed and most prominent, was that ail civil service appointments should he open to free competition. In 1881 there was nothing done. In 1883 there was very little done. It is true that there was a Civil Service Act passed and a board of examiners appointed, but there was no board of civil service commissioners appointed, as the commission recommended. It is true, the examination were prescribed, but not those that the commission recommended. The system of examination was changed, and although hundreds passed the examinations, only Conservative candidates could obtain ad-



APRTT. 30. 190S

[Stage Direction]
mission to the service. That Act was amended every year up to 1889 and every amendment made to it was for the purpose of doing away with or relaxing conditions which the Act imposed. I make that statement on the authority of the commission which discussed the matter in 1892. They say there that the Act was amended from year to yefir for the express purpose of giving greater latitude to the government or relaxing its restrictions or conditions.
How did the next commission come to be appointed? It was appointed because there was a greater outcry throughout Canada probably than ever before. In 1891 this whole country was shaken and its people humiliated by the disclosures which had taken place before the parliamentary commission of this House. There was an outcry from one end of the country to the other that something must be done, that some reform must take place, and in order to meet that cry

but without the slightest intention of doing anything, except hoodwinking the public

another commission was appointed in November, 1891. That commission reported in the spring of 1892. Quotations have been made from that report on many occasions to-day, but there are some things in it which have not been brought out properly in this debate. The original powers given the commission were these. They were entitled to investigate any subject connected with the civil service which, in their opinion, required consideration and readjustment in order to attain the greatest possible efficiency. Their powers were similar to the general powers given the recent commission. Those powers are included under ten headings, and, besides the matters specially designated, the commissioners are authorized to inquire into any other matter relative to the service which, in the opinion of the commissioners, requires consideration. The commissioners in 18t>2 were four in number. Mr. J. M. Courtney was commissioner then as well as in the commission of 1907-8. The commission of 1892 made some express findings, which it is well to note. They found that there was political interference in the civil service; that the examinations were a mere mockery and the promotion examinations in many cases evaded altogether. They found that the departments were overmanned and underpaid; that they were overmanned through political influence and favourtism and that the purchasing system was very widely astray. They did not use the term ' discount ' or state that no discounts appeared, but the statement they did make in that respect is to be found page 58 of the report:
A still further subject your commissioners deem worthy of note, before treating of the expenditures themselves, is that relating to the purchase of supplies and the prices paid for articles purchased by the several departments. In his evidence before the commission, the Auditor General stated most distinctly that when goods were purchased without tenders, such as furniture and other supplies for the public buildings, as a rule, retail prices were paid for the same when wholesale prices should have prevailed.
Thus admitting that the same system was in vogue in those days as, it is charged, has been continued since. The attention of the late Conservative government was called to all these matters in that report. They knew that the departments were being overmanned through political influence. They knew that purchases were improperly made, and that retail prices were paid where wholesale prices should have prevailed. They knew that the examination system was a farce and that the spoil system was in full force. What did they do? 1892 passed and nothing done. So did 1893, 1894 and 1895 and nothing whatever accomplished. 1890 passed and with it the Conservative government, and then there began to be some shaking up of the dry bones in the various departments. It is perhaps not altogether accurate for me to say that in 1893 absolutely nothing was done. Among the recommendations of the commissioners was one with regard to superannuation, and there was a bill passed on that subject. But to the positive recommendation of the commissioners regarding appointments to the service, examinations, open competition and so forth, not the slightest attention was paid, so that I think the lion, member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) was not quite fair when lie said that the recommendations of that commission had been carried out by three separate Bills. The commissioners themselves drafted a Civil Service Bill, a most elaborate measure. Read it carefully because it would make the basis of a splendid civil service enactment. But it was disregarded almost in toto, and a Bill introduced by Mr. Costigan in 1893. You can search through the sections of that Bill- sixteen in number-and you will find them the most formal kinds of amendment to the original Act of 1882. One or two clauses of the draft Bill of the commission of 1892 were incorporated in the Bill No. 29 of 1893, but all the main recommendations of the commissioners, all the main clauses of their Bill were emasculated and deprived of any effect. Now these hon. gentlemen say that that Bill was not passed because of the stand taken by the right hon. gentleman who now leads the government. Nothing can be further from the fact. The Conservative government had then a majority of forty or fifty and they would have passed that Bill had they so desired; but what was objected to by the right hon. gentleman, then leader of the opposition, was that the government's Bill was merely intended to give the government the chance f maintaining the iniquitous spoils system which they had maihtained from confederation down to 1893. The Bill in any event was dropped and nothing
[Stage Direction]
was done, and the Conservative government went out of power in 3896. What then happened? No sooner had the present government been sworn in than every Conservative newspaper in the land was crying out that the guillotine was at work and the Conservative heads of the various branches of the service were dropping into the basket. The late Mr. Tarte, then Minister of Public Works, did make some removals, and was caricatured throughout Canada with the guillotine beside him, as an unscrupulous tyrant. Sir William Mulock, then Postmaster General, made some removals, and he also was hounded and vilified. Certain removals were made In the Department of Agriculture, but strange to say the incoming government, having faith no doubt in the commissioners' report of 1S93, as regards the Militia Department and the Department of Marine and Fisheries, made no removals that I know of, but continued on the same old Conservative staff in each department without a single exception. There is one distinction between the report of 1893 and the report recently presented, which I desire to point out. The report of 1892 made under a commission given general powers to investigate just as broad as those of the commission of 1907, contains this statement:
The commissioners before entering into the consideration of the subjects laid down in the reference, desire to state, that it was not within the lines of their duty to follow up inquiries made by the Committee of the House of Commons in the session of 1891, which brought out certain irregularities, but rather to suggest such improvements in methods applicable to all departments as will tend to prevent irregularities in future.
They absolutely state they will not investigate these irregularities although their powers are almost identical with those of the commission of 1907. The commissioners at the very outset say they are not going to investigate irregularities which they considered were outside the scope of their commission. Certainly a certificate coming under such circumstances will have very little force, weight or effect throughout the country as there was no investigation into irregularities or anything of the kind, but the report of the commissioners states that they had visited the departments and that they found an extremely favourable condition of things in the Marine and Fisheries Department; they also make a complimentary reference to the Militia Department. Is it any wonder then that the incoming government should have made no removals in either of these departments ? If they had in view, as I believe they have had for years, a new civil service system, whereby the spoils system will be absolutely abolished in this country; in 1896, they set out properly to Initiate that system because the removals were few and under the circumstances should have been far more. How has it turned out? We had a com-
Hugh Guthrie: mission appointed in 1907 and where is the fault found? Is there any fault found in that report with the Department of Agriculture. where derelict officials were removed ? Hardly a word spoken of that department. Is any serious fault found with the Post Office Department, where objectionable Conservative officials were removed? There is hardly'a criticism of the Post Office Department. Is any serious fault found with the Public Works Department where Mr. Tarte cleared the way? Hardly a word, they did not see fit even to investigate that department. But when you come to the Marine and Fisheries Department and the Militia Department where there was no guillotine, where old Conservative officials were trusted and continued, there your trouble arises.
The old system has been, continued, until recently at all events, but I assume, although I do not know, that things could not have been going very well last spring. Some difficulty must have arisen and if any difficulty did arise, if there was cause for any suspicion, the government, I submit, did the proper thing under the circumstances in appointing a commission of three men in whom both the government and the public have absolute confidence, to inquire into the system. Why the government should now be condemned for that action I do not know. To my mind it was the only fair, honest, statesmanlike and businesslike course which the government could take. They themselves invited the investigation and they themselves, now that the report has been received, I think can be well trusted to remedy any defects which may have been reported in that system. I think, therefore, the motion which has been made on that subject by the leader of the opposition should fail. The investigation has been complete to an extreme, far more complete perhaps than any one anticipated, but it is well for the government and for the country that it ha'sl been so complete.	|
But there is a feeling in my mind andt I think in the mind of any unprejudiced man, that the commission either did go too far or not far enough in some of their findings, and it is for that reason that a judge, highly respected by every one who knows him, has been asked to point out or to place his hand upon the real culprit or culprits, if there be more than one, in the Marine and Fisheries Department. I have no doubt, although I do not know the mind of the government, that they will take steps to remedy the defects that have been pointed out. I do not know- just what lines of action they may see fit to take, but I am satisfied that when their measure does come down it will be found to remedy the defects and to satisfy the desires of every reasonable man in this country who wishes to see a better civil service system inaugurated and maintained.



APRIL 30. 1903

[Stage Direction]
The lion, member for North Toronto made what I would term a sort of wild election speech. He took his cue, no doubt, from certain remarks of his own leader when he spoke of the commission's report as being a sort of campaign document. It has been used as such a document by the Conservative party, there is no doubt about that. When the hon. member for North Toronto (Hr. Foster) took the floor, he immediately reverted to what he called the revenge which the people had taken on the present government in New Brunswick. He spoke also of what had taken place in British Columbia and then he referred to some small municipal election in the city of Halifax, yesterday. I believe that in some of the wards some aldermen were elected. These are the indications which present themselves to the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), and evidently convince him that there is a brighter day coming for the Conservative party than there has been for many years past. If he accepts these as positive or conclusive signs he is easily satisfied and we do not quarrel with him, but I think he went out of his way to say some unkind and very mean things in regard to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. It was an unnecessary sneer for the hon. member to use in regard to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries when he said that the minister had gone down to the province of Quebec in 1896 to oppose military expenditures, in other words to raise a race and creed agitation in that province. I am satisfied that the statement of the minister in that regard is absolutely correct and the statement of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) is absolutely unfounded. I cannot say that he made that statement knowing it to be false, but I can say that he made it in such utter, reckless disregard as to whether it were false or true that it should be condemned by every right-thinking man in this House.
There is another peculiar circumstance to which I wish to refer. The hon. member who leads the opposition, on the 20th day of August last, proceeded to Halifax, there to enunciate his political platform and to announce to the citizens of Halifax, the capital of Nova Scotia, that he had placed in it a plank in regard to civil service reform. Why he should have gone to Halifax to make that announcement for the first time, I do not know. Was it in the spirit of bravado that he went there? I think it would have been more fitting if he had gone to the county of Carleton to make that announcement than to the city of Halifax. The hon. member for North Toronto always reverts to conditions in New Brunswick; time and again he tells us what has happened, what is happening and what will happen in the province of New Brunswick. Why, Sir, the strangest thing of all is to see these two hon. members
occupying the seats of the mighty in the opposition ranks of this House; the leader of the opposition himself, politically expatriated from his native province of Nova Scotia, driven to seek a seat amidst the preponderating Orange vote of the county of Carleton; the member for North Toronto, politically expatriated from his native province of New Brunswick, driven to seek a seat amidst the preponderating Orange Tory vote of the city of Toronto. And there they sit together, while Orangemen to the right of them, Orangemen to the left of them, and Orangemen behind them volley and thunder. I have no doubt, having regard to the constituencies which they represent in this House, that the hon. member for North Toronto finds it necessary occasionally to furnish some strong meat for his constituents, and he can best supply that by making sneers and jibes at something that transpired in the province of Quebec. The whole discussion of this question I think has gone rather far afield, having regard to the motion and the amendment which has been placed in your hands. However, at this late hour, I will not venture to trespass upon the time of the House by entering further upon the discussion.
House divided on amendment (Mr. R. L. Borden).
YEAS:
Messieurs
Alcorn,
Ames,
Armstrong,
Avery,
Barker,
Barr,
Bennett,
Blain,
Borden (Carleton), Boyce,
Brabazon,
Broder,
Chisholm (Huron), Clare,
Clements,
Cockshutt,
Crocket,
Daniel,
Elsou,
Fowler,
Ganong,
Haggart,
Henderson,
Herron,
Hughes (Victoria), Lake,
Lennox,
Macdonell,
MacLaren,
McCarthy (Calgary), McLean
(Queens, P.E.I.), Marshall,
Martin
(Queens, P.E.I.), Morin,
Northrup,
Perley,
Porter,
Reid (Grenville), Roche (Marquette), Schaffner,
Sproule,
Stanfield,
Staples,
Walsh (Huntingdon), Ward,
Wilmot,
Wilson (Lennox & Addington), Worthington.-48.
NAYS:
Messieurs
Archambault,
Aylesworth,
Beauparlant,
Borden
(Sir Frederick), Bourbonnais,
Lemieux,
Loggie,
Lovell,
Macdonald,
Maclean (Lunenburg), Macpherson,
[Stage Direction]
Brodeur,
Brown,
Caldwell,
Carrier,
Cash,
Chisholm
(Antigonish),
Copp,
Crawford,
Cyr,
Delisle,
Demers,
Desjardins,
Devlin,
Dubeau,
Dugas,
Emmerson,
Finlay,
Finlay son,
Fisher,
Fortier,
Galliher,
Gauvreau,
Geoffrion,
Girard,
Gladu,
Graham,
Guthrie,
Hall,
Harty,
Hughes
(Kings, P.E.I.), Hunt,
Jackson (Selkirk), Johnston,
Knowles,
Lachance,
Lanctot (Laprairie-
Napierville),
Lanctot (Richelieu), Lapointe,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Laurier
(L'Assomption),
Lavergne
(Drum. & Arth.), LeBlanc,
McColl,
McCraney,
McIntyre (Perth), McIntyre (Strathcona), McKenzie,
McLean (York, C.), McLennan,
Major,
Marcile (Bagot), Martin (Montreal, Ste. Mary's), Martin (Wellington), Mayrand,
Meigs,
Michaud,
Miller,
Parmelee,
Paterson,
Parent,
Pickup,
Proulx,
Pugsley,
Ratz,
Reid (Restigouche), Rivet,
Robitaille,
Ross (Cape Breton), Ross (Rimouski), Ross (Yale-Cariboo), Rousseau,
Savoie,
Schell (Glengarry), Sinclair,
Sloan,
Smith (Nanaimo), Smith (Oxford), Stewart,
Telford,
Templeman,
Tobin,
Tolmie,
Turcotte,
Turgeon,
Watson,	*
Wright (Renfrew), Zimmerman.-99.
PAIRS:
Messieurs
Ministerial.
Calvert,
Logan,
Talbot,
Greenway,
Fielding,
Wilson (Russell), German,
Black,
Oliver,
Belaud,
Kennedy,
Gordon,
Clarke,
Grant,
Ethier,
Conmee,
Schell (Oxford), Carney,
Sifton,
Turriff,
Hugh Guthrie: Opposition.
Taylor,
Lefurgey,
Bergeron,
Tisdale,
Foster,
Bristol,
Lancaster,
Monk,
Osier,
White,
Pringle,
Kemp,
Maclean (York, S.), Seagram,
Leonard,
Wright (Muskoka), Smith (Wentworth), Lalor,
Forget,
Beattie,
Adamson,
Pardee,
Roche (Halifax), Law,
Bureau.
Amendment (Mr. tired.
Jackson (Elgin), Christie,
Lewis,
Thompson,
I'aquet.
R. L. Borden) nega-


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to. and House went into Committee of Supply.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved the adjournment of the House.
Robert Laird Borden: I desire to read a telegram that I have received this evening from Yorkton, Saskatchewan, and which is as follows :
Yorkton, Saskatchewan, April 30, 1908.
R. L. Borden, M.P., Ottawa.
Fort William contingent of vagrants presumably insane Doukhobors shipped here in charge of an official of Ontario government still in coaches on track here. Induced to come to Yorkton under misrepresentation that they were going to a warmer climate. Doukhobors in villages refuse to acknowledge them. Citizens strongly protest against them being dumped here. Some twenty in a nude state indecently exposing themselves. Provincial government inform us matter being taken up with Immigration Department of Dominion government. Matter extremely urgent. Please urge immediate action.



G. P. BRADBROOK,

[Stage Direction]
Secretary Board of Trade.

[Stage Direction]
Secretary-Treasurer.
I do not know anything about this telegram, except that it came addressed to me this evening and as they desire that the matter should be urged upon the attention of the government, I have taken this opportunity of reading it in order that the Prime Minister may determine whether any action can properly be taken.
Wilfrid Laurier: As my hon. friend knows if these people have violated the laws of the province of Saskatchewan they are under the jurisdiction of the provincial authorities.


Robert Laird Borden: What business may we expect to-morrow ?
Sir WILFRID LAURIER, The same supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 1. 30 a.m., Friday.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, May 1, 1908.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER took the Chair at Three o'clock.

Allen Bristol Aylesworth: Mr. Speaker, in compliance with a request made yesterday by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), I beg leave to lay on the table the letter of instructions to Mr. Watson in reference to the investigation before Judge Cassels, relating to the Department of Marine and Fisheries.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether the resignation of the Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries which was tendered some time ago, as we were informed, has been accepted or is still under consideration.


Wilfrid Laurier: I could not say to my hon. friend. The minister is not here.



SUPPLY-WANDERING DOUKHOBORS.

[Stage Direction]
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
['Yes.']
Mr. R. S. LAKE (Qu'Appelle).: Mr. Speaker, last night the hon. leader of the opposition called the attention of the government to a telegram which he had received shortly before from the town of Yorkton in the province of Saskatchewan, and which was as follows :
Yorkton, Saskatchewan, April 30, 1908. E. L. Borden, M.P., Ottawa.
Fort William contingent of vagrants presumably insane Doukhobors shipped here in charge of an official of Ontario government still in coaches on track here. Induced to come to Yorkton under /misrepresentation' that they were going to warmer climate. Doukhobors in villages refuse to acknowledge them. Citizens strongly protest against them being dumped here. Some twenty in a nude state iudecently exposing themselves. Provincial government inform us matter being taken up with Immigration Department of Dominion government. Matter extremely urgent. Please urge immediate action.



[Stage Direction]
Secretary Board of Trade.

[Stage Direction]
Secretary-Treasurer.
The reply of the Prime Minister was as follows :
As my hon. friend knows if these people have violated the laws of the province of Saskatchewan they are under the jurisdiction of the provincial authorities.
I consider that a most unsatisfactory statement coming from the head of this government. Let me recall to your mind the
facts of the case in regard to this special number of Doukhobors. They are well
known to the public, having been freely discussed in the public press. In the early part of last summer a number of Doukhobors started eastward on a pilgrimage on foot. They went by easy stages and reached Fort William or Port Arthur at the beginning of the winter. They took a house and stayed at Fort William during the winter. While they were there they committed several offences against public decency, and finally on April 9, this spring, nineteen of them were committed to imprisonment in the central prison for a term of six months, I believe. While they were undergoing punishment and before they had been removed from Port Arthur, the Dominion government stepped in and ordered their release when they had been in prison only ten days. The Minister of Justice stated in answer to a question of mine the other day, that it had been represented to him that these Doukhobors had come from Saskatoon, and as there was no room for the prisoners in the prisons of the country, it would be advisable to pardon them, and, to use his own words, ' let them be removed to the part of the country from which they came.' On these representations lie sent a telegram as follows :
April 14, 1908.
Mr. Police Magistrate Palling,
Fort William.
The Minister of Justice requests you will be good enough to send immediately report upon cases of ten male and nine female Doukhobors committed by you to Port Arthur jail.

[Stage Direction]
For Deputy Minister of Justice.
The report was received and submitted to His Excellency the administrator on the 18th of April, and the release of the prisoners was ordered. Thereupon the Doukhobors stepped out from jail defiant and triumphant at having successfully defied the laws of this country. According to the newspapers, another telegram was sent at the same time that the Minister of Justice was telegraphing to the magistrate at Fort William, and was received by that magistrate before he had time to answer the first telegram. That telegram was as follows :
Please report pardon for Doukhobors now in Port Arthur jail preparatory to their being shipped back to Saskatchewan, where they come from.
I do not know whom that telegram came from. At any rate, the Minister of Justice repudiates it. But the fact that the two telegrams were sent practically at the same time showed that the Minister of Justice must have been a party to the intention to ship these people west to the province of Saskatchewan. The Minister of Justice says that, as far as he was concerned, the Doukhobors were at liberty to
[Stage Direction]
come and go as they pleased like any other citizens and that he had no intention of sending them to the province of Saskatchewan. That is evidently a quibble. He knew all about it and was a party to the steps which were taken, and the Doukho-bors were released in order to be sent back to that province. I consider that the government of the Dominion have a considerable amount of responsibility for the release of these prisoners. I made inquiry as to whether the government would accept responsibility for having released prisoners almost immediately after conviction and before they had been properly punished. The right horn the First Minister rather smiled and said no, that the administration of justice was in the hands of the provincial authorities. I hold, however, that when the provincial authorities have done their duty and put these people in jail, the Dominion authorities assume a great deal of responsibility when they order them to be released. The Dominion government assume responsibility to see that these people do not offend the second time shortly after their release, and also to see that any expense incurred by another province, in case these people should again offend, should not fall on that province. Only the other day I saw a case reported in the newspapers in which the Minister of Justice had released a man convicted for stealing horses. The man was released before the expiry of the term, and shortly after he got out of jail he again committed a similar offence and put the provincial authorities to a great deal of trouble and expense. I am glad to say that the man was captured again and again committed for a long term, and I trust the Minister of Justice will not take it into his head to again release that man and start him on his career of horse stealing again.
The first thing that strikes me is that these Doukhobors were sent to Yorkton, instead of to Saskatoon if they came from there. On arrival at Yorkton it was found that some of them were travelling in a state of nudity and the people of Yorkton object to having these people turned out on their streets to parade in that condition. The people of the province of Saskatchewan are thus put to the expense of preventing these Doukhobors from committing any further offence against public decency. This whole business is a public scandal. These people, who were accustomed to parade in this condition iu the town of Fort William are released from the just punishment for their offences, put on board the cars, sent to another province and allowed to get out and offend the people there. It is time the government took some steps to look after these wretched creatures. They were brought into this country in the year 1899. They were placed in the province of Saskatchewan without the permission of the people of that province having been par-Mr. LAKE.
ticularly asked,' and yet that province is held responsible. That province has had a great deal of trouble with these people. It has been found impossible to make them obey some of our laws. They were brought in by this government with a great deal of eclat. They were the first fruits of the * splendid ' policy of immigration introduced by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sif-ton). Liberal organizations all through the country made a great hurroo about them. Special receptions were organized, brass bands and all that sort of thing, and they were received in a way very liable to spoil them and cause them rather to look with disrespect on Canadians. The cost of bringing them out was pretty considerable because they received a bonus of one pound per head, although at that time immigrants from the British Isles were only receiving one-half that bonus. For the first year they cost the government in bonus and keep, $7.47 per head for every man, woman and child of. them. Under the circumstances, I think this government are especially responsible, and should explain on what ground they were a party to shipping these people back to another province. These people remained there throughout the winter. In the early part of the winter we did not hear that they were acting in any very extraordinary way, but during the winter they apparently became demented. It is time for the government to take cognizance of this public scandal. The government are to be condemned for turning these people out naked into the streets of one of onr Canadian cities.
Allen Bristol Aylesworth: In the answer I gave to the question of my hon. friend last week, I stated as fully as possible exactly the circumstances. I stated that in this whole business this government recognizes and undertakes no responsibility whatever except for the recommendation to release these prisoners. For that recommendation I of course take the fullest responsibility. It was made by myself in the course of daily departmental business and was a proper recommendation under the circumstances. It was made, as I have already stated, upon the direct request and recommendation to me of the Attorney General of the province of Ontario, who is the proper official and the proper constitutional authority charged with the duty of administering justice within the province. And I may say that in the twenty-three months experience I have now had in the Department of Justice. in dealing with applications for the release of prisoners, it has been not infrequent that for some special reason the pardon or release upon ticket of leave of some particular prisoner has been suggested or recommended by the Attorney General of the province from which that prisoner came or in which the offence was com-

mitted, and I do not recall any instance in which such a recommendation has not been acted upon. Certainly, it is a recommendation of the greatest potency, and one which, in all ordinary circumstances, I would think, should at least be regarded, if not followed implicitly. In the case of. these particular prisoners, there was an offence against good morals, an offence against society


Robert Laird Borden: On what date was tile answer given ?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: On April 23, as found in unrevised ' Hansard, page 7210. In the case of these prisoners, I say, the offence wras one against social order and one which had been dealt with by the local municipal authorities. The conviction had been made by the police magistrate of the city of Fort William, himself a provincial official. The application for the release of these prisoners was not merely supported by letter of the deputy Attorney General of the province in which their pardon was asked as something which he thought the best course to be taken in the circumstances, but the application was supported by the coming to Ottawa for that express purpose of two of the prison officials of the provincial government. These two gentlemen came bringing the letter I have referred to with them, and stating that the object of their application was in order that the whole of the colony of Doukhobors who had been living in Fort William for some months might return to the place from whence they came. It was stated to me that it was the wish of these people to rejoin their companions, their fellows, their family relations, I suppose, who remained in the province of Saskatchewan, and they were not willing to return if they were to be compelled to leave behind those of their unmber who had been imprisoned for the offence referred to. In the circumstances, I think, every hon. gentleman who hears me will concur in the feeling that the application came very strongly supported. I do not, at the moment, remember the length of the imprisonment to which these men and women had been sentenced, but I point out that, however much to be reprehended the offence is of which these people had been guilty, it is conceded on ail hands that it was something which they had done contrary to good morals and social order, but in which there was, on their part, no intent to commit crime, in which there was on their part, it may be, conscientious action dependent upon motives of a religious character, and an offence which, at all events, was induced according to every account of it, which I have seen or which has been made to my knowledge, by a sort of religious mania or frenzy which possibly amounts, as the hon. gentleman has suggested, practically to a loss of reason or to insanity. Well, if people are in that condition, those who are best able to take care of their fellows whose reason has been affected or impared, upon whom the care of such poor people to be pitied, unoffending creatures, may most properly be cast, are the very family relations or companions to whom, as I was told, they were desirous of returning. The responsibility for the care of the insane, equally with that for the care of prisoners under shorter terms and for the less serious offences, is upon the provincial authorities. And, in these circumstances, it was simply a case where people in prison for a comparatively venial offence were, by the constituted authorities of the province, asked to be allowed to go in order that they might go with their fellows to their homes, to tiie place from which they came. Though it lias been charged in the newspapers, and was in a sense endorsed by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bake) who has just spoken, in the question which he put in the House, that the application to the convicting magistrate from the Department of Justice for a report in the case of these prisoners was immediately followed by a request, or direction, or suggestion, by telegram from the Department of Justice to the same magistrate that lie should report favouring a pardon, I took occasion to deny that very unequivocally in the answer I made.


Richard Stuart Lake: I did not make the charge, but read the statement to that effect and asked if it was true.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: Certainly, I acquit altogether my hon. friend (Mr. Lake) from any intention to make the charge. The language I have just used was that it was freely charged in the newspapers, and in a sense, endorsed by the hon. gentleman. I do not wish to be understood at all as saying anything to the contrary if the hon. gentleman wishes it to be understood that he did not at all share in the impression that this request for a report favouring a pardon had proceeded from the Department of Justice. As I have said, that was not the case at all, and I can only surmise from what source the telegram, which is quoted verbatim in the question I have referred to did proceed ; I supposed it must have come from the officials here in Ottawa at that time when they made the application for the release of these people and who were interested in getting them returned to the province of Saskatchewan. With anything that has taken place since the signing of the recommendation to His Excellency for the release of these prisoners, I have had nothing whatever to do, and I have no knowledge whatever beyond what has appeared in the newspapers, and from the reception yesterday of a telegram in identical words with the telegram read at the adjournment of the House by the hon. leader
7G27

oi the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden). But whatever the situation in the province of Saskatchewan, or wherever these men may be, it is, I repeat, in my submission, a provincial matter, a matter in regard to which this government is under no resposibility whatever, and in regard to which any action that has been taken by the Department of *Justice in this connection is not one that leaves the department itself in any way open to fair criticism. I have acted with regard to these prisoners exactly in the way in which I would have acted if the same men or women had been Canadian born, in the same way as if they had been of any other nationality whhtever. The nationality of the people had not anything the slightest to do with the course taken with respect to them. And the number had nothing to do with it. It was simply a case with those convicted of this offence of going publicly without clothing, and an application on the part of the constituted authorities of the province in which that offence had been committed that these persons should be pardoned.
Once pardoned that person was absolutely free to go wheresoever he or she might see Qt, and so long as no law of the country was broken, that person was not to be restrained of his or her personal liberty. That appears to be exactly what has taken place. These people have gone, it may be in charge of a provincial officer, from Fort William back to where they came from. The hon. gentleman representing a constituency in the province to which they have gone (Mr. Lake) thinks that it was wrong that they should have gone there. He speaks of the Dominion government having stepped in. as though the Dominion government had officiously, of its own motion, without having been asked to do so, interfered in this matter and done something to put these people off the province of Ontario and on to the province of Saskatchewan. I disclaim any such representation of what has taken place in regal'd to this matter. There has been so far as the Department of Justice is concerned-and that department alone of any in the government so far as I am aware has had anything to do with this transaction-no siding with one province or with another province. It is a matter of absolute indifference, so far as the Dominion authorities are concerned, in which province of this Dominion those people may be. But there lias been a facilitating, if my hon. friend wishes to put it in that way, a facilitating of an intention expressed beforehand on the part of the officials of whom I have spoken, that these people should return to the place from which they came. It is in no other sense that there has been any sending of these men and women from one part of the country to another, and there is nothing in anything I have done in the matter which merits the application of the word ' quibble ' which I Mr. AYLESWORTH.
understand my hon. friend has used in describing what has taken place. I have stated from the outset exactly what I knew of the matter. I was told beforehand that the object in asking that these imprisoned people should be set free was in order ..that with those of their companions who were at large they might go away all together, and because those who were at large declined to go leaving behind their companions in jail.
I cannot speak of the other case to which the hon. gentleman has alluded, because I do not identify it in any way. He complains that in some other instance, some man imprisoned for horse stealing was improperly released. Well, it only illustrates, and I ask any hon. gentleman who will be good enough to take the trouble to consider this, something of the difficulty of the position in which any man is who has to advise on many hundreds of applications of this character in the course of a twelvemonth. It is manifestly impossible to please everybody in such things. My hon. friend thinks it was very wrong to have released that prisoner. The hon. member for Durham not so very long ago with some other hon. gentlemen in this House thought it was very wrong that I should not release somebody else convicted from Hie same neighbourhood. I can only say that each one of these cases has to be dealt with, with all the care I am able to apply to it, upon its own individual circumstances. I am perfectly conscious, only too conscious and only too sorry, that in many cases mistakes are made. I am afraid that in some cases men who ought in all honesty and justice to be set at large are not set at large, and I am only too well aware that in too many eases men who ought not to be allowed to go have been, by some misunderstanding of the facts or by some reliance that has proved unfounded, upon too frail human nature, allowed to go free. These things will always occur and there may be plenty more cases besides the one to which my hon. friend has alluded in which the event has demonstrated that it would have been better had the prisoner not been the subject of clemency at the hands of the Crown.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Justice is not quite accurate in the reference he made to the case brought to the attention of the House by the hon. member for Durham. In that case the prisoner expressly disclaimed any desire to have a pardon. He declined to be pardoned, because he claimed strongly that he had never committed any crime. What he did desire was that he should be afforded a new trial in order to bring forward evidence which was not available at the time of his conviction. He also desired that he should be tried by a jury of his fellow countrymen.


190S
[Stage Direction]
So far as concerns tlie matter which has been immediately brought to the attention of the House by the hon. member for Qu'-Appelle (Mr. Lake), the Minister of Justice disclaims all responsibility except the responsibility of acting upon the recommendation of the Attorney General for Ontario. No one can criticise the province of Ontario or any of the officials of that province for desiring to get rid of these people. It was a perfectly natural desire that these persons, having come from somewhere outside of the province and having conducted themselves in such a manner as to justify their incarceration either in prison or an asylum, should be taken out of the province as soon as possible. But when you come to the question of sending them back to the province of Saskatchewan, you must assume a condition on their part which certainly calls for action by some government and one would think it might merit the interference of this government which is responsible for bringing those people into the country. Those people, if they are in their right mind, have as good a right to reside in the province of Ontario or any other province of Canada as they have to reside in the province of Saskatchewan. Therefore, there was no possible warrant for sending them back to the province of Saskatchewan even if there were warrant for pardoning them of the effence for which they were convicted and setting them at liberty. It is perfectly clear that the pardon was granted with the idea that they would be sent back to the province of Saskatchewan. If these men are in such a condition that they are to be bandied about from one province to the other until friction arises between the various provinces, such as arises between the guardians of one poor district and those of another poor district in Great Britain, we shall have a very curious condition of affairs in this country. Suppose that the authorities of the province of Saskatchewan take proceedings against these people for that indecent exposure which is even now being committed by them in that province, suppose that they are again incarcerated, and that the Attorney General of Saskatchewan recommends to this government their discharge in order that they may be sent to a warmer climate in British Columbia, will the same play go on, will they be removed from the province of Saskatchewan to the province of British Columbia by means of the pardoning powers ' of this government, and then shall we have another performance of exactly the same character in the province of British Columbia? Persons who conduct themselves in this way are fit inmates for a prison or an asylum, and if they are mentally deranged, as the Minister of Justice suggested, then surely the government of the Dominion, responsible for bringing these people into the country, should co-operate in some way with the government of some 242
province and see that the public decency of the country is not any longer violated by such performances as those which have been going on in recent months.
Why did not the government of this country before exercising its pardoning power, make some inquiry of the authorities of the province of Saskatchewan to ascertain the circumstances under which these people hal left that province and come to a conclusion as to what the conditions would be if these people were deported from Outario to Saskatchewan ? It appears, notwithstanding all that has been said by the hon. Minister of Justice respecting the restoration of these people to family relations, that there are no family relations to be restored because the sensible Doukhobors, the majority of those people who are living, as I believe, quiet, decent, peaceable and industrious lives, refuse altogether to recognize this small section of the community which is bringing discredit upon the name of Doukhobors throughout the country. Why was not some inquiry made as to that before they were sent back to Yorkton ? Under the circumstances, it seems to me that the action of the government is not very, intelligent and that the Department of Immigration, or some department of the government, should get at once into communication witli the authorities of the province of Saskatchewan and see that such steps are taken as will prevent a recurrence of any such scenes as those which have been heralded throughout the press during the past three or four months in. eastern Canada.
Frank Oliver: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Immigration has now a somewhat wide spread responsibility, and as having charge of that department at the present time, I must really protest against the suggestion of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. It. L. Borden) that, besides having the responsibility for all effort in regard to bringing people into Canada, it should be responsible for all people In Canada after they come here. I take it that we have a division of responsibility between the different branches of the one government and between the different governments of this country. A certain responsibility rests upon the Dominion government, a certain responsibility rests upon the provincial governments, and I do not think that there is any gain to be made by a provincial government assuming Dominion responsibilities nor by the Dominion government assuming provincial responsibilities. The Department of Immigration, to which my hon. friend has consigned these people, has to do with such effort as is sanctioned by parliament to bring to people outside of Canada the advantages of Canada with the view of securing their re-



moval here, and two years ago it was clothed with the further power to remove out of Canada to the country from whence they came people who, within two years of their coming, had transgressed the laws or rendered themselves obnoxious or undesirable here. But, these Doukhobors in question are neither in one class nor the other. They have been residents of Canada for a matter of seven, eight, or nine years, and during these seven, eight or nine years, as far as I am aware, they have been not only ordinarily law-abiding but they have been extraordinarily law-abiding as far, at any rate, as coming in conflict with the administration of the law is concerned. I venture to say that there are no other 8,000 people of any class, country or condition, who have come to Canada, who, during the nine years of their residence in Canada, have come as little in contact with the officers charged with the administration of the laws as have the 8,000 Doukhobors now resident in Canada. Therefore, Canada has not, either in its provinces or in the Dominion as a whole, suffered from the presence of these people in so far as the administration of law is concerned, or in so far as they have been a burden upon the enforcement of law in this country. These people, it appears, saw fit, some time during last summer, to change their place of residence. Having resided in the province of Saskatchewan for a matter of seven, eight or nine years, they for reasons of their own, saw fit to [DOT]change their place of residence and they exercised the right which is accorded to every person who is a resident of this country to remove from where he is to where he wants to be. They travelled through the settled portions of Manitoba, through its cities and villages and they were received with open arms wherever they went. The people supported them as they travelled along, gave them food, listened to their songs, admired their peculiarities, I presume, and sent them on their way rejoicing, until finally they arrived at port William. When they arrived there the people, or the authorities of Fort William, seemed to think that there was a possibility of occurrences that were not to their advantage. They communicated with the Dominion government here and asked the government to take some responsibility in regard to these people who had been residents of Canada for seven, eight or nine years, who had paid taxes and who were entitled to and had received the privileges and responsibilities of citizenship except the actual right to vote. Well, 1 can only say, Mr. Speaker, that the Immigration Department did not feel any responsibility and did not accept any, and I think the response which was sent to the inquiry from the authorities as to what the Department of Immigration was going to do with the Doukhobors was something in the nature of a general direction for them Mr. OLIVER
to go to work. The hint was taken, they went to work, they found employment and matters went on peaceably and quietly with them during the winter. But, it appears that as time went on, they saw fit to indulge in peculiarities which were in transgression of the law of Ontario. But, the authorities of Ontario did not take any notice of these acts. Whether they liked that kind of thing, or what their reasons were, I am not aware, but, at any rate, it was not until some time this spring that the authorities of the province of Ontario, charged with the maintenance of law and order in that province, took official cognizance of the actions of the Doukhobors, and when they did take notice of these actions and a proper penalty was placed upon them they at once appealed to my hon. friend the Minister of Justice for the release of these people who had transgressed their own law, who had offended against public decency in their own city and they asked that they be pardoned for the reason, as I am given to understand, that they simply wanted to be relieved from the burden of the cost of carrying out their own law-a law for the maintenance of public decency in the province of Ontario. Their request was acceded to and now these people are back in Saskatchewan. How they arrived there I have no knowledge. I want it to be distinctly understood that, in so far as the Immigration Department is concerned, it had no connection with the transport back to the province of Saskatchewan of these people, no interest in it and no knowledge of it.
If they went back as free agents and of their own accord I quite agree with the Minister of Justice that they had a perfect right to go back if they wanted to, and if they went back because of misrepresentation or by reason of undue force, then I presume that a criminal charge may be laid against those who kidnapped them. However, they are in the province of Saskatchewan now, the province in which they have resided-with the exception of their short excursion to Fort William-for the past eight or nine years. Whatever may be said as to the proper share of responsibility on the part of the province of Ontario for the conduct of these people I am at a loss to see what can be said by the people of the province of Saskatchewan. These people have been residents of that province, they have been subject to the responsibilities of residence in that province during all this period, and I submit it is the business of the province of Saskatchewan, when these people are in that province, to see that the laws of the province are maintained just as it was the business of the province of Ontario to see that the laws of that province were maintained when they resided there. The Dominion government has no responsibility with regard to these people in any way.

shape, or manner. The responsibility falls upon the provincial authorities and I assume the provincial authorities will discharge their duty and will deal with these people as is proper under the laws of the province. I might say that before provincial organization was given to Alberta and Saskatchewan and when the enforcement of the law rested upon the Dominion government, if any of these people then transgressed the law, the law was enforced upon them by the Dominion authorities. But now that the provinces have been organized and the responsibility for the enforcement of the law transferred to them I assume that the province concerned will discharge its duty and that the Dominion government will not be called upon, as it certainly ought not to be called upon, to exercise authority which it does not possess, and which if it did exercise in any province of the Dominion except in regard to these particular people, would be held to be a gross infraction of provincial rights and would be resented. I understand that these people are in a condition of mind which does not render them amenable to ordinary considerations, and such being the case it is not possible for this government which has no authority over them to deal with them effectively, hinder the present circumstances I do not think it would be sound public policy for this government to undertake to deal with these people on any principle that this government has the authority to exercise. As I understand, their condition of mind is such that they are only subject to coercive measures and it is only the provincial authorities who have the power to apply these measures. Therefore it is a matter entirely within the control of the province, it is entirely within the responsibility of the province and in my humble estimation sound public policy requires that the province should deal with the matter as it should be dealt with under the ordinary laws and administration of the province.


William James Roche: I thought as I listened to the speech of the Minister of the Interior what a wonderful revolution has taken place in his ideas with regard to those particular people. The time is not far distant when he himself referred in most uncomplimentary terms in this House to the Doukhobors, and not only did he do so from his place in the House but well do I remember reading the caustic articles of the Edmonton ' Bulletin,' of which he was proprietor, in which he scored this government for having in the first place brought those people to Canada, for having in the second place granted them special privileges, and for not having after their first pilgrimage dealt more strenuously with them. The Minister of Justice may have legal justification for what he has done, but still I do not believe that the sensible 2424
people of this country will justify his action in liberating those people and dumping them back on the province in which they are apparently unwelcome. He has stated that he has only complied with their own request that they should be returned to their friends in the province of Saskatchewan, but it appears since their return to the town of Yorkton, that they have no friends, that their fellow countrymen refuse to welcome them, and as a result we have had that telegram which was read last evening by the leader of the opposition. It is distinctly stated there that those people were induced to return by misrepresentation, it having been stated to them that they were being conducted to a warmer climate. The people of Yorkton justly protest against their being dumped on their town. I have no doubt that the representative of that constituency will, before this debate closes, rise in his place to uphold the citizens of his town as no doubt he received a telegram in common with others, requesting that immediate action should be urged upon the government to prevent the disreputable scenes that have already been witnessed in Yorkton. The Minister of the Interior has stated that those people are most law-abiding; that during their recent pilgrimage they were fed by the people of Winnipeg and of the various towns and villages along the route, and that they were well cared for in the town of Fort William. Well, the people of the west are noted for their hospitality and they certainly would not see those people die of starvation, and so their charitable organizations supplied them with food and clothing which unfortunately was soon discarded. The Minister of the Interior has also told us that those people ' indulged in their own peculiarities.' Well, if my information is correct, very strange peculiarities they are. A short time ago I met two prominent citizens of Fort William on the train and they informed me of some -of the peculiarities of those people which are certainly calculated to shock the moral sense of the community. So strange are those peculiarities which the Minister of the Interior has spoken of, that the municipal authorities of Fort William had to board up the windows of the house in which those people lived so that the boys of the town might not havp an opportunity of witnessing such peculiarities. And yet, those gentlemen from Fort William stated that the Minister of the Interior (to use their own expressive words) had the hardihood to rise in his place in parliament and to eulogize those people as being the most moral people in the world. If the hon. gentleman had witnessed some of their actions, as represented by some of the reputable citizens of Fort William, I am sure that he would not rise in his place to defend them and refer to them as moral people; because they conducted themselves

hi a manner to bring the blush of shame to people appearing on the streets of Fort William. I do not blame the people of Ontario for desiring to have those people removed beyond their borders. It is true, they came from the Northwest; but they were brought to this country by this government, and received special consideration, the government paying $5 a head for every man, woman and child. Had they been English, Irish or Scotch, they would have received only $1.75 a head, but being the peculiar pets of the government, they were given this special consideration. When they arrived at Halifax, they were met by immigration agents who were tumbling over each other to extend to them the glad hand of welcome, and to read addresses to them, eulogizing them as persecuted persons fleeing from the tyrannical wrath of Russia to seek homes in this new land of the west. They were conducted by those immigration agents on special trains to the west; and when they arrived in Winnipeg they were treated with special consideration by the municipal authorities and the charitable organizations there. They were given soup of a special variety, not made from animal food, lest it might not agree with their fastidious taste. Addresses were again presented to them and finally they were located on their lands in the west with the idea that they would settle down and become law-abiding citizens of this Dominion. From that time to this they have given constant trouble to the people of the localities in which they have been situated and to the people of the country wherever they appeared. Their first pilgrimage was to the town from which I come. They came there, not in dozens, but in hundreds. They were herded in the skating rink, and the people of the town had to provide for them until the immigration authorities appeared on the scene. When the immigration agent came, it was necessary to get a special train and put them on board by force and take them back to the town of Yorkton under guard of the mounted police, and return them to the lands on which they had been located. This would not satisfy them, and shortly afterwards another outbreak occurred. and from that time there have been repeated outbreaks of these fanatical people. Last fall they started out at great danger of losing their lives; men. women and delicate young children in inclement weather walking in a semi-nude condition, begging on the way to keep themselves alive, to the city of Winnipeg, where they stayed for a few weeks, and then on to Fort William, where they have been a burden to tlie town during the past winter. I remember the time when the Minister of the Interior spoke harshly of the Galicians and even more harshly of the Doukhobors, and I have here a clipping from the Edmonton ' Bulletin,' which gives in rather dramatic language the views held by the hon.


William James Roche: gentleman in those days. This article, which appeared after the first pilgrimage,
says;
The Doukliobor pilgrimage has ended without the tragedy that was confidently expected, and that would have occurred had it not been for the ' persecution ' to which they were subjected by the authorities in being forcibly sent to their homes. What the next move will be remains to be seen. They may stay quietly at home and attend to business, or their ' religious ' enthusiasm may take some other fantastic and possibly less harmless form. At any rate, the secret is out. They are not by anv means the people.they were represented to be. They cannot travel any longer on their reputation of being Russian Quakers, or of haying been persecuted by an intolerant church and government for conscience' sake. They have shown themselves to be nuisances personally, socially and politically. Such people as this, this country has no room or use for. The difference between those who went on the insane pilgrimage and those who did not is only a difference of degree, not of kind. The pilgramage was the logical sequence of their beliefs, A'l believed. but the difference was that those who remained at home resembled many other people to the extent that they did not live up to their beliefs. How soon they will arrive at a sufficient exaltation of spirit depends merely on the effectiveness of the preaching of the next crank who strikes their settlements; and whose missionary efforts will be helped rather than hindered by their having come oil their recent pilgrimage practically none the worse.
The question now is, shall such people be pandered to by the authorities in the future as they have been in the past? They have been dealt with and allowed to consider themselves, as a separate people. They have been aided financially as no other people have been or should be. Their disregard of law hag been winked at.
Yet the Minister of the Interior states today that there could not be 8,000 more law-abiding people in the Dominion of Canada than these Doukhobors.
All no doubt with the best intentions. But only with the result that Canada has been put to serious cost and trouble and has been made a laughing stock by their antics.
This pilgrimage is the limit. It puts them outside of reason or excuse.
If that was the case at the time of their first pilgrimage, when they retained their clothing, what must have been the case at the time of their last pilgrimage when they walked through the streets of Fort William absolutely nude.
The authorities will not hereafter be justified in dealing with them otherwise than as ordinary citizens. The law of Canada exempts from military service all whose religious beliefs prevent their taking part in the defence of their oountry. The Doukhobors can claim that exemption with the Mennonites, Quakers, Dunkards and others. But beyond that not a step-not a line. Their peculiar ideas regarding marriage have so

far been ' respected/ This is a reproach to our laws and a danger to our social system. For if a Doukhobor may defy the marriage laws, why may not any other persons? Their political beliefs are a combination of theocracy, socialism and anarchy. The fact that they wash themselves is a strong point in their favour. But the other fact that they do not believe in work beyond providing for present need and are liable at any time to turn into a horde of tramps and beggars, completelv knocks out the argument of their industrial value, which at earlier stages of the game was supposed to make up for every disadvantage.
There is a general objection to the importation of people whose presence, aspirations and votes tend against the proper social, political and industrial development of the country. The bringing of these Doukhobors was a mistake, but to allow them to remain on any other terms than as ordinary citizens would be a crime. They have made several attempts to find other locations. The sooner they find them the better for Canada, as removing a problem that, if it remains a problem-
These were the expressions of the hon. gentleman a few years ago. To be sure, he was not a minister of the Crown at that time, and was not called upon to defend the actions of the government in having brought those people of Canada; but to-day he feels obliged to defend not only the action of his predecessor in bringing them here, but the action of the Minister of Justice in giving them liberation and dumping them on the province of Saskatchewan. But it was not the hon. gentleman alone who condemned those people in past times. The Bible of the Liberal party, the Toronto ' Globe,' also advocated the removal of those people from our midst. I shall read a very short excerpt from it:
The Czar of all the Russias has never had much experience in welcoming subjects returning from foreign countries, and Canada should give him an opportunity to appear graciously and gracefully before the world in a new role. A Doukhobor Old Boys' Society returning to visit the scenes of youthful experiences, to renew friendships and revive happy memories, would be a felicitous occasion. on which the Czar could play the gracious host, and the returning pilgrims could bear the honours of distant successes with becoming modesty. They could sit by their old hearths and tell of the ways of immigration agents in distant Canada, of the kindly curiosity of the natives and the easy indifference of official authority.
We must admit that they have had sufficient to stimulate their curiosity. Anybody who has seen them on a pilgrimage will acknowledge that:
And the very easy indifference of the official authorities.
That is rather strong language for the Toronto ' Globe.' It goes on :
The homeward pilgrimage of a Doukhobor Old Boys' Society would lie a delightful reunion from all points of view, and should be encouraged. The Doukhobors could make modest disclaimers when old friends gave congratulations on the distinctions won abroad. They could protest that, although their names were on every tongue, and their portraits adorned the illustrated press, they had not set their hearts on the applause of the 'multitude. And when pressed to remain and once more make their homes amid the scenes of happier years, they could temporize, hesitate and at last reluctantly yield, returning again to the ways and associations of their former life.
This would be gratifying, says the ' Globe,' from the Canadian standpoint:
Taking, up the white man's burden is all very well in its way, but carrying it home is a far different matter. It is a practical move to send the assistant secretary of a charity organization to investigate a case of distress, but a far different matter to bring that case of distress home, and establish it in comfortable quarters. If the Czar did not mind, we could send out a force sufficient to impose the blessings of civilization as they have it in England on all the Doukhobors in his dominions. That would be a practical and systematic way to take up the white man's burden. But bringing the Doukhobors here to civilize them on the spot is positively inconvenient. The white man's burden is of the many things to which distance lends enchantment. If the Doukhobors will only return to their own home we will never lose our kindly interest in them. We will send them all the moral and religious admonitions that the censor will pass. We will subscribe to prizes for their annual pedestrian contests, buy tickets for their Christmas tea-meetings, entertain their walking delegates, send tourists among them, and reach out to them (across the ocean) the glad hand of friendship. We will give them the civilizing influence of our example at a distance. The personal freedom of this country does not appear to suit our friends of the lofty ideal. A Czar who would arrange their domestic and personal habits, determine their interpretation the Scriptures, set forth where they should live, and what they should work at, when they should travel and when they should stay at home, would fill a much felt want.
This is from the great government daily, the Toronto ' Globe,' about those people, those people of whom the Halifax 'Chronicle' has spoken in a similar strain. I do not know that it is necessary for me to take up any more time except to condemn, as a westerner though not a resident of the province of Saskatchewan, the action of this government. Evidently it is resented by the good people of Yorkton and by the people of Saskatchewan as a whole ; and I very much doubt if this continual game of battledore and shuttlecock unloading responsibility from one government to another and carrying on conferences ail the time this great exhibition is going on-while those people are kept in a car on a siding at Yorktown, guarded by mounted policemen to prevent their making exhibitions of themselves-is one which the people will

stand much longer. Our people will show their resentment against the importation of that class of immigrants and the special treatment accorded to them. Those Douk-hohors have refused time and again to obey our laws. Time and again they have protested to the government against having been brought here under misrepresentations, and because they have not been allowed to follow out their own views with regard to marriage laws, registrations, homestead entries and so forth. And while some of them have changed their ideas and become reputable citizens, there is a large element among them who cling to their peculiar views, only a portion of whom have been on the recent pilgrimage. Those people are liable to an outbreak of this kind every once in a while and to become a charge on the country. It was a huge mistake to bring them out in the first place and in the second place to give them special treatment.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would suggest that the province to which these people belong and the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) should join in making assignment of them to the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sif-ton) in order that he might settle them on one of his numerous estates in the west and send for W. T. R. Preston to take care of them.


FIRE EXTINGUISHERS.
George Taylor: If there is no further discussion on this matter, I have one to which I wish to draw the attention of the House. I purpose dealing with it now in order that, when we get into Supply, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) may take cognizance of it. As the matter refers to two departments, and I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, (Mr. Marcil) would rule me out on an objection sure to be raised by the Minister of Public Works, I think It better to discuss it while you are in the chair, in order that when we are in Committee of Supply, the minister may perhaps give some explanation. My hon. friend from Grenville (Mr. Reid) asked the minister to give an account of what he had done with a number of the fire extinguishers which had been purchased. The minister replied that he would get the information and bring it down, and I presume he will have it when we get into Supply. On the 22nd January last I moved for a return showing how many fire extinguishers had been purchased by the government for the different departments since the 1st June, 1906, to the 1st January, 1908, from whom purchased, the prices paid, and the total amount paid. The Minister of Public Works brought down a return, and after seeing that return and finding a number of other fire extinguishers, not included in that return, charged here and there throughout the Auditor General's Report, I raised the point that Mr. W. J. ROCHE
the order for these had not been complied with. Then a further return was brought down from the Department of Marine and Fisheries. That return showed that since the 13th June, 1900, to January, 1908, 53 fire extinguishers had been purchased from Mr. P. E. Perreault, at $14 each, making a total of $742. This extravagant department which pays such extravagant prices paid in this instance less than the Department of Public WTorks. Mr. Perreault evidently worked on a similar commission, and Mr. Gregory got his goods cheaper than did the Department of Public Works. Here is the return of the Department of Public Works which the minister brought down. The total number of fire extinguishers purchased was 195. From Patton and Company 95 were purchased, and from Charles Patton of Montreal 100, at $15 each in both cases. The Minister of Public Works therefore paid $1 more for the extinguishers he got than did Mr. Gregory for those he bought at Quebec for the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and I shall show the reason why. Last evening we listened to the hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) eulogizing himself for the course he has pursued since he became minister of that department. Let me draw attention to a letter which he wrote, following the lines on which his predecessor had worked. It will be found in the report of the commissioners on page 79. It was written by the minister to Mr. Gregory, at Quebec, and was dated July 27, 1900 :
I have to inform you that if you consider that chemical fire extinguishers are necessary on hoard the vessels of the Quebec agency you are to purchase them from P. E. Perreault 312 St. John street, Quebec. Mr. Perreault has been advised to call upon you in connection with this matter.
If Mr. Gregory could get a letter that indicated more clearly to him that he should purchase a number of these fire extinguishers than that letter written by the minister on the 27th July, 1906, I do not know what better authority he could have. This is the letter from the minister saying that a friend of his will call on him, and if he wants any fire extinguishers to purchase them from him. And now what do we find ?
October 8, 1906.-Gregory writes about fire extinguishers bought from Perreault, who is now an employee of the agency

Because the minister employed Perreault and put him in the agency.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Where does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) find that I ever signed such a letter ?


George Taylor: If the minister will bring down the files, I will point out the letter. He found the letter on the file and quotes it.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) says he has seen the file and knows there is a letter written by me ? Does he assert that I have signed it?


George Taylor: The commissioners have gone through the files and have given the House their report stating what they found. They found this statement on the files.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There is no statement that I signed this letter.


George Taylor: If the minister will produce the letter, no doubt his signature will be found at the bottom of it.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Does the hon. gentleman assert that I signed that letter?


George Taylor: I am making no assertions. The hon. minister appointed a Royal Commission, and I am quoting what the Royal Commission said.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, that does not say that I signed the letter. Does the hon. gentleman say that I signed it?


George Taylor: The hon. minister will make his own speech. He made one last night-and of all the speeches I ever listened to since I came into this House over twenty years ago, that speech, as coming from a gentleman who ought to be a statesman, was the most extraordinary I ever heard.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) has stated that I signed that letter.


George Taylor: I did not make the statement.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I deny that I signed it.


George Taylor: I want to make my speech. The minister is not going to put me down. I am reading from the report of the Royal Commission. And I will give him the page-page 79. And any gentleman who reads that will say that it comes from the department to the agents at Quebec, and from the head of the department.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The hon. gentlemaD said I bad signed the letter.


George Taylor: I did not. The hon. gentleman cannot find that in ' Hansard.'


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Then, that is all right.


George Taylor: I say this is from the head of the department, from the minister, for further down there is one from the deputy, and they quote his name.


Mr. CROCKET.: There is no directing head of the department.


George Taylor: No. But here is an intimation to Gregory, as plain as can be, to buy some of these worthless fire extinguishers from Perreault. The report goes on :
October 8, 1906.-Gregory writes about fire extinguishers bought from Perreault who is now an employee of the agency and has a lot of fire extinguishers on hand which he would like to sell to the department. Under the circumstances, as he is a poor man with a family, and now unable to go out and solicit their sale. This was well understood by the late lamented minister, who was his friend, and fully recognized the worthiness of the said chemical fire extinguishers. I would recommend that the department take them off his hands, as we have several stations requiring such protection.
October 12, 1906.-Letter from deputy

The first was from the minister, but this is from the deputy.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Does the hon. gentleman assert that I signed it ?


George Taylor: I am making my speech aul the assertions in it will be pretty clearly understood. When I am through, If the minister wishes, he can make his speech.
October 12, 1906.-Letter from deputy-With reference to fire extinguishers purchased by you from P. E. Perreault, I find no authority on file in the department for the purchase of these fire extinguishers, and I notice that within the last couple of years large purchases have been made from this gentleman. In this connection, I may say that in 1904-5 the late minister purchased from Mr. Charles Patton fire extinguishers to the sum of $9,000. Of this number, 142 were sent to Quebec for the use of your agency lighthouses and Dominion steamers. Besides that, a number were stored in Montreal and are there still.
That is. they were still in store in 1906, though they were purchased in 1904. That gives you an Idea how the department is run :
If you had notified the department that fire extinguishers were absolutely necessary to put on hoard the Dominion steamers and to be used at lighthouses, the required number could have been sent from Montreal. Instead of this, it appears you made purchases from Mr. Perreault without any instructions or authority from the department. The minister would like to have an explanation in regard to this matter. He would also like to have a statement of how the fire extinguishers purchased in 1904-5 were distributed.
October 8, 1906.-Gregory writes to department^ in answer to their letter of October 4 and 5 returning P. E. Perreault's accounts for chemical fire extinguishers, and asking me to inform you upon what authority the purchases were made. He refers to a 'letter of July 27, 1906.
That is the letter I have already referred to that came to him and was his authority; he took that letter of July 27 as a hint to purchase these fire extinguishers, and he did purchase them, and here the deputy Is holding him for his action. He goes on. in his letter of October 15, 1906 :
I shall have a statement prepared by the inspector of lights as soon as possible,

showing how the fire extinguishers purchased in 1904-5 were distributed, and forward the same to the department.
The statement is that 142 fire extinguishers were sent to Quebec for the use of the agency lighthouses and Dominion steamers, but Gregory contradicts that by his telegram which shows there were only fifty instead of 142.
I stated a little while ago that I would explain how it came that the Minister of Public Works paid $15 for these fire extinguishers, while the Department of Marine and fisheries paid only $14 at Quebec. Mr. Patton is a manufacturer at Montreal. He could not make so many sales up here at Ottawa as he wanted to. Mr. Grant, a lawyer in this city, suggested to Mr. Pattou that they would form a partnership, and he would get an agent who had some influence with the government and would make some sales for him. So, there was a company formed at Ottawa. It was called Patton and Grant, because as I say. Mr. Grant is a lawyer here and he did not want to have his name appear as a selling agent for fire extinguishers. But they borrowed a name from a fellow by the name of Crowe. And the firm was called Patton and Crowe. But Grant did the business. He assumed the name of Crowe for himself. They sold to the government through the agency of Mr. Auguste Lemieux, who also is a lawyer in the city of Ottawa. He wanted a commission of $3 instead of $2, they had to raise the price to the government, and so the government paid $15 here -while they paid $14 in Quebec. You will see how this was brought about. One hundred fire extinguishers were purchased from Patton in Montreal and 99 from Patton and Crowe in Ottawa. Patton and Crowe, of course, were Patton and Grant. Patton and Crowe put in an account to the Public Works Department and got the cheques which were made to Patton and Crowe. Grant handled the cheques. He himself personally paid Mr. Lemieux his commission to the amount of between $600 and $700 on the quantity he sold to the department here. Grant gave his own cheque to Lemieux, and marked on the cheque ' for commission.' These cheques were endorsed by Lemieux, put into the bank, and the money drawn, and the cheques were returned to Grant, and up to a certain time were in his office. But afterwards they were missing-they were stolen from his office for a purpose. A vacancy had loomed up in the representation for Ottawa


William Pugsley: How does that appear ?


George Taylor: That is my information, and if there is anything incorrect about it


William Pugsley: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) will pardon me. I am asking the question because I am not informed
Mr. TAYLOlt.
what took place here a year or more ago. Is there any evidence of what my hon. friend is stating now before the Public Accounts Committee?


George Taylor: No, it is not before the Public Accounts Committee.


William Pugsley: Is it before any committee?


George Taylor: We will be in public accounts in a little while from now and you can ask any of these questions you like.
ill-. PUGSLEY'. The hon. gentleman may say if it has been proved.


George Taylor: I am giving the information I have. My information is that the proof is on hand. These cheques were taken from Mr. Grant's office and deposited in the safe of Mr. Lindsay. A vacancy was being created here in Ottawa by the transference of Mr. Belcourt to the Senate, and Mr. Lemieux, who sold these fire extinguishers, was an aspirant and thought that as his brother was the Postmaster General lie had the pull, and should he the coming member to fill Mr. Beleourt's seat. Mr. Belcourt had his eye on another gentleman and had made a promise that when he vacated the seat that other gentleman would be the candidate. Mr. Lemieux had to be got out of the way. These cheques made by Grant payable to Lemieux, having been taken out of Grant's office, were missing. Air. Belcourt was then down at Saranac Lake in the Adirondacks for his health. These cheques were sent down to Mr. Belcourt who would not trust the cheques across the ocean to the Prime Minister, but had them photographed and sent the photographs to the Prime Minister with an explanation. The Prime Minister wrote back: When I come home


Haughton Lennox: Why did he send them.


George Taylor: To show that Lemieux had to be got out of the way. When the Prime Minister came back he said: There are the cheques already filled out for a commission to you, a lawyer selling goods to the government; you have to back out- and Lemieux quietly backed out and took no further part in the contest.


William Humphrey Bennett: Would that not qualify him as a member?


George Taylor: I do not know but there were two of them who wanted it, and Mr. Belcourt and the Prime Minister wanted one man, hut Lemieux and the Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) wanted another man. Cheques come in useful sometimes. I have heard a statement, I have never had it verified, but from the facts it appears there was some truth in it. We remember when the late Minister of Railways left his seat on account of the Transcontinental Railway proposition which was being introduced by

the government, it was supposed that he was going to take the stump against the Prime Minister, and the information is that the Prime Minister called on the late Mr. Blair, and asked him his intentons, and that Mr. Blair said: I am going to go to the country in opposition to this scheme of building au opposition line to tile Intercolonial and putting this country into $20,000,000 of debt. And the information is that the Prime Minister put his hand in his pocket and pulled out some cheques that a big contractor had made payable direct to Mr. Blair and with his name signed on the back of them.


Wilfrid Laurier: In justice to tlie memory of Mr. Blair I must say that there is not a word of truth in that.


George Taylor: I am glad to hear it, I thought it was my duty to tell the hon. gentleman. But the facts were there, Mr. Blair did not take the stump, the cheque shut him tip.


George Perry Graham: Mr. Blair is dead, he cannot reply of course.


George Taylor: But the evidence is here in these two returns. Perreault sold the government these same fire extinguishers down at Quebec at $14, and Lemieux sells them to the Minister of Public Works at $15. There is a dollar of extra rake-off anyway, and Mr. Grant paid his cheque to Mr. Lemieux for the commission on them, gave his own personal cheque and a gentleman who informed me saw the cheques, made payable to the order of Lemieux, and marked on the face of them ' commission.' That is the information I have in reference to it. If my hon. friend wants any information, this gentleman came voluntarily into my office and said he saw the cheques and gave me the information.


William Pugsley: It is a great mistake to believe all j'ou hear.


George Taylor: I am stating this, and if the hon. gentleman appoints a committee he will find that I am correct, and that he and his people paid a dollar more than was paid at Quebec. Look at the thousands of dollars, $9,000 in one lot, and $2,000 or $3,000 by the minister himself, expended for what is practically no better than a bottle of vinegar for fire purposes.


George Perry Graham: Vinegar will not do any good.


George Taylor: Just as good as this, mixed with a little soda and water. Any way they were giving $15 for these, and the Department of Marine alongside was giving $14. If they had bought from the manufacturer they could have saved the $600 or $700 paid to Grant. I want the minister, before we go on with his supply, to bring down information as to where these were distributed, to bring down the reports
of the different engineers as to their value and all correspondence in reference to them. I want to know why $15,000 to $20,000 of the people's money have been paid in the last five years for fire extinguishers. I think it necessary that this information should be given before we go into the minister's estimates, in order that he might be prepared to answer the questions. The officials of the Marine Department will also give some information of what was done with this large quantity down at Quebec. I want to know particularly why the Department of Public Works paid $15 for the same article that the Department of Marine bought at $14, as shown by the two returns which have been brought down. There may be other departments that have not yet reported. I do not know how many have been purchased by the Department of Agriculture and some other departments. We have only two returns down, and when I moved for this return, the Minister of Public Works brought down the information simply for his own department, although my motion asked for all departments. I have since got the return for the Marine and Fisheries Department. Were there any others to which Lemieux has sold these fire extinguishers? I do not know, but we know he has sold, and has got his commission from Mr. Grant for 105 of these machines.


William Pugsley: I cannot promise to have these returns to-day, but as soon as possible I will have all the information desired so that the matter may be considered when we are in Supply. I would like to say that so far as I am aware there have been very few of these extinguishers purchased since I became minister. Probably there have been some. I am nOt able to say why the price is $15. That appears to have been the price paid before I became minister. With regard to the usefulness of the article, I understood from the chief architect that they were considered valuable for the purpose of extinguishing fires.


George Eulas Foster: Their name would indicate that.


William Pugsley: Things are not always just what they would appear to be from their names, but I am told they are a pretty good article for that purpose.


George Eulas Foster: Would the minister bring down the report of his engineer or officer upon which they were bought?


William Pugsley: Yes, if there is such a report.


George Eulas Foster: I suppose there would not be any bought unless there was a scientific report.


William Pugsley: That was all before I went into the department.


George Eulas Foster: They would not be bought without a report since you became minister?


William Pugsley: I am inclined to believe not.


TURTLE MOUNTAIN TIMBER RESERVE.
Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer for a few moments to a matter which I have brought up two or three times before. It is the matter of the timber reserve on Turtle mountain. I believe that the idea of preserving these timber reserves is a very laudable one but I think there should be some exception made when the conditions warrant it. I think there should be some examination made as to whether these are actual timber reserves or not, and further, I would like to inquire of the Minister of the Interior if he has had any information of late in connection with the special reserve to which I have referred. In speaking the other day I tried to show the Minister of the Interior that it woul l be absolutely impossible ever to make this particular reserve of any importance. The minister, in answering what I said, seemed to be labouring under the impression that I thought there was no large timber there and he said that the idea was not to produce merchantable timber but rather to produce what might be called climatic conditions. That is all good in its way, if the idea can be successfully carried out. But it will be absolutely impossible to make anything out of part of the timber reserve on Turtle mountain in so far as climatic conditions are concerned. I have made a personal examination of this reserve and I think that all the timber that is there-and when I speak of timber I really mean brush-could be put into two or three sections and it is a matter that affects about 70,000 acres of land. There has been a very small growth, some of the trees being but three or four years old. But, the point I want to make is that even what timber there is on this so-called timber reserve is being absolutely neglected. We have had a gentleman there whom the Minister of the Interior knows very well and whom I know very well, and, while I do not wish to say anything offensive, yet I think that a duty devolves, upon me at the present time in connection with this particular reserve. There seems to prevail here a condition that apparently exists all over that western country and that is that the men whom the government appoint as overseers, or timber guardians, or whatever name they may be designated by, are. if not political hacks, to say the least, political organizers and we find that the gentleman who is supposed to be looking after this Turtle mountain reserve absolutely spends his time endeavouring to get promises of votes for the Liberal party. He Mr. PUGSLEY.
is a man who has made an absolute failure of life in every other condition and as a last resort, he has applied for this government position and the people in that country have to suffer because they have to satisfy the political aspirations of one man. During this spring a fire has gone over the entire district and, according to a letter which I received last night and to an item which I have taken from a paper issued in the town of Boissevain, some eight or ten miles from that reserve, a great deal of destruction has taken place. I call the attention of the Minister of the Interior to the fact because he may not be cognizant of it. From the information which I have I believe that this district will never be made a successful timber reserve. There were a number of settlers in one township of this reserve and they were offered certain conditions if they would leave that place and go to a place which had been designated by the government. I understood the Minister of the Interior to say that no definite promise had been made to these men, but it does seem, from my conversation with a number of them when I was there only a few days ago, and from the letters which I have received and which are in my possession, not from my own supporters, but from men who vote against me that there is a great amount of dissatisfaction with the condition of affairs on that reserve. I think the dissatisfaction is universal amongst the settlers of that district, whether they be Liberals or Conservatives and I believe that, the Minister iof the ' Interior not being conversant with this matter, it was my duty to call his attention to it. As I have said, it affects some 70,000 acres of land. If this will never make a timber reserve under any conditions is it not practical business, is it not necessary in the interests of the department and of the district concerned, that the matter should be looked into ? I do not ask you to take my word. I would like you to make an investigation. I, claim that these settlers, even though they were going to have some parts of this as a timber reserve, were doing a great deal of good there. They were looking after their own sections and they were on the edge of the timber reserve and. being in that position, they were able to prevent fires. But, most of them have been sent away, some of them are there still, not very many, and the consequence has been that the timber has all been burned over. There is another grievance. During last spring the gentleman to whom I have referred and who is the timber agent there had a large number of men planting seed on this soil in order to produce trees. The Minister of the Iuterior knows just as well as I do that this is money wasted and thrown away. You cannot find a settler anywhere in that district but would tell the Minister of the Interior and this gov-

eminent that it is absolutely useless to plant seeds under these conditions. I will not call it graft, but it is simply a waste of money and I am positive that the Minister of the Interior is not familiar with the facts or he certainly would prevent that condition of affairs from existing any longer. The paper to which I have referred contains the following paragraph :
Several men are employed in the timber reserve planting tree seeds on the land that has been burnt off. It is very questionable if the seeds will grow, or, providing they do, whether they will not be destroyed by fire as the hush has been hitherto. It would he a great deal better if the Dominion government would open up this land for settlement instead of using it as an experimental ground.
I am in entire sympathy with that statement. I am also in entire sympathy with the reservation of timber areas when It is practicable, hut in this case where it is absolutely impracticable I say that the area should be thrown open to settlers, that those who are there should he allowed to return to their homes and that those who are there should be allowed to remain. I also received a letter last night from a gentleman who is familiar with the conditions in that district. Amongst other things he says:
Another thing which is something of vital importance, what is the use of keeping a man here looking after our timber reserve as you call it ? Why, the fire has went over the whole thing in the last few days and killed every green tree in the hush. All the young stuff ds killed.
Then, further down, he says :
Now, I hear	is out sowing
tree seeds and planting trees. What is the use of wasting the people's money in this way? The fire will kill everything again. If this land is given out to settlement it will be taken care of. Bach settler will take care of his own. As it is nobody is looking after it. Hoping what I have written may set the ball rolling, I remain,
Yours truly,
I have only one object in calling the attention of the minister to this timber reserve and that is to express the hope that he will give it a little more attention than he seems to have given to it up to the present time.


Frank Oliver: Mr. Speaker, I am rather sorry and somewhat surprised to hear the expression of my hon. friend (Mr. Schaffner) with regard to this particular reserve. Of course it is well that we arrive at a final knowledge or a final understanding of a certain condition. I hope my hon. friend does not wish to blame me for a misunderstanding in regard to this particular reserve because I would remind him that this reserve has been
a reserve for many years. It was a reserve when my hon. friend was elected to represent the constituency in which it is situated. It was at first reserved by departmental order, then the Forest Reserve Act was introduced into this House and the provisions of that Act were approved of unanimously by the House. There was certain discussion as to the benefits that might accrue by that Act to the people who held timber limits within the reserves, hut there was unanimity of opinion in regard to the general principle of making certain reserves and of preserving them by legislative enactment in the terms of the Bill then before the House. My hon. friend would have been protecting the interests which he now assumes to protect had he then given the House the information he has given it today. That would have been the proper time to tell us that this timber reserve was not necessary, that it was not a proper place in which to make a timber reserve, that the settlers who were then on it should have remained on it, but my hon. friend did not give that information and so he will have to assume at any rate joint responsibility with me for the legislation by which the responsibility was laid upon the Department of the Interior to see that those who were in residence upon the reserve were removed from it.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I scarcely understand how the Minister of the Interior can hold me in the least responsible. He himself admits that this was a timber reserve before I came into the House.


Frank Oliver: It was previously a timber reserve by order in council, and when the legislation was before the House to make it a_timber reserve by Act of parliament that would have been the time for my hon. friend to put in his protest.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: If the hon. gentleman will refer to that occasion which is two years ago he will find that I certainly did put in my protest.


Frank Oliver: At the time the Act was passed ?


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Yes, and I referred to these settlers at the same time.


Frank Oliver: It is not. in my memory that the hon. gentleman did so, and if he did he is now in line with his attitude of that time. But apparently he was not able to impress the House with his views. Be that as it may, it was the will of parliament that there should be a reserve there and that the reserve should be cleared of settlers, and efforts have been made since to carry out the will of parliament. I have already expressed my regret for the necessity of action being taken which in itself cannot be other wise than a hardship. But it was not my action, it was parliament caused

it to be done. In accordance with the declaration of parliament we have secured the removal of several of these settlers, and if any promises have been made to them in order to secure their removal I can only say that my instructions are that every promise shall be fulfilled. If every promise has not been carried out it should be carried out, and I expect it will be. I appreciate quite as much as anybody else the difficulty of the situation of these people.
As to those settlers who are still on the reserve it is expected that they will remove possibly within the coming month and we are using all reasonable effort to facilitate their going and to make the conditions as little burdensome upon them as possible. Until parliament sees fit to rescind its action there is nothing left for the department but to endeavour to secure the removal of the settlers from the reserve.
I regret to hear that fire has swept the reserve. I suppose that having assumed the responsibility of taking care of the reserve we must assume some responsibility for fires that occur. But as we have only one man there to take care of the reserve which includes several townships, any of us who are familiar with conditions in the west will understand that there are times when an army would not be able to protect such an area from fire. It may have been our fault or it may have been the misfortune of circumstances.
In regard to the view of my hon. friend that it is wasting money and time and effort to plant tree seeds upon the ground recently traversed by fire, I can only say that my information is that in succeeding years after a burn has taken place a new growth comes up rapidly; and I assume there is no inherent reason why the same course of nature will not follow on the Turtle mountain reserve.


George Eulas Foster: That growth comes up without any planting of seed.


Frank Oliver: Precisely.


George Eulas Foster: Could the minister tell where it comes from ?


Frank Oliver: Unlike my hon. friend there are some things that I do not know.


George Eulas Foster: I don't know either and that is why I asked.


Frank Oliver: We agree for once.


George Eulas Foster: That is the strangest thing in the world.


Frank Oliver: It is a fact that a new growth does come up after a fire, and I assume that our planting of seed on the burnt ground will not be frowned on by Providence or by nature any more than if we did not plant seed there at all.


Frank Oliver: 


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: But let me remind the Minister of the Interior that they were planting these seeds there long before the fire. They were spending time and money planting seeds on that soil which will never produce trees of any description.


Frank Oliver: Well, if it will not produce trees it is not very valuable land for any other purpose; and the idea in setting it apart as a reserve that it was not valuable for agricultural purposes, is confirmed by the statement the hon. gentleman has made. At any rate, I assume that we are not to any serious degree hindering the settlement of the country by keeping in reserve a tract which is not capable of even growing trees. However, I have better hopes of the case than my hon. friend.
I have some belief that the withdrawal of the land in the first place was fairly well advised ; and, being on the summit of an elevated and broken piece of country, the source of certain water supply for the surrounding country, both on the surface and under the surface, it seems to me that the Turtle mountain is the place of all others in the west where there is warrant for a forest reserve, and where every effort should be made to preserve and to perpetuate and increase the sources of the water supply for the benefit of the surrounding country. Our efforts may be mistaken ; we may be under a misapprehension ; there are many things yet to be found in the secrets of nature ; but we are using reasonable and legitimate efforts to seek what it is desirable to seek.
In regard to the political action of our officer there, I can only say that I regret very much to hear the statement made. I can assure my hon. friend that any such action is entirely contrary to my views or wishes, and the matter will be taken up on the representations which he has made, and will be dealt with.
It is quite possible that the reserve having been created a number of years ago, there has not been the fullest care taken in defining the boundary; that is to say, we have taken in more land than is perhaps suitable for the purpose. We have not had until quite recently a scientific organization, as it might be called, that would warrant us in revising these limits ; but we have been successful during the past year in securing the assistance of some gentlemen of eminence in forestry matters, and we hope, by investigations on the ground during the present year, to be able to readjust the boundaries, if such readjustment is necessary, so that we shall not be preventing settlement by holding land unnecessarily, and shall be doing the best we can to aid the surrounding settlements by securing the preservation of the existing forests and the reforestation of the deforested part of what is now the Turtle mountain forest reserve.


George William Fowler: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Souris (Mi-. Schaffner) was not objecting to the principle of forest, reserves. I think that in common with all the other members of this House who have any knowledge of timber matters, he highly approves of the idea of creating forest reserves. The only fault 1 have to find with the action of the government with respect to this matter is that they have not set apart enough of the timber wealth of the country for the future-not only to preserve it for a time when it will be infinitely more valuable, because of its scarcity, than it is at the present time, but also on account of the water supply. There is one matter which has come up in connection with this subject that I think is deserving of some consideration on the part of the department, and that is the question of fire guarding. I understand that there are about 70,000 acres in this particular forest reserve, and yet the minister says there is .only one person to protect it from fire. It seems to me that it is very bad policy, after setting apart such a large tract of country as a forest reserve, to take such meagre precautions' to preserve it from fire. There are only certain times of the year when there is danger from fire, that is, early in the spring and late in the summer ; and it seems to me that the proper course would be at those times to have an efficient force to protect this property. It would cost something, it is true ; but you have a very valuable asset there, which it is worth expending some money for the purpose of protecting. It is valuable in more ways than one. It is valuable on account of the actual money's worth that is there ready to be turned into money, and also because, if fire sweeps over it. if you are going to continue it as a timber reserve, you will have to begin again at the seed, and it will take nearly a century for the timber to grow again. Therefore I strongly urge the minister. whose timber policy in this respect I have commended, to largely increase his force of fire protectors, putting them on, not the year round, but during the particular seasons when it is absolutely necessary to protect the forest from fire. If bo does this, lie will be deserving of the thanks of the House and the country.


William James Roche: I would ask the Minister of the Interior if he has made up his mind yet when to throw open to homestead entry the lands that have been taken out of the reserves that have recently been formed. For instance, in the Riding mountain timber reserve, as the hon. gentleman is aware, there were certain townships over which fire swept, destroying the timber : and an order in council was passed taking these out of the reserve and throwing them open to homestead entry. That
occurred over a year and a half ago. Many settlers visited the land office with the idea of making entry, in accordance with the newspaper advertisement, stating that on a certain date those lands would be thrown open to homestead entry, only to be disappointed. I have the same complaint to make as the hon. member for Souris, when he states that the timber inspector having charge of these reserves-


Charles Marcil: The hon. member has exhausted his right to speak.


William James Roche: Then I ask the Minister of the Interior when it is intended to
have those lands thrown open to homestead entry ?


Charles Marcil: The hon. minister can only speak with the permission of the House, as he has exhausted his right to speak.
Mr. OLIVER I only wish to answer the hon. gentleman's question, if the House is willing. The lands which have been cut out of these reserves were announced as being open to entry by an error. They have been held under reservation for the purpose of accommodating squatters but we are moving them out of the reserve, and as soon as we are able to get the squatters out of the reserve and adjust it we will open the balance of these lands which were cut out of it. I regret that the officer who has been in charge of the work has been ill some months and the work has not gone forward as rapidly as I hoped. However we have succeeded in getting a large number of the squatters out of the Riding mountain reserve and we have every prospect of getting them all out by the end of this month.


THE MOOSEJAW-LACOMBE EXTENSION CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Mr. W. E. KXOWI.ES (West Assiniboia).: There is a matter which I think of sufficient Importance to bring to the attention of the House, and that is the providing of transportation facilities for that part of niy constituency which lies remote from railway accommodation. I know that it is no part of the duty of the government to provide transportation for new settlements, but I am satisfied that I shall convince the House that there are exceptional circumstances connected with the case I have to lay before you. Mr. Speaker, which justifies me in taking this unusual course. I refer to the construction of the Moosejaw-Lacombe branch of the Canadian Pacific Railway. A charter to build that branch of the Canadian Pacific Railway has held for some years. Two years ago they built fourteen miles from Moosejaw in a northerly and northwesterly direction, but they have not laid any steel since. Last summer

they graded fifty miles more. From time to time they have announced that they would proceed with the construction of the railway, and relying upon those promises, settlers went into a district remote from transportation facilities, but although they have been there two or three years they still find themselves without these facilities. These settlers have been hanging on by their teeth, so to speak, throughout these years, and I do not think X need offer any apology to the House for taking the stand that a company such as the Canadian Pacific Railway, which has held this charter for years and which is building railways in other parts where competition is keener, should be brought to book for their neglect in this matter. I have been across the Saskatchewan river where this railway is supposed to run, and in that section there are many settlers from fifty to one hundred and fifty miles away from any railway. It is very inconvenient for them to get fuel. For a time they were able to obtain fuel from the small timber around their residences or in the valleys, in the creeks and rivers, but that is almost entirely consumed and there are to-day perhaps seven or eight thousand people who have gone in there relying on the promise of the Canadian Paeiffic Railway to construct this line. You will find there tiie finest farmers you will see anywhere, who have taken up the best lands you can find in the west. These lands are second to none in Canada. I have visited them myself and I have reports about them from very reliable sources, and I think that in a few years ; ou will find my prediction verified that that land is going to be the most prosperous part of the Northwest Territory. I refer to that part lying near the elbow of the South Saskatchewan river, and north and west of that ooint. Last summer, in my capacity as representative of the district, I made an appointment with Mr. William White, and got from him the authority to announce that last year his company would construct a certain portion of the railway. I.est any one should take exception to my repeating the conversation, let pie say that it was strictly in an official way. I met the vice-president of the Canadian Pacific Railway by appointment. He agreed to receive a deputation composed of my hon. friend from Saskatchewan (Mr. McCraney) and Mr. W. P. Sutherland, M.P.P., and myself. Through some misunderstanding I did not get word to my hon. friend from Saskatchewan (Mr. McCraney) so that Mr. Sutherland and myself only saw Mr. Whyte. He authorized us to say last year they would lay fifty miles more of steel and grade at least seventy more miles, but from that day to this they have not laid one foot of steel or done any more grading. But they let last fall a contract for seventy miles and gave the people to understand the road would be built at once, and the people accepted Mr. KNOWLES.
that promise in good faith. Throughout these years these people have been practising the strictest economy, but in the most cavalier fashion without giving any explanation the Canadian Pacific Railway have sent out the announcement that they have seen fit to cancel the contract which they had made with Mr. J. D. McArthur to build these seventy miles. Although I cannot expect the government to build this road or do anything very severe with the Canadian Pacific Railway. T do think that this condition of affairs should be exposed and that the railway company should be censured for playing fast and loose with the settlers in that way. There are people out there who are being ruined financially-fine young homesteaders who cannot get their fuel, in or their wheat out and who are in the impossibility of carrying on with any success their farming operations. That is a very serious condition of affairs, to which I call the attention of the House, and especially the attention of the .Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham). I have in my hand a petition which is sixteen feat long by actual measurement. It is very closely signed and no doubt has about 1,000 names on it. I have another which, by actual count, contains over 300 names of people living in the vicinity of Tullisv.lle near the elbow of the South Saskatchewan. I tried to present these petitions to the House, but as they ask for the building of a railway and therefore call upon the expenditure of public money they could not be received, anything connected with the expenditure of public money having to come direct from the government. The petition is as follows :
We, the undersigned settlers in and around the district of Tullisville, hereby petition the Dominion government to use their intiu-ence on behalf of our neighbourhood in securing a line of railway. In order to market any grain, we are obliged to draw it from 60 to 80 miles to town. Some of us have even greater distances than this to go. We also have the Saskatchewan river to cross which makes it very inconvenient, and being without railroad facilities we find little or no encouragement whatever in raising large quantities of grain until such times as we can get a closer market. If in the near future there are no signs of a railroad, the half of the neighbourhood threatens to pull out on obtaining their patent. This would mean a great loss to this district.
These people went in on the direct assurance of the Canadian Pacific Railway that they would construct the line. A railway company should not be allowed to give a pledge of this kind to the people and then place the people at a most serious disadvantage because of their non-fulfilment of the pledge. I have a letter here dated Fertile Valley, Saskatchewan, April 15th :
Could vou let me have any definite information regarding the action of the Canadian

Pacific Railway in abandoning construction work on the Moosejaw extension? Also if you think it possible that the government or the Railway Commission could take up the matter and secure the completion of the line to the crossing on the South Saskatchewan river in township 29, range 8, west third meridian, this season. It is needless to point out that it is impossible to continue under present conditions. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, will follow those who have already abandoned the country.
KENNETH DUNBAR, Honorary Secretary Liberal Association.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (East York).: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Knowles) if he has ever brought this grievance of the people in that part of the country before the Railway Committee of this House. These railways are always asking this House and its railway committee for additional legislation. I think that when they do that their attention ought to be called to any breach of contract of this kind. And I hold further that no road should get further legislation or further concessions from the government if there is a breach of contract on their part such as this appears to be. It may be that there are financial reasons why the company cannot construct the road at the present time. As to that, I am not informed ; although I do know that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company has been able to procure large sums of money in the English money market within a short time. I have a strong opinion that these railways which constantly appear before this House and the railway committee for additional privileges should be told and told perhaps by the government, that no further concessions in the way of franchises will be given them until they make a reasonable effort to complete the roads that they have already incorporated, certainly to build the roads that they have given a pledge to build. If that is done, some kind of control will be held over these roads, and they will be compelled to keep bargains made with the people. The railways always talk of their vested rights And on those rights they insist. But the public also has vested rights ; and when the railways give a pledge they should seek in every way to carry it out. The only excuse I can imagine for not building this railway which will accommodate so many people, is, probably, the condition of the money market. But, so far, I have not heard that urged in this case. I think, if the hon. member (Mr. Knowles) and his friends from that part of the country go to the Minister of Railways and insist on his using his influence with the Canadian Pacific Railway and with the government as a whole, to have the government tell the Canadian Pacific and other railways that they shall not have further concessions until they complete the obligations they have undertaken, it will have a beneficial effect.


William Erskine Knowles: With the permission of the House I may say that I have not brought this matter before the railway committee because it does not afford publicity enough. My wish was, I will not say to expose, but to reveal the position of this railway, and the railway committee does not meet my purpose.


William Findlay Maclean: But the Canadian Pacific Railway Company appears before the committee-has appeared this session -asking for these additional advantages, and that would be a good time to ventilate the matter.


William Erskine Knowles: Again with the permission of the House, I would say, with regard to Mr. Whyte's promise, that he explained that he could not get ties.


Mr. G. E. McCRANEY (Saskatchewan).: I desire to say a word in support of the position of my hon. friend from West As-siniboia (Mr. Knowles). I am familiar, to some degree, with the country through which he says this proposed railway would pass. The hon. gentleman and myself attended a picnic some forty or fifty miles west of the town of Hanley in the month of July last, and I must say that I never went through any portion of western Canada which appeared to be so fertile and so well suited to make the home of a prosperous people as that country is. There are many parts of the west in which our population is mostly foreign. (But I was particularly struck with the fact that in this section it was almost entirely an Ontario population, and I found amongst the people there a number of persons whom I had known in Ontario. I think that if any hon. gentleman from Ontario had been there he would have felt himself, perhaps, more at home than in any other part of the west. They were all full of hope, but they were full also of requests that we should do what we could to influence the the Canadian Pacific Railway in the building of the road. I was to have accompanied my hon. friend (Mr. Knowles) to Winnipeg to interview Mr. Whyte, as my hon. friend has stated. The announcement which he was able to make after that interview was one very well received in that portion of the country. We found, on the trip to which I have referred, that there were two great needs. One was that of getting out the grain. The nearest market from the point we visited was Hanley. It is necessary to cross the south Saskatchewan river, [DOT]and there is a journey of some fifty miles. The conditions make grain growing altogether unprofitable, but the people were in hopes that the railway might be put through in a very short time. There was also the other difficulty which my hon.

friend mentioned, one very apparent to us, and that is the necessity of making provision for fuel. I would point out to hon. members that, while we have heard nothing of the fuel question in the west during this session, we still stand in fear that, unless we get railway accommodation to some portions of the country which are almost wholly treeless, as is this part to which I have referred, we must look for a great deal of trouble in the future. The value which our land has is not derived from its grain growing qualities so much as from its proximity to transportation. What I have sometimes felt is that, in granting charters to railways, although there is no undertaking on the part of the railways to construct, we almost mislead people to go into a given portion of the country by the announcement that a railway may pass through. Unfortunately, our people seem to think that a charter is a railway. Of course, that is a great mistake. But when corporations like the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, with the credit it has, makes an announcement and gives a contract, it seems to me that the influence of this House and of this government should be made use of to compel, or, at least, to influence the railway to go on and construct. I feel that these people have a great grievance against a corporation which has received every consideration at the hands of this House, and I hope the Minister of Railways will use his good offices in having this contract completed.


George Perry Graham: In reply to the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Knowles) and the hoi), member for Saskatchewan (Mr. McCraney), Of course, it is regrettable that thickly settled portions of any part of the country should be so remote from the market and have no connection by way of railways or other rapid transit. It is a well recognized fact that the time consumed in marketing a product has much to do with the price and with the profit made in raising it. I can readily understand the disappointment that would result from a promise made by representatives of a great railway not being implemented. People, as my hon. friend (Mr. McCraney) has said, would rush into [DOT] that territory, believing they were shortly to have railway communication with one of the best centres of that country, the city of Moosejaw, only to find, after they had been there a few months that their hopes were not to be speedily realized.
I certainly appreciate the bringing of this question before the House. I am inclined to think, without wishing to be anything of a scold, that if we could devote more attention in the House to bringing these matters that are of direct interest to the people, before the country and before those Mr. McCRANEY.
interested, we would perhaps, accomplish more for the public than we do by some of the discussions we have. This is a question that directly affects a portion of the people of Canada, and what affects one part of the country affects us all. It is of the utmost importance, that just as rapidly as possible in all parts of the country the people should be brought into the quickest possible communication with the best market. That is the reason that parliament assists in the building of railways. It is not at all, to my mind, that they want to assist the companies, as some hon. gentlemen would think, but it is an effort on their part to encourage the companies or urge them on with greater speed to bring the people in closer communion with the outside world and thus make their living more comfortable and their occupations more profitable. It is on that ground that parliaments assist railways. When a railway, is assisted by parliament, it must assume an obligation in return for that assistance and I have no hesitation in saying that it is the duty of these companies, as rapidly as they can, to extend the facility of railway communication to all the people they can.' As I understand, the Canadian Pacific Railway have built a stretch of about fourteen miles, had let a contract for seventy miles more, and have constructed one hundred miles at the other end. The great disappointment has been paused by the fact that they cancelled the contract for the seventy miles.


George Eulas Foster: The whole mileage is quite long.


William Erskine Knowles: About five hundred miles in all.


George Perry Graham: It would be quite an extensive road if constructed. I am not here to apologize for the railway, but I think it fair to say that the past year has been very discouraging to railway companies. The Railway Committee this session has been very lenient with companies asking extensions from the very fact that they find it difiicult to finance their present undertakings ; and I think I can say with some assurance that in undertaking to finance any line they have to give a pretty direct account of what they propose to do with the money they obtain, and so the lines that are going to be profitable the quickest are the ones to which they are trying to devote their efforts.


William Erskine Knowles: Does not the minister think they will look rather to the lines where there is competition ?


George Perry Graham: That might be, but the men supplying the money may, to a certain extent, influence that too. The last year has been very discouraging to the railway companies in two ways. First it was very

difficult to raise money, and second, the receipts from the railways during the past few months have fallen off very materially, and if my hon. friend will compare the receipts of the large railways during the past six months, with those of the corresponding six months of a year ago, he will see there has not been much recently to encourage them to extend their lines.
Another matter of which I think it is fair to speak is that a year ago or a little more, there was a great congestion of traffic in the Northwest. There was a cry, and a reasonable one too, all over the land that none of the railway companies provided a sufficient amount of rolling stock. The hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) took the position, and not unwisely, that the railways ought to be compelled to supply the present lines with complete railway stock before they were allowed to build another mile. That has been urged on the companies very strongly that they should increase their rolling stock, but recently that has not been pushed to any extent because there is not a railway on the continent but has many cars on sidings not being used at all. I am not saying this in apology for the railways1 but am pointing out reasons that will be given by them. I think it wise to discuss these things before the House and give them the utmost publicity. I assure my hon. friends that I shall call the attention of the management of the Canadian Pacific Railway to this complaint and urge them, as far as practicable, to keep faith with the people of the Northwest wherever a charter has been given for the construction of a railway.


David Henderson: While I did not hear the first part of the discussion and am not quite clear as to its purpose, it looks odd to me, that on Friday afternoon, when we generally expect to do a great deal of business, hon. members sitting behind the ministers should raise questions such as this and obstruct the Minister of Public Works in dealing with his estimates. It is apparently a concerted effort on the part of some of these gentlemen. The hon. member who first spoke (Mr. Knowles) a year or two ago opposed the renewal of the charter of this company.


William Erskine Knowles: My hon. friend is all wrong, he is mistaken.


David Henderson: I do not think I am very far mistaken, not over seventy miles. There was a strong movement by some members from the west to oppose the extension of the time for the construction of this road and now they come here and complain that it has not been constructed. Is it any wonder that the Canadian Pacific Railway would hesitate about going on, knowing the influence of those gentlemen with the government, and knowing that 243
they might at any day cut their charter in two and hinder them from proceeding with the work. If I am making a statement that is not strictly correct, my information comes from a source which I think I can rely on, a gentleman equally interested with the hon. member for West Assiniboia * (Mr. Knowles). If he is serious in trying to get this road built, let him go to Sir Thomas Shaughnessy, to the Railway Commission or some one who has something to do with the building of the road and not come here. Governments do not build railways. It is true they are building the National Transcontinental, but they are not undertaking the construction of this road. I do not suppose they are granting an acre of land by way of subsidy or bonus or contributing a dollar towards it, and it is a matter of no moment to the government whether the road is built or not ; that is to say they are not a party to it.


William Erskine Knowles: I gave very distinctly my reasons for the special course I took and I think my hon. friend should at least be present to hear my statement before passing judgment on my conduct.


David Henderson: The hon. gentleman should have given me an intimation before bringing it up. He cannot expect that we will be on hand at all times to discuss matters of this kind.
I think he should announce the day before at any rate and give hon. gentlemen notice that he is going to propose a great question, a question of prime importance to the west. I do not say but that it is a question of great importance to the west. I am not finding fault with the hon. gentleman in trying to get that road built because I think it is an important road. I understand it is constructed now from Moosejaw a certain distance, that it is constructed at the other end from Lacombe, and that there is a link in the middle which remains to be built. It is of great importance to the people in that country that the road should be built and I have no doubt that it will be built provided the hon. gentleman does not succeed in blocking a renewal of the charter. I quite agree with the hon. gentleman in his desire to have the road built, but I do protest against his wasting the time of the House in bringing a matter of this kind up when he knows perfectly well that the only thing that he could accomplish was to boom himself in West Assiniboia by making the people there believe that he is a great big man. I do not suppose that he had any other purpose. He knew perfectly well that it was no use. He could have gone to the Minister of Railways and Canals privately and asked him to assist him by urging upon the Canadian Pacific Railway to get that road built. He had the privilege of doing it because he is supporting the gov-



ernment and I will undertake to say that lie would have got just as good a promise from the minister and one which would have carried just as much weight if he had gone to him privately instead of taking an hour or two of the valuable time of the Minister of Public Works and instead of blocking the Estimates and keeping us perhaps sitting here until twelve or one o'clock in the morning


An hon. MEMBER.: Until three o'clock.


David Henderson: Or until three o'clock when we ought to be taking our rest. I hope the hon. Minister of Public Works, (Mr. Pugsley) when he does get into the Estimates, will not inflict a penalty on this House and keep us here until three o'clock in the morning, knowing as he does that his political triends have been the cause very largely of the waste of time that has been going on.


William Pugsley: If we all hurry things along we may get through at two o'clock.


David Henderson: If the hon. gentleman thinks he will get through at two o'clock I will tell him that, as far as I am concerned, I have an intense objection to sitting and talking Estimates after twelve o'clock. I do not think there is any need for it. I think we should get through with our business at twelve o'clock at any rate and if the minister gives direct answers to the questions which are submitted to him and does not ask us to vote money for unreasonable things I have no doubt he will get along sufficiently well to enable the government to adjourn the House at twelve and let us go home, take our rest and be able to come back in the beginning of the week refreshed. I think the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) expressed approval of what I am saying and I hope he will remind the Minister of Public Works that at any rate twelve o'clock is late enough to sit.


FIRE EXTINGUISHERS-PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Mr. Speaker-


George Eulas Foster: There is another obstructor coming.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I will just take two minutes of the time of the House to make a personal explanation. At the beginning of the discussion of the motion which is now before the chair, the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) quoted from the report of the Civil Service Commission, at page 79, the following letter :
I have to inform you that if you consider that chemical fire extinguishers are necessary on hoard the vessels of the Quebec agency you are to purchase them from P. E. Perreault, 312 St. John street, Quebec. Mr. P.


David Henderson: has been advised to call upon you in connection with this matter.
The hon. gentleman stated that this letter had been signed by me. I was greatly surprised that he should make that statement.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) absolutely denied that. He said that he had never said that it was signed by the minister. He repeated that denial and, in the face of that, I do not think that the minister should repeat the statement.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: At first he said that I had signed this letter.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No, he stated that he had not.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The record will show in regard to that.


George Eulas Foster: Well, let the Minister of Public Works go on.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I think it is only right that I should be permitted to give a personal explanation. There are so many things being said against me that I think the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) should be willing to give me two minutes to make this explanation.


George Eulas Foster: No, I do not think you ought to.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I understood the hon. member for Leeds to say that I had signed this letter. At all events I called his attention to that and I asked him where he had got his information that I had signed this letter. I sent over to the department for the file and I find that on the 20th July, 1906, Mr. Perrault applied to the department to sell some fire extinguishers, and on the 27th July, 1906, the letter which I have just quoted was written and was signed by the deputy minister.


Richard Blain: Will my hon. friend read the letter ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes. It is dated July 27, 3906.


George Eulas Foster: No, Mr. Perreault's letter.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, it is dated the 20th July, 1906 :
Quebec, July 20, 1906.


Commander O.  G. V.@: Spain, Ottawa, Canada.
Dear Sir,-The captain of the Canadian government steamer ' Minto ' was speaking to me about putting some chemical fire extinguishers aboard his ship the same as I put aboard of all the ships at this agency. The ' Minto ' has no chemical fire extinguishers whatever. You were present at a test I made on the King's wharf two years ago in competition with another make; mine proved itself far superior in every way. Inclosed please find cut giving information. The ' Minto ' would require eight machines owing to the way she is divided up; ordinarily

from four to six is all that is necessary- I would be pleased to receive an order for any other ships you would like to equip. Price, $14 each. Can place same on board on her return here. I am on the patronage list. Hoping to receive your esteemed orders, 1 remain,
Yours respectfully,
(Sgd.) P. E. PERREAULT,
312 St. John street, Quebec.
X do not remember having had any knowledge of this letter before I read it the other day in the report of the Civil Service Commission, but I find on the file another letter dated the 27th October, 1906. That letter was sent to me by the party named to the effect that Mr. Perrault had on his hands a certain number of extinguishers and that he would like to sell these to the government.	-


George Eulas Foster: Who sent that letter ?


Mr. ERODE  UR@: Mr. Lachance, M.P. Perhaps I had better give the letter :
Quebec, October 27, 1906. Hon. L. P. Brodeur,
Minister of Marine, Ottawa.
Mr. Minister,-Mr. P. E. Perreault had on hand a certain number of fire extinguishers when he was appointed to the Department of Marine and Fisheries at Quebec. He was then engaged as an agent in this trade. He has a certain number remaining on hand.
Could you not authorize Mr. Gregory to purchase them for the service of the lighthouses as well as- in the steamers. Their efficacy has been several times shown by various experiments made at Quebec and elsewhere.
Yours truly,


ARTHUR LACHANCE.
[Stage Direction]
Then my answer follows which I will read in French and translate into English. It is dated November 6, 1906, and is as follows :-
My Dear Member,-I received your letter of the 27th of October last concerning the extinguishers that Mr. Perreault desires to sell to the department. I have had Mr. Gregory written to on the subject and when his reply reaches the department I will communicate my decision.
It appears that Mr. Perreault applied ' de novo ' to the department, and he received this answer :
I have to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 6th instant with reference to fire extinguishers and have to advise you that none are required bv the department.
That is the correspondence concerning that matter. I am exceedingly sorry that the member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) has tried to make a case against me without reason. Had he been kind enough to notify me that he would bring up this question I would have had the files ready to answer 243*
the insinuations he has made. The hon. gentleman did not think it advisable to do so, but I am nevertheless glad to put before the House the facts in connection with it.
Richard Blain: I suppose the hon. gentleman would have no objection to lay the file on the table.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No objection at all. But I may say that some years ago the department brought before the House an original document, namely, the lease to Mr. Markey, and it was handed to an opposition member of this House and it has never -been returned to the House.


David Henderson: Does the hon. gentleman know it was handed to an opposition member ?	[DOT]


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, because it was read by him in the House.


George Eulas Foster: Does he know that the opposition member did not return it ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There has been no trace of it in the department since.


George Eulas Foster: It may have been lost there. There was such confusion in the department that it may have been lost.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Oh, not at all; if my hon. friend wants to see this file I have no objection.


Richard Blain: The minister having quoted from it, I suppose there is no objection to laying it on the table of the House.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I will of course put copies on the table.


Richard Blain: That is not the point. The minister having sent to the department for the original file and having quoted it in the House. I suppose he will have no objection to lay it on the table.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I have no objection to have all these documents copied and laid before the House.


Richard Blain: That is not what I ask.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Well, if the hon. gentleman does not take my word for it, here is the file and let him consult it. I will send it over by a page, but I must thank him for the courtesy he has extended to me.


Richard Blain: I expect to give fair-play to my hon. friends opposite and I would expect the same from them in return. I made no suggestion that the minister would not do as he stated. There was no such thought in my mind. I was pointing out that the minister having sent for the de-partmelltal file and having quoted from it, it was only fair that he should lay it on the table of the House.

An lion. MEMBER. Well, you have It now.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 151) respecting the Grand Trunk Pacific Branch Lines Company.-Mr. Crawford.
Mr. CRAWFORD moved that progress be .reported.
Haughton Lennox: This Bill has been several times before the committee and I do not propose to object, but I may say to my hon. friend that I wish to deal with the matter by way of amendment at some time, and as I have been here ready on several occasions I hope that the Minister of Railways and the promoter of the Bill will concur in letting it stand over if it should happen that I shall not be here when it is called again.


George Perry Graham: We will keep it for you.


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

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 151) respecting the Board of the Presbyterian College, Halifax.-Mr. Sinclair.
On section 1,
David Henderson: Is the promoter of this Bill present? I would like to have some explanation of it.


Alexander Johnston: I do not think there is anything in the Bill of a contentious nature, and unless my hon. friend from Halton has some special reason for desiring it to stand, I hope he will not press his objection.


David Henderson: I will just say that this is a Bill which came before the Private Bills Committee. I had not an opportunity of being present, not being a member of that committee, and I know nothing about the Bill or the reason for it. I think we have been laying it down as a practice that a man is not expected to get his Bill through this committee unless he gives personal attention to it. I do not see why we should sit here promoting another man's legislation. If he does not see fit to come here and give reasons why the Bill should become law, I think we are perfectly justified in asking that it stand over. I would, there-Mr. BLAIN.
fore, enter my protest against further proceeding with this Bill. We have for some time laid it down as a distinct rule that a Bill should stand unless the promoter is present. I do ont see even the chairman of the Committee on Private Bills. We are legislating altogether in the dark, and I will ask the government to see that the rule, or at any rate the practice that we have adopted for some time back, is adhered to.


Alexander Johnston: I do not know that the hon. member for Guysborough, in whose name the Bill stands, is any more its promoter than any other hon. member of this House. This Bill came from the Senate in the regular order and was placed in the name of the hon. member for Guysborough, who is probably more familiar with the legislation than a good many others, but who is in no special sense the promoter of the Bill. I am quite sure that the Bill has received careful consideration at the hands of those to whom it was committed, and that there is nothing in it that should not receive the assent of the House.


George William Fowler: I think it is immaterial whether the promoter of a Bill is present or not when it comes before the House, particularly when it is a Bill that comes from the Senate. The hon. member for Halton with the Bill before him is able to look at its provisions, and, with his keen, incisive mind, I am quite sure that he could understand it as well as the hon. gentleman in whose name it stands. I do not know of any rule that requires a member whose name is attached to a Bill to be present in the House when it is under consideration. If there is such a rule, it is more honoured in the breach than in the observance.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There is no such rule, but there is no doubt that it is a satisfactory practice, unless there is somebody else who can give explanations which any member may desire to have. However, as the hon. member in whose name the Bill stands is now present, he will probably be able to give any explanations that are desired.


George William Fowler: The hon. member for Halton did not mention any point on which he desired information. If he had asked for information which no hon. member present could give him, there would be a reason for allowing the Bill to stand over.


David Henderson: As the promoter of the Bill is now present, my objection of course falls to the ground, but I believe it is a good practice to insist that those in whose name any legislation stands should be present to answer for it. I admit that there is no rule, but I said that we had adopted a practice of that kind, and when the Minister of Finance was present I believe he endorsed it as a good practice. I think the

promoter of the Bill might tell us in a few minutes what is the purpose of it.


Mr. SINCLAIR.: This Bill was sent to me by the secretary of the Presbyterian Board at Halifax, and he informed me that all the clauses of it had been before the Synod of the Presbyterian church, and were quite acceptable "to the parties in charge of the funds. This Bill is quite acceptable in every way to all parties concerned. I am not able to give the exact details but I understand that there are certain funds bequeathed to the different schemes of the church that are not supposed to be covered by the powers given the Presbyterian Board under former Acts. There are certain bequests which were made to the church in a general way, and it was held by some legal gentlemen that the board had not sufficient control over those bequests. I understand that the purpose is to make the Act so general that all bequests to the church can be dealt with by the board. I accepted the Bill on the recommendation of the secretary of the board, and I understand it was thoroughly threshed out by the members of the legal committee of the Synod of the Presbyterian church of the maritime provinces and is acceptable to them.


Haughton Lennox: In what way does this differ from the clause we are appealing ? We are appealing paragraph ' 0 ' of section 3 of chapter 92 of the statutes of Canada, 1902. Is that a general or a special Act?


William Pugsley: It was an Act to incorporate the board of the Presbyterian College of Halifax. The repealed section provided that the board should have power to receive, manage and administer property, real and personal, and titles and effects of every description then held or enjoyed by or under control of the board. The section was limited to what the board then had, and by this amendment the board has power to receive and administer property hereafter given to them as well. It applies not only to property they may now possess but which they may possess in the *(future.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.	-


BELLEVILLE-PRINCE EDWARD BRIDGE COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
V
House in committee on Bill (No. 20) respecting the Belleville-Prince Edward Bridge Company.-Mr. Porter.
George William Fowler: The hon. member for Belleville (Mr. Porter), who is the promoter of the Bill, is not present, and he asked me to explain it in his absence. The Bill has been before the Private Bills Committee and has been amended in some particulars. It was perfectly satisfactory to that committee.


Mr. ALCORN.: I have a copy of the Bill, as amended by the Private Bills Committee, and it is satisfactory.
On section 1-tolls.


George Perry Graham: Why do you add that word ' driver ' in connection with a vehicle?


George Oscar Alcorn: Each person passing over the bridge is charged a separate fee and they might undertake to tax the driver.


George Perry Graham: Suppose two people are in the rig.


George Oscar Alcorn: There would be an extra fee for the extra person.


John Howard Sinclair: Are not the regulations of tolls on bridges in municipal rather than federal jurisdiction ?


William Findlay Maclean: I think the worst specimen is in the municipality of the city of Montreal. The Victoria bridge has a list of tolls, sanctioned by parliament, which is the most exorbitant I know of. I was surprised, when parliament voted so much for that bridge, that the list of tolls was not greatly reduced. I hope that parliament will be more careful in sanctioning toll charges, especially when they are as exorbitant as they are on that jubilee bridge in Montreal. That bridge has a tariff of charges six or eight feet high printed in small letters. Every jackass that crosses is taxed to an exorbitant degree.


Mr. EMMERSON.: You are not interested in that charge?


William Findlay Maclean: My hon. friend (Mr. Emmerson) is the patron of that class of quadruped. All I say is that these tolls ought to be carefully revised by parliament, and somebody ought to be responsible for them.	'


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am glad the hon. gentleman (Mr. W. P. Maclean) has reached that conclusion now. I know that when this Bill was amended I fought very hard against the tolls, but I had little support in this House. I remember distinctly, when this was passed, the contention was put up that it was very difficult to raise money to build a bridge, and that when it was built it Would be very difficult to get means to keep it in repair, and these fees were agreed upon as reasonable at that time. I confess I looked with suspicion upon the proposal to increase that. In some instances they have been raised 100 per cent. Take, for instance, a bicycle and rider, ten cents. Ten cents for a bicycle and rider going across a bridge-that is exorbitant.


Mr. GALLIHER.: It is only five cents.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: They have increased it to ten cents. ' Bicycle and rider, 10 cents.'


William Alfred Galliher: That is not as it was settled in committee. I was a member of

the sub-committee on the revision of these tolls. The hon. member for Prince Edward (Mr. Alcorn) was present, though I do not know whether he was a member of the committee. The representative of the township of Ameliasburg and also the representative of the board of trade and of the city council of Belleville were present, and tlie fees were practically agreed upon and a compromise made. I remember distinctly that the fee for bicycle and rider was fixed at five cents. Why it is given as ten cents in the Bill I do not know.


Charles Marcil: It was five cents and it is raised to ten cents in the Bill.


George Oscar Alcorn: The tariff as submitted by the promoter of the Bill was : ' Bicycle 5 cents.' It was afterwards agreed to make it ' bicycle and rider 10 cents.'


William Alfred Galliher: Notwithstanding that that is in the Bill, my distinct recollection is that it was settled otherwise in the committee. I remember mentioning that, in my opinion, a bicycle going over a bridge did not cause very much wear and tear on the bridge, and that if the bicycle was charged five cents and the bicycle was ridden there should be no extra fee for the rider. I do not think it should be ten cents, and I am positive that it was arranged otherwise in committee.


Mr. BARKER.: The last clause provides that these tolls are to be subject to the approval of the Governor in Council. These rates are maximum rates, and will not be reached if the Governor in Council does not approve.


Haughton Lennox: In reference to the point raised by the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair), I think we may well ask what right we have to deal with such a Bill as this at all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think it was held that this was over navigable water.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That does not make incorporation in this parliament necessary.


William Pugsley: But this parliament did incorporate the company.


Haughton Lennox: I quite recognize that this is an amendment to an Act we passed in 1S99. But our attention was not at that time so particularly directed to the necessity of being careful about this matter as it is now. I do not know whether we can do anything in reference to that point now, but I would call the attention of the committee to the fact that, if this were a new matter, it is one that ought to be regarded as purely within the provincial jurisdiction, and, therefore, one that ought not to be dealt with in this parliament. I call attention to this because I wish to be consistent. Whenever I find an effort to in- * Mr. GALLIHER.
corporate here a company that ought to be incorporated by the provincial legislature, I endeavour to discourage it. This looks to me like a matter that would be within the jurisdiction of the local legislature.


Henry Robert Emmerson: If this parliament acknowledges-and I think it should be acknowledged-that a mistake was made in incorporating the company in 1899, the most this parliament could do now is to have a provision that the provincial governent of Ontario should have the right to regulate the tolls. On that point this parliament should not invade the jurisdiction of the provincial legislature. I think that the company should have been incorporated by the provincial legislature. Then, as the bridge is over a navigable stream, the company could secure permission of the Department of Public Works for the construction of the bridge. That is the course pursued in all the provinces so far as my experience teaches me. But that course was not pursued in this case. It seems to me this parliament should not undertake to regulate the tolls, but should have a provision in the Bill referring that matter to the abitrament of the provincial legislature of Ontario, or providing for the approval of the Governor in Council of Ontario.


George Perry Graham: This bridge has nothing to do with any international or interprovincial water. It is only to make a short way across from the county of Hastings to the county of Prince Edward in Ontario. This company was incorporated away back in 1S99 and tolls were then established for the traffic over this bridge. The county of Prince Edward being one of the real beauty spots of the Dominion is attracting a large number of tourists who go into the county both by land and water. On that account and to that extent we, as well as the inhabitants of the district, have an interest in this matter. Of course, if my hon. friend from Prince Edward (Mr. Alcorn) and the promoter of the Bill are perfectly satisfied, that must have great influence with the House, for they are the people most deeply interested. My only object is to get the Bill exactly as the committee want it. In the case of the bicycle there seems to be a little difference of opinion.


George Oscar Alcorn: The Bill is now before this committee, I have no doubt, as it was passed by the subcommittee and the Committee on Private Bills. This matter of the toll on the bicycle was a matter of compromise.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is disputed.


George Oscar Alcorn: I think that the hon. member for Kootenay (Mr. Galliher) is mistaken; I have no doubt in my own mind that he is. I remember his making the observation to which he refers, but the same item came up a number of times and was the subject

of contention, and in conjunction with other items it was finally decided to leave it as it appears in the Bill.


William Findlay Maclean: I contend that no bicycle rider should be charged five cents for crossing this bridge. His bicycle weighs thirty pounds at the most. He crosses the bridge more rapidly by reason of that fact and wherever tolls are charged on roads they have not been imposed on a man because he happens to be on a bicycle.
I think it would be a bad precedent to establish if parliament should double the toll on a man because he happens to be riding his bicycle. He goes faster, gets off the bridge in less time and so useful a mode of travel as the bicycle should not be discriminated against in this way.


George William Fowler: Does not a man driving a light sulky, weighing about the same as a bicycle, have to pay as if he were in another vehicle ? If you strike out the word ' bicycle ' altogether, the bicycle would pay nothing because it is only the things mentioned here on which toll is paid.


William Findlay Maclean: 'Or other vehicles ' would cover that ?


George William Fowler: No.


William Alfred Galliher: The more this is discussed the more positive I am that I am right. The very fact that we see the charge for each * person passing over the bridge five cents and then lower down for each bicycle five cents, shows that for the two the charge is ten ceflts, and what would be the sense of saying ' bicycle with rider ten cents ' because it would come to the same thing. I am positive that the arrangement in the special committee was that the bicycle, including its rider, was to pay only five cents, not ten cents. There is no doubt about that in my mind. I am sure the other members of the committee, if they were here would endorse my statement that we agreed to include the rider with the bicycle at five cents.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When the original Bill was passed the same question came up, does the charge for a vehicle include the driver ?-and it was agreed it did. If you put the bicycle separate from the rider and then charge for each, you are changing the whole principle and raising the toll one hundred per cent.


William Alfred Galliher: I say we do not, we leave it unchanged.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I say that if you agree to what we are told you agree, you do raise it. Who is the owner of the bridge now ? It is claimed that this was a public convenience, that it was hard to get money to keep it up and that it was expedient there should be some toll but to make it
as reasonable as possible so as not to prevent people from crossing the bridge or taking some other means of getting to their destination without crossing it. It was regarded as reasonable to charge the schedule brought down and agreed to, and I confess I do not see any ground for raising the charge. It may mean that some of those who desire to have it raised are the owners of the bridge. In the interest of the travelling public, I took the same ground with reference to the bridge at Montreal. I always think, in any of these bridges, you should make the lowest possible charge so that people may cross, may take produce and animals across with the least possible hinderance and not have the bridge holders make a big profit.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The more one studies this tariff the more he will be convinced that this matter should be left to the approval of the Governor in Council of Ontario because for instance it will be seen that children under six years of age, accompanied by parent or guardian, are free, but by another clause a lady with a baby in a baby carriage would have to pay five cents additional.


George William Fowler: That is struck out.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think that every principle of sound legislation leads one to the conclusion that it should be left to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council of Ontario.


William Findlay Maclean: They could change it at any time. If Belleville suddenly developed into a large city, there is no reason why the tolls should not be reduced. It should be flexible and the Dominion parliament has more important things to attend to than adjusting these toll rates from time to time.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Conditions no doubt will change there. You are establishing a tariff of rates that will remain for all time unless that company chooses to come back to this parliament and have a reduced tariff substituted.


Samuel Barker: No, look at the last clause.


George William Fowler: It is to be approved by the Governor in Council.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Of the Dominion. Why should the Governor in Council for this Dominion take charge of a matter that is purely provincial?


George William Fowler: That is another argument.
Mr. EMMERSON'. That is the argument I am making and my objection to this Bill is absolutely from that standpoint.
Mr. FOWLER, I interrupted the hon. gentleman because he said that would have

to come to this parliament. It would be much more convenient to go to the Lieutenant Governor in Council than to the'Governor in council.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My observations have reference to the last clause. It seems to me to be self-evident that we were usurping the right of the province of Ontario with reference to the latter matter. It was done, no doubt, by mistake but having made the mistake I do not think that this parliament should ratify it. I think that this parliament should make an acknowledgment of the error and that a section stating that the tariff should be such a tariff as will be approved- from time to time by the Lieutenant Governor in Council of the province should be inserted.


William Findlay Maclean: Make a motion to that effect and I will support it.


George William Fowler: I will accept that.


Haughton Lennox: As the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) says it is a matter which certainly comes within the provision of the British North America Act with respect to property and civil rights within the provinces and, therefore, if the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals would move an amendment of that kind in reference to the last clause, I think we ought to support it.


George William Fowler: I quite agree with the position taken by the hon. member for Westmoreland that this is no doubt a provincial matter which has been made a federal matter by reason of the Act passed in 1899. I see no reason why the parties interested in the Bill should not accept an amendment of that kind providing that the tolls should be approved from time to time by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.


George Perry Graham: The discussion has taken a somewhat wider range than might have been anticipated. The question of the rights of the provinces has been very well presented by my hon. friend from Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson). We ought to have the Bill reprinted with the amendments in them and allow it to stand until the hon. member for West Hastings (Mr. Porter), the promoter of the Bill, is here to take part in the discussion. I think it would hardly be fair to insert a clause in his Bill when he was absent.
Progress reported.


SASKATCHEWAN POWER COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 153) to incorporate the Saskatchewan Power Company.-Mr. McCraney.
On section 1,
William Pugsley: I received a communication in regard to this Bill from the muni-Mr. FOWLER.
cipality of Saskatchewan. I would like to ask if the objection has been withdrawn before the committee ?


George Ewan McCraney: As the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) explains, there were some objections made to the Bill in its original form by the corporation of Saskatoon. The objections have been withdrawn and I will read a letter that I have received from the clerk of the city in regard to the matter.
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, April 24, 1908. Geo. E. McCraiiey, Esq., M.P.,
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ontario. Sir,-Re Saskatchewan Power Company. I am in receipt of your letter, also your telegram April 15, and an reply would say that I have been instructed by the city council to write you thanking you for the interest which you have taken on the city's behalf in regard to the passing of the Saskatchewan Power Company's Bill.
The council are of the opinion that it would not necessitate the sending of a delegate to Ottawa *on Wednesday the 29th instant, as clause 3 seems to he in keeping with the petition that we forwarded to you some time ago.
I am, yours truly,
(Sgd.) A. H. TRUESDALE,
City Clerk.
The objections which the municipal corporation made are met by clause 3 of this Bill.


David Henderson: I would like to ask the promoter why he comes here to get this Bill crystallized into law instead of going to the legislature of Saskatchewan. From the slight information I have it seems -to me that it Is purely a local matter.
Mr. McCRAN'EY. I would be pleased to state to my hon. friend (Mr. Henderson) the reason this company has come here for the incorporation for which it is asking. Under ordinary circumstances, in the province of Ontario, such a company would be incorporated and powers given to it by the local legislature, but hon. gentlemen will remember the question which arose in the discussion of the Saskatchewan Act and the fact that certain rights were reserved to -the Dominion parliament in regard to the lands.
1 will quote section 21 of the Saskatchewan Act:
All Crown lands, mines and minerals and royalties incident thereto and the interest of the Crpwn in the waters within the province under the Northwest Irrigation Act, 1898, shall continue to be vested in the Crown and administered by the government of Canada for the purposes of Canada.
Then the Irrigation Act which is chapter 61 of the Revised Statutes of Canada provides as follows :
Section 6. The property in and the right to the use of all the water at any time in any river, stream, water course, lake, creek, ra-

vine, canyon, lagoon, swamp, marsh or other boiy of water shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be vested in the Crown, unless and until and except only so far as some right therein, or to the use thereof, inconsistent with the right of the Crown, and which is not a public right or a right common to the public, is established.


Haughton Lennox: That is the Irrigation Act? Mr. McCRANEY. Yes.


Haughton Lennox: It says ' for the purposes * of this Act '. That is for the purposes of irrigation, is it not ?


George Ewan McCraney: But, the reference to the Irrigation Act is continued in the Saskatchewan Act.
It is a very bad principle to pass these water powers into the hands of private corporations. In addition to that my contention is that unless this is a navigable stream the province and not the Dominion has control over it. It may be that the Irrigation Act which the hon. gentleman has referred to gives authority to this parliament to deal with the matter but otherwise the province should own and control these powers and derive what revenue it can from them.


Haughton Lennox: It would be desirable that the hon. gentleman in charge of this Bill should continue his explanation of it.
Progress reported.


Haughton Lennox: What I want to suggest to the hon. gentleman is this : The hon. gentleman reads from the Irrigation Act and it says that the things that are enumerated are, ' for the purposes of this Act ' vested m the Dominion parliament. I would understand that to mean for the purposes of irrigation and matters incidental to it and not necessarily for the purposes of this Act which is an Act to incorporate a power company. Any thing that is referred to in the Acts which the hon. gentleman has quoted does not change the situation as far as I can see.
Mi\ SPROTTLE. I have here a copy of a letter sent by the Saskatoon city council I do not know whether the hon. member (Mr. MeCraney) has had a similar one and has dealt with it or not, but I notice that they oppose this Bill very strongly.


George Ewan McCraney: I have had a copy of the letter probably to which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) refers and the objections which are contained in that communication are, the council say, met by the provisions of clause 3 as amended in the Senate I will send my hon. friend the letter which I have received from the city of Saskatoon.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 
George Ewan McCraney: The letter referred to by the hon. gentleman is with reference to the Draft Bill presented in the Senate and which was very considerably amended there so that we are considering it now.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The city of Saskatoon contends that there is a valuable water power there which they do not desire to get into the hands of a private corporation and which ought to be controlled by the city, and with regard to which they are making an application to the government. As I understand it this private company seeks by this Bill to get control of the water power and thus acquire the right to charge perhaps exorbitant prices for the supply of power and which would prevent the development of manufacturing industries.
' The hour for private Bills having expired the House resumed in Committee of Supply.	.
Public Works, Buildings-Ontario-Belleville armoury, $75,000.


William Pugsley: At the last sitting of the committee I gave a full explanation of this item. I do not know whether any other gentlemen would like to have an explanation from the Minister of Militia or not.
Guelph armoury, $20,000.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: What is the expected cost of this building ?


William Pugsley: The total probable co^t of the armoury, with the heating, the electric wiring and fixtures, the fittings and furniture, including the site, is $114,537.30. We are now asking for $20,000, and will of course require a further amount later. In this cost is included the cost of a drill-hall which will be over the armoury. The building will be a very fine one.


William Findlay Maclean: When will it be
completed ?


William Pugsley: During the present year.


William Findlay Maclean: Will it be at the disposal of the live-stock fair that is held at Guelph ?


William Pugsley: I do not know. I have had no application for the use of it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would like to know the number of men the Belleville armoury is intended to accommodate. I would like also to know on what principle the siz,e and cost of these armouries are determined ; because they are becoming very costly. My desire was to have the Minister of Militia present, as he alone could give ns that information.


Frederick William Borden: The 15th regiment, composed of eight companies, is the principal military unit that will occupy that armoury. That is about 400 strong. In addition to that, one company of a rural battalion, the 49th regiment, consisting of between forty and fifty men, will

have its headquarters iu this armoury. In arranging for an armoury the Militia Department makes an estimate of what ac-. commodation is required for the existing militia strength, and for some additional accommodation to provide for the natural growth of the place. I should say that Belleville has had for many years an armoury which was found to be insufficient, and it was torn down ; so that this new armoury is really taking its place. This and other city regiments do not go into camp annually, but do .their drill at headquarters iu the evenings. In most of the cities it is impossible to obtain the consent of the employers of labour to give the men of these corps the time to attend to their drill in the day time ; the consequence is that they do their annual drill, and give a great deal more of their time than the equivalent of twelve days, in the evenings ; and these armouries are the homes of these regiments during the long winter and spring months. I think they are an absolute necessity, and have been the means of doing a great deal of good to the militia. In fact, we could not get on without them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is a rural battalion in that county in addition to the city one ?


Frederick William Borden: Yes, the 49th regiment. It has eight companies, one of which is situated at Belleville and will use a part of the armoury for storage of arms.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many companies are there outside ?


Frederick William Borden: Seven.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Where are they accommodated ?


Frederick William Borden: There is a grant of money to each company of every rural battalion. The captain of the company receives this grant for the care of arms, and he keeps them in a building of his own or where he likes. That is not done in the cities to anything like the same extent, but there the money goes to pay a caretaker by the year for looking after the armoury and the stores.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is to be the total cost of this building when completed ?


William Pugsley: 


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the size of it ?


William Pugsley: The hall will be 175 feet by 80 with a range of armouries along the north side. The walls of brick on stone foundation. The centre portion three stories high.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I see that the specifications were prepared by the Architect Engineering Company at a cost of $1,755. Why Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.
were not the plans prepared by the architects of the Public Works Department ?


William Pugsley: At that time the staff was exceeding busy with other work.


George Oscar Alcorn: What is the cost of the site ?


William Pugsley: 


George Oscar Alcorn: Why was the old armoury replaced ? It was a very commodious and convenient building, and I would have thought it would answer every purpose of the militia of Belleville and the vicinity for many years. Why was the site purchased so near the business centre ? It is on a street next the main street, and land could have been obtained further away at very much less price. The old building was one street further away from the main street.


Frederick William Borden: The site is not under my control but as to why a new building is required I remember distinctly that strong protests were made that the old building was not sufficient, and strong pressure brought to bear to get a new one.
. Mr PUGSLEY. I would call attention to the fact that the lot Is a corner lot, 260 feet 6 inches on one street and 150 feet 6 inches on the other, and is quite close to the best business portion of the city.


George Oscar Alcorn: From whom was it bought ?


William Pugsley: From Mrs. Yonker and Mr. Richard Harnett.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: What is the annual cost of keeping up an armoury such as you are building ?


Frederick William Borden: The caretaker gets from $1 to $1.50 per day. Then there is the expense of fuel, which I do not think is very great because the whole building is not heated all the time. I should think the cost of keeping up the building, including heat, light and caretaker, would be from $1,200 to $1,500 per year.
Guelph armoury, $20,000.


William Pugsley: This building is to be built of brick with stone dressing on stone foundation. The portion fronting on Has-sc'is street is 146 feet by 36. exclusive of projections. It is three stories high with a basement. In the rear there is to be an extension 80 feet wide and 190 feet deep, which will have two stories. The site cost $5,000, and the total cost will be $148,537.20, including the armoury and drill shed.


David Henderson: What is the strength of the force which will be provided for?


Frederick William Borden: This armoury will accommodate two field batteries

of artillery, the 11th and 16th, also one com- Mr. SPROULE. When was the building pany of the 30th Regiment.	commenced ?


David Henderson: Where is the headquarters of the 30th ?


Frederick William Borden: It is a Wellington county regiment.


David Henderson: Guelph would be the headauarters ?


Frederick William Borden: It may be, but there is only one company resident there. The regimental headquarters will be there. Then there is a company of the Army Service Corps numbering 110, so that the number of men will be about 400, and these two batteries are among the most important in the country. There are six field guns in each battery. There will be accommodation there for these guns and harness and all the material connected with them. The same remark will apply to the Army Service Corps. There are wagons and a great deal of stores connected with a corps of that kind. Also, No. 1 company of the 30th Regiment keeps its stores and equipment in this armoury.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Were plans for this
armoury prepared in the jPublic Works Department ?


William Pugsley: Yes, and tenders were called for as usual, and the lowest tender accepted.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Are plans for these armouries usually prepared in the department ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The hon. gentleman
gave us to understand that the reason this was not done in the case of Belleville armoury was that the architects in the department were very busy. I think he said twelve architects were employed in the department. That would seem to me a very good staff.


William Pugsley: There is a great deal of work and it is more pressing at some times than at others.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Does the hon. gentleman think that twelve architects are insufficient for carrying on the business of the department ?


William Pugsley: If I were to express an opinion, I would say they are not sufficient.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Twelve architects not sufficient to prepare the plans for the public buildings put up throughout Canada ?


William Pugsley: They do more than prepare plans-there is the preparation of the specifications, the making of progress estimates and looking after a large number of buildings.


William Pugsley: The contract was on June 1. 1900.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then it has been going on ever since ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


John Barr: How long before it will be completed ?


William Pugsley: We expect to finish It this year.


David Henderson: Who are the contractors ?


William Pugsley: Nagel & Mills, of In-gersoll.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is there a clerk of works on it all this time ?


William Pugsley: It is in charge of a supervising architect, who is paid a commission of two per cent.


George Oscar Alcorn: How were these troops previously accommodated ?


Frederick William Borden: The batteries were accommodated in a building hired for the purpose. The company of the 30th Regiment, I suppose, had no special accommodation. I have explained that, in such cases, there is an allowance to the captain to provide accommodation such as he can. The Army Service Corps I think also was accommodated in a rented building, although it has not been very long organized and I could not be absolutely certain as to that.


David Henderson: Does the Minister of Militia himself decide, in cases of this kind, where new buildings should be erected?


Frederick William Borden: As a rule, the military head of the district brings the matter to my attention, and I submit it to the proper officers of my department for a report. If that report is to the effect that the accommodation is needed, I asked for a statement as to exactly what is needed. When that information is procured, I forward the information to the Department of Public Works. Plans are prepared there, and, after they are prepared, they .are returned to me. I go over them again with the assistance of the officers of the department, and, if they are satisfactory, they are sent back to the Department of Public Works initialled by myself.


George Oscar Alcorn: The items we have had this evening are very large amounts. The minister has stated the routine by which it is decided whether new buildings are necessary and desirable. Will he state the reasons which led to the decision that this was necessary ?


Frederick William Borden: I hare not the correspondence before me.	,


George Oscar Alcorn: Cannot the committee be informed what representations were made and by whom ?


Mr. PUGS LEY.: I have a memo, here showing that this was strongly urged by the Department of Militia as early as January 15, 1903. The General Officer Commanding reported that it was absolutely necessary that the two field batteries, the city companies and the bands should be properly housed.


Frederick William Borden: I think that was in Dundonald's time.


David Henderson: What is the estimated cost of this structure, completed in every respect ?


William Pugsley: The estimate is $148,537.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The contract was something over $80,000. How is the rest made up ?


William Pugsley: The amount paid for the site was $5,000-it was bought from the city council of Guelph, and formed part of the property known as the fair grounds. It is a corner lot. The survey of the site, printing, advertising, travelling expenses-


Oswald Smith Crocket: What is the amount of printing and advertising ?


William Pugsley: I have it in a lump sum with other items which make a total of $3,139.21. Payment to the contractor up to 10th December, 1907, was $53,130, making the total expenditure to 10th December, $61,259.30. The amount due on the contract is $26,870, which makes the amount of the contract $80,000. Then, the amount due on the drill hall over the gun shed is $34,925.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Was there a contract for that ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The same contractor ?


William Pugsley: Yes. The amount for heating and boilers is $5,000, electric wiring and fixtures, $2,500, fittings and furniture $7,000, sidewalks $3,000 ; contingencies and superintendence $7,983-making a total of $148,537.30.


David Henderson: Has the government reconveyed a portion of this land to the) city of Guelph or to the Guelph Fat Stock show people ? I understand a deputation came down for the pur-pose of asking a reconveyance. They wanted to purchase a portion of this land which was not required.


William Pugsley: That has not been done, it is a large lot 178 by 467 feet.


George Oscar Alcorn: 


George William Fowler: What is the size of the building ?
Mr. PUGSLEi'. 146 feet on Huskisson street with a depth of 36 feet exclusive of projections and an extension of 88 feet in breadth by 190 feet deep. The building is of brick and stone with a stone foundation.


George Oscar Alcorn: The former site of the Belleville building was on the next street. What became of the old site? Has it been sold by the government or what disposition has been made of it.


William Pugsley: I do not know, I shall make inquiry.


George Oscar Alcorn: It is a very valuable site and I think abuts on the present site. I would like to know whether it has been retained and will be used with the new site for the new building or whether it has been disposed of.


William Pugsley: When we are in supply on Monday or Tuesday, I shall give the information.


George William Fowler: What accommodation was there formerly ?


Frederick William Borden: I think two buildings were hired for the two batteries, but I am not sure. The batteries as my hon. friend knows require good accommodation and it is difficult to get such buildings. They were rented prior to the time of constructing this building.


George William Fowler: It seems to me there is a very large expenditure in connection with these military buildings. I made a rough calculation and find that out of the 46 items for Ontario public buildings, 18 are for military buildings and out of the $727,000 for Ontario about $390,000 is for these buildings. But that is not all, these are only preliminary steps in connection with most of these buildings. Take this Guelph armoury, you are asking a vote of $20,000, but the total cost will be $148,000, over seven times the amount you are asking to-day. On the same basis the total for the province would amount to $2,500,000. That would be hardly fair, but it will cost $1,500,000 at least to complete the buildings asked for this purpose. I question u bether such an expenditure can be justified under the circumstances, when so much money is required for purpose of greater importance than these drill halls and armouries. If Canada was amply supplied with transportation facilities and other facilities required for the business of the country it would perhaps then be quite proper to expend large amounts of money in erecting buildings for the accommodation of the troops. We seem to have got along very well in past times without all this tremendous expenditure, but it looks as though the Militia Department

wants to level up its buildings in accordance with its staff. It is like the man who put a cupola on his house, then had to furnish accordingly and wound up by putting on a big mortgage. It looks as though the Militia Department, having established a very large and particularly extensive staff, would wish now to have al the buildings throughout the country in connection with the militia in proper proportion to the staff they have created. I must for my part, protest against such a large expenditure. I do not think it is required or necessary in any sense. I do not think you will be able to enlist men any more easily by reason of these expensive building's than you would have been without them. Here is a building costing $150,000 to accommodate two batteries, and one company Qf infantry.


Frederick William Borden: And an army service corps.


George William Fowler: And you are spending $150,000 in buildings for them. It is not only the initial expenditure in connection with these, but the annual expenditure for repairs, caretakers, etc., which will be tremendous. I do not know what great influence the Minister of Militia must have in order to get these large votes passed through council. I wish to offer my protest against this tremendous expenditure, because I think it is entirely uncalled for and I do not believe it will increase in the slightest degree the efficiency of the militia of the country.


Frederick William Borden: The whole question, of course, of the extent to which the government or parliament is justified in carrying the expenditure upon these buildings or upon the militia generally, is very important and interesting, but we can hardly take it up conveniently at this hour. I do not see much relevancy between the expenditure on the general staff and the expenditure upon these public buildings. I shall be prepared at the proper time to discuss the expenditure upon the staff and upon all branches of the militia and I am always anxious to hear fair criticism on these points.
I must differ from my hon, friend as to these expenditures in a general way. I am not prepared to say that the expenditure in some cases is not larger than is justified. I am rather inclined to agree that there have been cases in the past and in recent years and no doubt there will be cases in the future, where the same good results would be obtained with a smaller expenditure, but I believe in the principle of supplying the men who give their time and their money for the purpose of being prepared for the defence of the country with fair and reasonable accommodation, particularly in the large cities. Owing to the fact that employers of labour in those
large centres absolutely refuse, in many cases, to allow their employees to attend their annual drill or to give their time during the day towards perfecting themselves in drill, it is absolutely necessary to provide suitable buildings for these men to drill in comfort in the evenings. Some of the most efficient regiments in Canada are to be found in the cities. I do not care to mention any particular regiment, but, take the regiments of Toronto and of Hamilton ; take the 13th regiment of Hamilton and the other regiment there-they are -among the most creditable regiments in this country. No finer regiments are to be found anywhere. They could not have reached that pitch of perfection without reasonable accommodation and I do think that this country can well afford to give proper accommodation and that the country, when it understands the position of affairs, will be glad to give all reasonable accommodation to encourage these men to make themselves proficient in drill.


George William Fowler: What is the cost of the Hamilton drill hall?


Frederick William Borden: We are coming to that.


George William Fowler: The minister has confirmed my argument, I think, because he has particularly mentioned the efficiency of the Hamilton regiment and they have arrived at that state of efficiency in a building very much inferior to the one which you propose to spend this money on. Do I understand that there is a vote for the Hamilton drill hall?


Frederick William Borden: Hamilton has doubled and trebled its strength.


George William Fowler: The expenditure of an additional $100,000 will not result in that regiment attaining a higher state of efficiency because the minister states that with inferior quarters they have reached a very high state of efficiency. Surely the efficiency of a regiment does not depend upon having a $150,000 or $200,000 building to drill in. Surely a building erected at a reasonable cost ought to do just as well. I quite understand that in cities it is necessary to have drill halls just for the reason that the minister has pointed out, that it is difficult for the employers of labour to allow their men to go out" for the length of time necessary to attend annual drill, not that these employers of labour are not as much actuated by the patriotic spirit as other people, but because it is a serious detriment to their business and therefore it is necessary for the men to drill at night. At the same time I think we have gone mad on the cost and style of these buildings. A very much cheaper building weuld answer the purpose just as well and the government could save the country a large sum and employ it in purposes which

would be more beneficial than in these expensive buildings.


George Oscar Alcorn: I presume that the size of these buildings is to be accounted for by the fact that the space inclosed is used for the drill purposes?


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


George Oscar Alcorn: Does not the minister think that accuracy in ride practice is of more consequence than perfection in mere drill, and that the enormous sum, in the aggregate, expended on the large number of buildings which this government is now erecting would be better expended in the encouragement of rifle practice by some concrete scheme which would apply to the whole country. The constitutional objection which might be raised upon the ground that the subject of education is one coming within the purview of provincial authorities, could be overcome.


Frederick William Borden: Rifle practice is carried on in all these buildings.


George Oscar Alcorn: Not rifle practice with ordinary weapons?


Frederick William Borden: Yes, with a minature cartridge.


George William Fowler: The sub-target gun?


Frederick William Borden: Yes, the sub-target gun is used in every armoury.


George Oscar Alcorn: Would it not be possible to evolve some principle for teaching all young boys of a certain age to become experts in the handling of the rifle, and would it not be more useful than the effort to achieve perfection in the more costly and showy elements of drill?


Frederick William Borden: I do not know.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I would like to ask the bon. Minister of Militia and Defence if he has had any demand or request from the citizens of Valleyfield to erect an armoury in that district. There are two companies there and I think they could form a good many more, in fact, a whole battalion if it were necessary. This place is very near the frontier and I would like to know if any demand has been made, how the minister would receive such a demand and what he would think about it?


Frederick William Borden: There have been two deputations to wait upon me in connection with the matter. There has been some difficulty in connection with the old battalion at that point, part of which was recruited, I think, from Valleyfield, and which has been temporarily disbanded. The people of Valleyfield are * very anxious to organize a city battalion, to begin with four companies, and. of course, in that connection they would expect an armoury to be constructed at that point. No decision has Mr. FOWLER
been reached. The matter is still under consideration.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: There are already two companies. I think there were four before, and there may be four yet.


Frederick William Borden: I think there were eight companies altogether, but they were scattered all over that part of the country.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Yes. Referring to what my hon. friend said a moment ago, consideration must be given to the question of taking care of the arms, because the government would have to pay some person to take care of the arms and some place must be had for that purpose. It is a city of about 12,000 or 15,000 people and being near the frontier would it not be, in the opinion of the minister, a suitable place in which to establish an armoury? It could be done at a relatively small cost and it would be a very useful thing.


Frederick William Borden: If my hon. friend will convince the hon. member for Kings and Albert (Mr. Fowler) as to the soundness of such a policy, personally, I should be very glad indeed to co-operate in having a. suitable armoury constructed at such an important centre as Valleyfield.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I would rather try to convince my hon. friend the Minister of Militia and Defence than my hon. friend from Kings and Albert, because I understand that my hon. friend has not consulted the hon. member for Kings and Albert as to the building of armouries. I would rather address myself straight to the minister.


George William Fowler: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bergeron) asked for an armoury at Valley-field because that town is close to the frontier, but I would remind him that an armoury is not a fort. In Sussex, New Brunswick, where I live, we have an armoury there the contract price for which was $4,700 and that armoury suffices for storing the equipment of all the troops in the province.


Frederick William Borden: Stores are kept in St. John and also in Fredericton.


George William Fowler: The reserve stores are kept in St. John but the stores used by the militia of ~the province in camp are kept in this armoury the contract price for which was $4,700.


William Pugsley: That was the mere building without fittings.


George William Fowler: 
Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I suppose my hon. friend (Mr. Fowler) wants to show his impartiality by criticising me as well as the government. X quite understand the difference between an armoury and a fortification, but knowing that it is the duty of the Minister of Militia to provide accommodation for the troops which most need it I brought before him the claims of Valley-field.


George William Fowler: What is the population of Valleyfieid ?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Between 12,000 and 15,000. The volunteers in Valleyfieid belong to the battalions which distinguished themselves on the frontier during the Fenian Raid in 1866 and 1870 and also at the battle of Chateauguay in 1812 which saved Canada for the British Crown. The men in those battalions to-day are descendants of the men who fought in 1812 and in 1866. These historic battalions have always been ready to march to the call of duty and they deserve special consideration from the government of Canada. Anyway, on the basis of the policy laid down by the Militia Department an armoury should be built in that city. The Minister of Militia has admitted that a petition has been received for the erection of an armoury at Valleyfieid and I rose to endorse the prayer of that petition. I can tell the gallant member for Kings-Albert (Mr. Fowler) that there are np more historic battalions to be found in all Canada than are to be found in my constituency, and when he rises again to criticise the government I trust he will not turn his criticism on the member for Beau-harnois who knows perfectly well the difference between an armoury and a fortification.


George William Fowler: The hon. gentleman first wanted an armoury at Valleyfieid because it was near the frontier which would indicate that it was a fortification he was thinking of. Now he gives as a reason that these battalions are filled with veterans of the Fenian raid which took place 42 years ago.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: They are the descendants of these men.


George William Fowler: I understood my hon. friend to say that they were the descendants of the men who fought at Chateauguay. Now, if these men were 20 years of age 42 years ago at the time of the Fenian Raid they would be 62 years old now and it is a hospital they wanted instead of an armoury.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: There are none so deaf as those who do not wish to hear. What I said was that these battalions fought at Chateauguay and during the Fen-iain Raid and I know that in England different regiments are proud of their history and of their brave deeds in years gone by.


David Henderson: I am not rising to ask the Minister of Public Works to erect a drill hall in any part of the county I have the honour to represent notwithstanding that we have in that county a battalion eight companies strong and numbering possibly 400 men. In that regiment, the Lome Rifles, the 20th battalion, 400 men have to be provided for ; and if you took all the drill halls in the county, and put them up at auction or sold them at private sale, you would not realize more than $10,000 for them ; whereas in the adjoining county of Wellington, where 400 men are to be provided for, the Minister of Public Works at the request of the Minister of Militia is going to spend $148,000. Does the Minister of Militia not see that this is discriminating against the rural battalions? If he is going to maintain the force at full strength and give encouragement to the young men to connect themselves with the militia of the country, he should see that there is a more equal division of the expenditure. I am not going to complain of the amount that is being expended in Guelph, nor am I going to ask at the present time that any money be expended in my county, because the expenditure of this country has grown so enormously that practically we are not at liberty to ask that it be increased to any extent. We are getting on very well ; I see no signs of war in the near future ; our battalion is held together very well ; they go out to drill in good force and I dare say that if they were called out for any other purpose they would be equally at the command of the minister. But the minister is a little more particular about building up the city corps than the rural corps, and I am going to give him a concrete case. Some time ago a troop of cavalry called the Massassaga Horse was formed with headquarters in the city of Toronto. The minister permitted one squadron of that troop to be raised in the county of Halton, right at the corner of the county which was the headquarters of N'o. 1 company of the 20th battalion. What was the effect ? The captain of that company found that his men were being decoyed away, because they were more willing to join a cavalry troop. It was a little more pleasant, and when they went out to drill, each man received pay for his horse as well as himself, so that tnere was a little more money in it; and the captain of No. 1 company at Oakville found it a difficult matter to keep his men. I think an invasion of that kind should not have beeD

allowed, as it may hare the effect of injuring or wiping out that company. The minister mgy tell me that he had nothing to do with it, that somebody in Toronto controlled it. It is strange to me if the minister cannot dictate where a squadron shall have its headquarters, and prevent recruiting for one branch of the service where it will interfere with that of another. I shall be glad if the minister can tell me that he has taken steps to prevent that sort of thing in the future.


Frederick William Borden: My hon. friend is quite correct in supposing that I am not directly responsible. I am responsible, of course, for the administration of the Militia Department, but this particular case I never heard of before. The officer commanding western Ontario, General Otter, one of the ablest officers in Canada, had that matter under his control, and what he did he no doubt did with the best intentions, however it may have worked out. I would suggest to my hon. friend that very likely the individuals who are objecting are not the young men themselves who have had the privilege of joining this cavalry regiment, but the infantry officers who find it more difficult to get recruits.


David Henderson: I grant that is the case.


Frederick William Borden: I am disposed to think that I shall favour the majority, and if the young men, who own their own horses and are ambitious to belong to a cavalry squadron, want to do so, and the officer commanding thought it was wise to meet their wishes, while I am sorry that the captain of the infantry company should be put to any inconvenience, the lesser must suffer for that which is of greater importance. I know that that difficulty does happen in my own county. I represent a purely rural constituency where we have an infantry regiment and I think two or three squadrons of cavalry, and the officers of the infantry regiment tell me that it is absolutely impossible for them to keep their regiment up to its strength because of the extension of the cavalry regiment. It is a question which is the better of the two. In my own county the farmers' sons are well to do and own their own horses, and there is no better place in the world in which to recruit cavalry regiments than in localities of that kind. My hon. friend from Kings (Mr. Fowler) knows that the same conditions exist in his county. Wherever there are districts in which the young men are ambitious to form cavalry regiments and where cavalry regiments are needed, I should be disposed to give every facility to their organization-I do not think it is necessary to put the rural militia in opposition, so to speak, to the city militia. I think it is quite possible to do full justice to both, and I do not think that because Mr. HENDERSON
a city regiment, or two or three regiments, secure handsome drill halls or armouries, it necessarily follows that we should neglect the rural regiments. In my county there is a regiment of infantry with eight companies and a regiment of cavalry with, I think, three squadrons, and yet I can tell my hon. friend that during the whole time I have been Minister of Militia, not more than .|1,200 has been spent in my county. In fact there is only one armoury there where all the arms are kept. It is an old armoury which was built fifty years ago, and two or three years ago I spent $1,200 on it to put it into proper shape. My hon. friend will see that I at any rate have not abused my position by spending large sums on my own regiment. This question has been discussed on many previous occasions and I would like to say this. I believe that we should gradually, but as rapidly as possible, supply armouries for all the different companies throughout the country. This can be done at a very reasonable cost. An armoury for one company, which would be a building with a good lecture room and accommodation to hold the stores, could be constructed for some $2,500, perhaps less. A larger building where there are two or three companies together, at a place where the commanding officer of the regiment lives, could be constructed for perhaps $4,000 or $5,000. During the last three or four years $50,000 to $75,000 has been voted each year. I regret that some of the armouries will cost more than we expected, but we have constructed a number in British Columbia and the Northwest, a few in Ontario, one or two in the province of Quebec and two or three in Nova Scotia. My intention is to continue constructing such armouries and to give them in order of merit to the different rural battalions throughout the country.
Hamilton drill hall-addition, $100,000.


William Pugsley: There has been a drill hall in Hamilton for sime time which will continue to be occupied. The new building will be a very fine One. It will be built on a site with 100 feet frontage and 300 feet deep. The main drill hall will be 128 feet by 220. There was paid for the site $29,000, and this $100,000 is required to complete the building. The tota cost is estimated at $315,089.76, inclusive of the site. It will accommodate the 13th Regiment consisting of 600 men, the 91st Highlanders with 500 men, the 4th Field Battery with 115 men, the Army Service Corps, 106 men. The 7th company, 36 men. will occupy the old drill hall.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this under contract ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


George William Fowler: What is the size of the present building and how much did it cost ?


William Pugsley: The old building measures 250 feet long by 116 wide.


George William Fowler: Of what material is it built ?


William Pugsley: Brick with stone dressings.


George William Fowler: What about the new building ?	'


William Pugsley: It is to have a frontage of 367 feet by 300 feet in depth. Its main hall is to be 128 feet wide by 336 long.


George William Fowler: Was the new building found too small ?


Frederick William Borden: Yes, the strength of the militia in Hamilton has been doubled within the last four or five years, and they could not drill properly in the old hall.


George William Fowler: The 13th Regiment has its headquarters there. And what are the others ?


Frederick William Borden: The 90th Regiment, the 44th Field Battery, with a strength of one hundred odd, and the 19th Army Service corps, with 110 and No. 12 Field Ambulance, and the band.


George William Fowler: About one thousand men altogether.


Frederick William Borden: More, for these regiments are about 500 men each.


George William Fowler: Well, say 1,200 men. None of these regiments or corps have been created within the last five years ?


Frederick William Borden: I have not the record before me, but I think it was within the last five years there has been an increase in the numerical strength of both regiments, and I think the Field ambulance company has been started within that time.


George William Fowler: As a matter of fact, these different corps do not have to drill on the same night ? The matter could be arranged so that one would use the drill hall one night and another the next night, and so on. In that case, there would be room enough in the old building. You are going to spend $315,000 additional for this building. The original building, I suppose, cost $200,000-that is, you will have spent over half a million to accommodate 1,200 men. It seems to me this is altogether unjustifiable. The minister should have resisted the pressure put upon him by the members from Hamilton or-if they were not together in this matter-from the member for Hamilton. The only real necessity for this great expenditure was the re-election of the ministerial member for Hamilton (Mr. Zimmerman). However useful a man that hon. gentleman may be-and I say nothing about that,-this is a very large price to pay for the pleasure of having him here. I protest most strongly against this 244
expenditure as absolutely uncalled for-a waste of public money.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am glad to hear a military man say that, for I have entertained much the same opinions for a length of time, but have usually concluded that my judgment would not carry much weight, as I take so little interest in military affairs. I have often wondered whether some of the money that we spend in these palatial buildings for military purposes could not be spent to much better purpose in some other line. I do not pretend to be competent to judge as to the efficiency of a militia force. But many years ago the force seemed to me much more active in our country than it is to-day-I mean in the case of the rural battalions. They have dwindled until now you can hardly get a company together. The last few days before they go to camp the officers are doing their best to get recruits, while a few years ago there was no trouble to keep the companies up to their full strength. There was comparatively little trouble to keep them for the full length of time, and now they go in for a year and then drop out- no one seems to have any interest in it. But while this retrograde process is going on, we seem to be enormously increasing the expenditure. I dislike to seem captious in regard to these expenditures, for I believe every country should make reasonable provision for its own defence, and to keep its citizens in military training. But it seems to me that we are not spending our money in the best way. Nor can I say that I am prepared to give suggestions as to how to spend it better, not being sufficiently informed in military affairs to outline a system. An hon. member made the remark the other night that we had one officer for every two and a half men on the average. That being the case, the force is evidently topheavy. It seems to me that not sufficient encouragement is given to the rural battalions. But our experience is the same as that of other countries, that, when it is necessary to put a force in the field for the defence of the country, the rural battalions are superior to those of the city. They have a better physique and are of a higher type of self-reliant manhood, making them a most valuable force in trying circumstances. Yet, these rural corps do not seem to be given due encouragement, but all the eclat of military life is afforded the towns and cities.


David Henderson: I am glad the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) has spoken as he has. I entirely agree that the rural battalions do not receive the consideration to which they are entitled. I repeat what I said before, that I am not going to advocate larger expenditures, but I do desire to emphasize the idea that there should be some equitable distribution of



this money, less for the cities and more for the country. I believe that the bone and sinew of the militia of this country is in the rural districts. One of the best regiments that served in putting down the Northwest rebellion was the York Rangers made up practically altogether of farmers' sons, men capable of enduring greater hardship than those drawn from mercantile shops, banks and other business houses. In time of trouble I believe it would be found that the most reliable forces were the rural battalions. I am an advocate of reduced expenditure but I do contend there should be a more equitable distribution and that the rural battalions should receive something more than they have received, even if it is to be taken away from the city battalions.


George William Fowler: I regret that it seems to be my fate to disagree with my colleagues as to military matters. I do not believe that the rural corps require any further consideration than they receive. I think the rural battalions are very well taken care of so far as expenditure is concerned and I do not think they, require any more. I contend that altogether too much money is being spent on the city corps and that too much money is being expended on armouries and everything of that sort. One would think to listen to the hon. member (Mr. Henderson) that it was necessary to take a lump sum and spend it on the militia. I say that the expenditure on the militia is many times greater than it should be in this country. Years ago when less money was spent we had quite as efficient a militia force as we have to-day. If there is any trouble about enlisting men in the rural battalions it is due to the manner in which they are officered at the present time. In the olden time the officers were taken from the rural community itself and farmers sons were in command and the officers and the men were of the same social grade and they worked in harmony. But to-day the conditions are different and the reason is on account of the prohibitive expense of the outfit necessary for an officer. There is too much gold lace, too many frills, too many feathers ; the officers are drawn from the cities and there is no fellowship between them and the men. If the regiments to-day are not composed of the same class of men as formerly-and that is truer of the infantry than of the cavalry-it is due to the reason I have stated. I have before expressed these views in the House and the minister has agreed with me but nothing has been done. My contention is that we should have a system like the Boer system. an inexpensive system where the men would be taught fewer of the frills and more of how to shoot. There should be more money spent on teaching the men rifle practice than on teaching them how to march past with grace. You don't have Mr. HENDERSON.
much of that sort of things to do when yon get into active service. At all events no war would come so rapidly, that after you have your enrolment you cannot give your men sufficient drill to fit them for active service. If you simplify the uniform of the officers so as to make it possible for men of small means to become officers you will have the officers drawn from the same community as the men and you will have a better class of men going into the ranks.
Hamilton post office-addition to buildings, $7,000.


William Pugsley: This is the complete altei'ations to the rear of the Hamilton post office. The total estimated cost is S20,-033.37.


David Henderson: This is another instance in which the money of this country is not equitably distributed. In the county of Halton which I represent there has not been one dollar expended in the way of furnishing post offices and yet in the adjoining counties, because they contain towns and cities of considerable dimensions, very large sums of money have been expended. In the city of Guelph something over $40,000 was spent in the improvement of the post office although it is a puzzle to the people of Guelph when they look at the building to know how they managed to put away all that money. The government, in these appropriations, should take the rural districts into consideration as *well as the cities and larger towns. I am contending for a more equitable distributing of public money and even if a county has no towns and villages exceeding 1,500 or 2,000 population they should not be ignored whilst large expenditures go to the cities.


William Pugsley: You and I agree exactly.


David Henderson: Some years ago after making a very careful calculation in my own county I estimated that if $30,000 was set apart it would at that time have erected a building in each of five incorporated towns and villages at a cost of $0,000 in each place, and would have provided a good post office containing a residence for the postmaster. I do not say you could erect buildings now at the same cost, but I know that when I made my suggestion it was endorsed by Sir Louis Davis then a minister, who said the thing could be done for even less money. My plan was not accepted. It seemed that the government could not erect a building of such small dimensions as would call for an expenditure of $6,000. I made a calculation to show that there would be a saving to the government that the interest on the whole $30,000, provided the government borrowed the money at 3 per cent would be less than the rentals that were paid by the government for the various post offices. Then an advantage would be that in every case

the post office in these five towns and villages would be in a brick building where a vault could be put in for the protection of the valuable letters passing through the mail, and exit as well as an entrance could be provided which would prevent the very congested condition that we find in a great many of our village post offices in the morning and evening just after the arrival of the mails. I am going to show you how we get post offices in Halton. I picked up a local newspaper and I found an item under the following heading :
New post office for Burlington.
Burlington is in the county of Halton. It is about seven miles from the city of Hamilton. It may be a surprise to the Postmaster General or the Minister of Public Works, to find that the village of Burlington is to have a new post office. It is provided in this way :
Burlington will have a new post office this summer. Mr. William Kerns has decided to build a substantial brick structure on the site occupied by the present post office. The figures are being obtained from local contractors, and the contract will be awarded in a few days. Mr. Kerns is to be congratulated upon his step to improve our beautiful village, and the change should be appreciated by the public generally.
I have no doubt it will be appreciated by the Postmaster General.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the population?


David Henderson: 1,400 or 1,500. I know very well the building where the post office is now kept. It is a small place and, I think, belongs to the gentleman whose name is mentioned here.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is it a private residence ?


David Henderson: No, the postmaster lives in his own home, but this gentleman who owns the present building, with that enterprise which characterizes him as a leading citizen of the town, proposes to remove this building and erect a substantial brick building and have it used as a post office. I have no doubt the Postmaster General will appreciate the change. It will not change the location of the post office. It is left exactly in the same place, but it will be a more substantial and a more commodious building. That is the way we get post offices in Halton. I regret however, that in all the towns and villages we have not men of the same enterprise and consequently we have in many cases very inferior buildings, crowded and congested in the morning and evening when the mails come in and not at all equal to the requirements of these places.


William Pugsley: I think I will have to take a step up into your constituency.
244J


David Henderson: I would be delighted and you will see one of the most beautiful counties in western Ontario.


William Pugsley: There are many beautiful counties in western Ontario.


David Henderson: If the hon. gentleman should come some time in the month of June we will regale him with the finest strawberries that you can find anywhere in the Dominion.


George William Fowler: No.


David Henderson: The hon. gentleman may say 'no.'


William Pugsley: Not better than Sussex Bay ?


David Henderson: I never heard of Sussex Bay. Oakville strawberries were known forty vears ago throughout this country.


George William Fowler: Sussex Bay strawberries were known a century ago.


David Henderson: And you will find
every kind of fruit almost-peaches, pears, plums, gooseberries-


William Pugsley: That is enough ; I will come.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: He cannot go until the session is over.


David Henderson: There will be lots of delicious fruit after the session closes. We have it the whole summer through and the hon. gentleman can come at any time. I hope his coming will be of some advantage and that it will result in the levelling up of these expenditures. I do Dot mean that you should increase the expenditure.


William Pugsley: Just a readjustment.


David Henderson: Just a readjustment. It will simply take a little from Hamilton, Guelph, Brampton and Toronto and give it to the county of Halton and other rural counties. I am satisfied that that is sound policy and that is a policy that will be appreciated by the rural sections of the country. That is all I have to say about the matter, and I hope I am not misunderstood.
Kinoar.dine public building, $7,000.


William Pugsley: The total cost, including everything, is $29,000. The original contract was $17,000.


George William Fowler: Is that building completed ?


William Pugsley: No the contract was only let last fall.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You did not spend any money last year at all?


William Pugsley: The town gave the site so that there was no site to buy. and there was no money expended last year.


George William Fowler: How much have you paid to the contractor ?


William Pugsley: Nothing has been paid yet.


George William Fowler: Have you a clerk of works ?


William Pugsley: No.


George William Fowler: Nothing has been done on the contract at all ?


William Pugsley: The contract was let last November.


George William Fowler: What is the population ?


William Pugsley: In 1901 it was 2,077, and^ the population of the township was 2,855. Kincardine is in North Bruce.


George William Fowler: $12,000 seems a large amount in addition to the contract.


William Pugsley: In these days the cost of fitting up a public building is considerably greater than it formerly was. It has to be wired for electric light and electric fixtures and heating apparatus have to be provided.


George William Fowler: What kind of heating apparatus ?


William Pugsley: Hot water heating.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is another illustration of the unwisdom of the course we are following. I notice that at Kincardine the revenue was $3,053 last year and that we paid an allowance towards rent and fuel of $150. That is practically the full cost.


William Pugsley: 


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It must have been changed since because the Postmaster General's Report for 1907 which I have before me gives the amount which I have stated.


William Pugsley: It is $200 for the Post Office, and $60 for the Customs, and this building will provide for the Customs, Post Office and Inland Revenue Departments.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Interest on the money for the erection of the building, the cost of caretaking, insurance, repairs and taxes, if there are any, will amount to somewhere about $1,600 or $1,700 a year, while we are getting the accommodation to-day for $150. If that is good business policy, I do not understand business.


George Oscar Alcorn: This is for a post office and customs house I suppose ?


William Pugsley: Custom house and examining warehouse and inland revenue office.


George Oscar Alcorn: Is the policy of the government in erecting these buildings the


Mr PUGSLEY.: same as in former years ; are vaults erected in these buildings or does the government supply safes in the offices ?


William Pugsley: I think there is usually a vault built in the building.


George Oscar Alcorn: I asked that question with regard to a similar building in my own town and was told it was not the policy of the government to put such vaults in these buildings. They are used for post offices, customs and inland revenue purposes and it appears to me it would be a much better policy, considering the value of the government property contained in these buildings, to erect suitable vaults and not depend upon safes.


William Pugsley: I must correct my statement. I have been in some public buildings and have seen vaults, but the chief architect tells me that in the smaller buildings it is not the practice to build vaults but to furnish safes.


George Oscar Alcorn: AVould it not be much cheaper to have vaults ?


William Pugsley: I would favour vaults myself.


George William Fowler: The vault would be more expensive, but better, and the expense would really be slight. You could build one in one of these buildings for $300 or $100.


William Pugsley: I shall discuss that with the chief architect. I would favour building vaults.
Kingston-new gun shed, $10,000.


William Pugsley: That is a revote to provide a new gun shed in the Artillery park, Kingston. It was requested by the Department of Militia in 1900 and they again urged it in 1907.


Frederick William Borden: Owing to the unsanitary condition of the old buildings. The location is unsanitary.


George William Fowler: How?


Frederick William Borden: Because the drainage from the city sewer comes in at a point just at the barracks, and we have had a great deal of difficult}7 there from typhoid for years. We are considering the gradual abandonment of these barracks.


George William Fowler: Is that the total cost ?


William Pugsley: The chief architect has not the full particulars from the Militia Department but they state that that will be about the expense.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This was voted last year and not spent. Was it voted the year before ?


William Pugsley: I do not think so.


Frederick William Borden: There was no vote the year before.


George Oscar Alcorn: Here are seven items of expenditure at one point, Kingston. Would the minister state the aggregate estimated cost of these seven works at Kingston ?


George di Madeiros Loy: I am afraid I cannot give that at the moment because they are all revotes and the chief architect has not sufficient information to estimate with accuracy.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What forces will this accommodate ?


Frederick William Borden: This is for the permanent force. There are probably between 200 and 300 in the permanent force there. Then we have the 4th Hussars headquarters, the 5th Battery Field Artillery, the 14th Regiment of Infantry, the 47th Regiment and No. 3 Ambulance. That is the strength of the garrison besides the permanent force.
Kingston Artillery Park-new guard house, including offices, &c., $8,000,


William Pugsley: This was requested by the Militia Department as early as October, 190G. It is to be a brick building on stone foundations, two and a half stories high, 80 feet by 32 feet. There is no contract let yet.
Mr. FOWLER, What is the estimated cost?


William Pugsley: The chief architect has not yet made an estimate, but I should think that $8,000 would be sufficient to cover the cost of that building.


George William Fowler: Why is it necessary?


Frederick William Borden: Owing to the unsanitary state of the old barracks and the bad condition they are in generally.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Why have tenders not been called for if this vote was asked for as early as 1906?
Mr. PUGSLEY'. We do not always yield to the requests of the Department of Militia. We try to hold them back as long as we can.


Oswald Smith Crocket: But you got a vote last year.


William Pugsley: Yes. I cannot say just why tlie work was not proceeded with. It is possible that it was owing to there being no permanent minister.


George William Fowler: I think I can supply a reason. I fancy that you were a little short in the matter of architects. Are the plans drawn yet?


William Pugsley: No plans have been drawn. Some sketches have been submitted to tbe Militia Department by the chief
architect, but they have not been returned yet.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is it intended to call for tenders during the present year?


William Pugsley: Yes, that is the intention.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: These buildings are either needed or not needed. If they are needed, they should be erected, and the votes not kept on the estimates year after year, because they may be at any time used as a temptation in the event of an election. If they are not needed, the money should not be voted. *
Kingston-new hospital for A and B batteries, $10,000.


George William Fowler: What is the matter with the old- hospital?


William Pugsley: The scheme is to put all these buildings on the Artillery park.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Has any contract been let yet?


William Pugsley: No.


George William Fowler: How about the expenditure?


William Pugsley: We have not had sufficient particulars from the Militia Department yet to enable us to say what it will be.


George William Fowler: How can you have a vote unless you have an estimate of the cost ?


William Pugsley: If the hon. gentleman insists, we will let this item stand.
Item allowed to stand.
Kingston Royal Military College-new servants' quarters, $10,000.


William Pugsley: This is to make provision for the erection of new servants' quarters. They are called servants' quarters, but they are for the non-commissioned officers at the Royal Military College. These are to consist of two buildings, 167 feet long by 33 feet broad. They are to be placed on two opposite sides of a square, with yards in rear. Each building consists of eight dwellings two stories high, of brick with stone facings, and with stone basement. The contract is let for this work; the amount of the contract being $77,939. In addition, there is the heating and boilers, $6,000; the electric wiring and fixtures, $3,000 ; furniture, &c., $2,000 ; sidewalks and fences, $2,000 ; contingencies, $5,061; total cost, $96,000.


George William Fowler: What are you doing with non-commissioned officers' quarters in the college except among the cadets?


William Pugsley: They consist of sixteen different dwelling houses.


George William Fowler: That is $6,000 to each house. I think it is a pretty good job to be a servant in the Royal Military College, to be housed in a $6,000 house with steamheating, electric lighting and ail the rest.


William Pugsley: I understand that they are non-commissioned officers.


George William Fowler: What are non-commissioned officers doing there?


Frederick William Borden: They are teachers and instructors in connection with the college.


George William Fowler: Where are they living now ?


Frederick William Borden: In rented houses.


George William Fowler: I want to protest strongly against this expenditure. The greater part of the expenditure on this institution is money thrown away. From what we have seen in the public press and have heard elsewhere, the gentleman who is at the head of that institution is absolutely unfit to have charge of the instruction of young men. His habits, his methods of instruction, his ideas of proper conduct are entirely at variance with those ordinarily accepted; yet he continues to occupy the position of head of this school. We are now told that there are some sixteen noncommissioned officers, drill, instructors, for this school. How many pupils are attending the school ?


Frederick William Borden: About 100.


George William Fowler: It evidently is as much over-officered as the militia. There is about [DOT] one instructor to every six cadets. The thing is absurd. We ought to have more information before we allow this item to pass. I do not know for whom these buildings are intended, but it is absolutely impossible that sixteen drill instructors should be required to instruct one hundred cadets.


William Pugsley: When the plans were submitted to me and I saw the class of buildings, and when I read the statement that they were for servants' quarters, it struck me that these buildings were altogether too expensive for persons occupying that position. I sent to the Militia Department. and either the deputy minister or Mr. Jarvis called upon me and informed me that these persons composed the subordinate staff of the institution and that this accommodation was absolutely required, and that this class of dwellings was not at all more than was reasonably required for the staff.


George William Fowler: We have them now called the staff, a while ago they' were servants, and then they were called drill instructors. Now it appears they are the staff. I have no doubt that the average dwelling of members of this House does not cost $6,000. and Mr. PUGSLEY.
yet we are authorizing a vote for this amount to house non-commissioned officers. I do not think that they deserve better housing than we ourselves get, and I would ask tne minister not to press this item until we have more explicit and more detailed information


Frederick William Borden: I will bring a list showing exactly who these people are, and what are their duties.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What is the average salary and allowance which these drill instructors receive ?


Frederick William Borden: Perhaps I used the term drill instructors improperly. I know that one man teaches gymnastics and some of them take charge of the horses and are servants connected with the college generally. I do not say they are all teachers.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We ought to have full explanation from the Minister of Militia regarding what is done at that institution and the number of graduates turned out before we pass these items.


Frederick William Borden: The best time to give that would be when the estimates for the Militia Department are up and when I shall make my statement and have all the papers necessary.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But should we then reach the conclusion that the military college should be done away with, we will have voted the money for these buildings. We ought to have a full explanation before we vote a dollar. We have heard of some very absurd things that have transpired in that institution. For instance a young man was asked if he had shaved off the down on his upper lip. If he had said he had not, no one would have been any the wiser because it was not visible, but he was manly enough to say he had done so, and he was put in close custody for four days. Did any one hear of anything so absurd ? Young men go their of the highest moral and religious ty'pe, and there they learn to play cards and gamble and smoke cigarettes and cigars and learn other vices of that kind. That is not the kind of training which parents desire their young men to have.


William Pugsley: Many splendid men have come out of that institution.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes, but sometimes the institutions degenerate. They are good or bad according to the class of men who control them and carry on the work of tuition.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: I would like to ask the minister if he could not give us within $20,000 to $30,000 an estimate of the cost of those buildings.


William Pugsley: It would not be fair to me nor to the committee if I should guess at the cost.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: I want to enter my protest against expenditure of tills kind. It ought to be an object lesson to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) to see the paltry amount he gets for his department when so much is expended on the militia. The statement made by the hon. member for Dundas (Mr. Broder) is perfectly correct when we are asked to vote such sums as these for the militia compared with the votes for agriculture.


Gilbert White Ganong: The Minister of Militia says there are about 100 students in that institution. He should give us a statement showing the cost of graduating each of these students.


William Pugsley: That is if the total cost of the institution and the number of students be given, the average can be calculated.
Leamington public building, $7,000.


William Pugsley: This is a revote, and the proposed building is for post office and customs purposes.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: What is the estimated cost ?


William Pugsley: It is $20,000, exclusive of site.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: From whom was the site purchased ?


William Pugsley: There are two lots, one at $2,000 from Mr. Enoch Windsor, and one at $500 from Mr. G. A. Brown.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: Leamington is a thriving little town and deserving of a public building. If less money were spent on these items we have just left over and put into such buildings as this in Leamington, it would be better. When will the building be gone on with ?	-


William Pugsley: During the year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why was it not gone on with last year ?


William Pugsley: We had not the site.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: Are plans out for this building yet ?


William Pugsley: No.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: Will they be got out by officers of the department ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Gilbert White Ganong: This seems quite a justifiable expenditure, as the revenue of this town, both customs and post office, seem fairly large.
London military buildings-magazine, $3,000.


William Pugsley: Nothing has yet been done with regard to this. It is supposed that $3,000 will cover the cost.


George William Fowler: Where is it to be placed ?


William Pugsley: The location has .not yet been fixed, nor the site procured.
London military buildings-new gymnasium, $5,000.


William Pugsley: This is a revote. This was requested by the Department of Militia and Defence in February last.


George William Fowler: What will be the total cost ?


William Pugsley: I have not the information from the Militia Department which will enable me to speak of that.


George William Fowler: Better let that stand then.


William Pugsley: I have no objection.


George William Fowler: Before we pass from that item, have any steps been taken for the capture of the man who murdered one of the officers who was taking a course of instruction in this school ? And how was it that nothing was done until next morning- as I understand to have been the case- by the 150 officers and men who were there? These seem to be the facts as published; and they are, as they stand, a reflection upon the force. Has the Minister of Militia, as the responsible head of that department, any explanation ?


Frederick William Borden: I cannot give an answer. I will ask for the report in the morning and give it to the House or to my hon. friend (Mr. Fowler).


William Pugsley: I understand that the provincial authorities have been searching for this man.


George William Fowler: It has always been the boast of our people that a murderer was hunted down, no expense necessary to that end being spared. There was a case in the Klondike where $30,000 was spent in order to trace and capture a murderer there. It was a splendid object lesson. But this seems to be an object lesson the other way. It is a very unfortunate thing that this man should be murdered in the city of London, and nothwithstanding that the country thereabouts is thickly settled the murderer-


William Pugsley: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fowler) suggest that the provincial authorities have not done their duty ?


George William Fowler: I suggest that all the authorities have not done their duty. As soon as the murder was known, every one of these men should have been turned out in search of the murderer and the search should not have been remitted until he was captured. A reward should have been offered and everything necessary done.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The authorities here hare not even a report yet, for the minister (Sir Frederick Borden) has told us that he will ask for one to-morrow morning.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman, (Mr. Fowler) knows that the administration of the criminal law is in the hands of the provincial authorities. The offering of a reward would be the proper duty of those authorities.


George William Fowler: It is true that the enforcement of the criminal law is in the hands of the provincial authorities.. It is true also that an officer attending a course of instruction in the military post at London was murdered by one of the members of the force, and yet no effort was made-


William Pugsley: How does the hon. gentleman know ?
MV. FOWLER. It is so stated in the newspapers and not denied. As a matter of fact, if they had turned out at once they could have caught him.


William Pugsley: It does not follow.


George William Fowler: It certainly does.


Frederick William Borden: I did not say that I would ask for a report to-morrow morning. I have no doubt the report is in the department here, and I have promised to get it; to-morrow morning-at least that is what I intended to say.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then, I misunderstood the hon. minister.


Samuel Hughes: There is no doubt that this is a serious matter. It seems very strange that, with the number of soldiers about when this crime was committed, this man should have been allowed to get away. There seems to be a feeling abroad in this country in favour of shielding the criminal. I have heard several people, in conversation about this man, express the hope that he would get away.
I do not think any such spirit should be encouraged in the country. Many people are in the habit of allowing these things to go along the lines of least resistance, as when in the old days, if train robbers entered a ear every one would hold up his hands, until once in a while they would meet a man who would not and then everything was turned the other way. A few instances like that would have a good effect. I think it is the duty of the government to press on the people that they should not shield this man, because he must get food and shelter, and some steps should be taken to impress on the officers and non-commissioned officers at London that it was their duty to arrest that man, dead or alive, within 15 seconds. I see reports of jealousy between the London de-
Mr. FOWLER,
tectives and the rural police. A little instruction to the people of Canada in the treatment of criminals is required.


William Pugsley: I would not be prepared to say that any person is in fault. I would rather assume that the officers do their duty. That is the experience I have had in the enforcement of the criminal law and I prefer to believe that until there is evidence to the contrary. The mere fact that the murderer is at large is not positive proof that the authorities are neglectful.
With regard to the London post office, we are asking a revote of $3,000, of which $1,475 is for vault fittings, and $500 for paving the streets.


Samuel Hughes: I do not see any item here for a drill shed for the 45th regiment at Lindsay.


William Pugsley: No, there is nothing here.


George Oscar Alcorn: Dili the minister shy that part of this $3,000 for London is to be expended on pavements ?


William Pugsley: 


George Oscar Alcorn: What rate per square foot will be paid ?


William Pugsley: The chief architect does not know but he tells me the prices run in different parts of the country from 11 cents to 20 cents. The average, I think, is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 16 cents. It is IS cents a square foot in Ottawa.


George Oscar Alcorn: A price of 26 cents was mentioned the other day.


William Pugsley: That was at Antigonish but that included some things unusual. The street was not level and had to be filled up to make it level.


George Oscar Alcorn: I suppose that was the levelling that is done in every case. I may say that the town of Picton laid down several miles of cement walks and the average price has been 11 cents. Certain walks were laid about the public buildings side by side with this and the government walks cost 18 to 22 cents. What explanation can there be of that ?


William Pugsley: As a rule we make an arrangement with the municipality to lay them.


George Oscar Alcorn: In this instance the same man laid both sidewalks, and there to that difference in price.


William Pugsley: Perhaps he did better and more substantial work for the govern-' ment.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You can get it in some parts of the country from 9 cents a foot.' Take the cases of Flesherton and Dundalk.


William Pugsley: We have had it done for 11 cents.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Any one paying more than 12 cents a foot for granolithic sidewalks would be considered with us to be paying too much.


William Pugsley: That depends on how accustomed to laying them the people are. I know in the village where I have a summer home, where we have no persons experienced in this class of work, I would have to pay a great deal more than I would in Ontario where a great deal of this work is done.
Markham public building, $4,000.


Samuel Hughes: Has this anything to do with the late election there ? *
Mr. P-UGSLEY. This is to erect a building in the town of Markham on a site which was purchased at the corner of Main and St. Joseph streets.


Samuel Hughes: When was the lot purchased ?


Gilbert White Ganong: Is this building going to be used for a post office and custom house?


William Pugsley: It is expected to give accommodation for both purposes.


Gilbert White Ganong: What are the customs receipts ?


William Pugsley: There is no collector of customs at that point yet.


Gilbert White Ganong: There never has been a custom office there ?


William Pugsley: Xo.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister says that the building will cost $14,000 and the site $1,000. This makes $15,000 altogether. Interest, cost of caretaker, lighting, fuel, and taxes will make a permanent charge of $1,175 a year.


William Pugsley: I may say that it is possible to allow the postmaster to be the caretaker of the building and an arrangement of that kind can very often be made.


William Pugsley: July, 1007.


Samuel Hughes: For how much ?


William Pugsley: 


Samuel Hughes: Markham is a much larger place than Glencoe V


William Pugsley: Population does not always govern as to cost.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What will this building cost ?


William Pugsley: 


Samuel Hughes: Does the minister know anything about promises that were made in the recent by-election in the village of Markham ?


William Pugsley: Xo, I am not aware of any having been made.


Samuel Hughes: The money was voted a year ago and nothing was done. Then when the election came on in Centre York this was brought to the front again and the pledge was given that if the people there would do their duty and vote for the Liberal candidate the building would be proceeded with this year.
Mr. PUGSLEY'. May I, without offence, ask the hon. gentleman if he is speaking from personal knowledge or from mere gossip?


Samuel Hughes: I am speaking from what appeared in the newspapers at the time.
Mr. PUGSLEY". In regard to the necessity of the work, Markham is a thriving l'^ace and in 1001 the population was over


Samuel Hughes: It is a fine town.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is merely a guess without knowledge.


William Pugsley: That is the case in many instances.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We have no information that it is going to be the case here. There will, in all human probability, be a permanent charge of $1,175 a year and yet we have the accommodation there to-day for $02, including rent, fuel and light.


William Pugsley: It is $120.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am taking the amount from the last report of the Postmaster General.


William Pugsley: Are you not taking it for nine months ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Well, if it is for nine months, it will be one quarter more. The town of Markdale, in which I live has a revenue of $1,900 while Markham has a revenue for $1,920, or $20 more, but no person has ever asked for a post office in Mark-dale.


William Pugsley: The information was that the post office in Markham was in a miserable condition and that there was very poor accommodation.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If it were impossible to get another building there would be a justification for erecting a new building, but when you can get a suitable building for $125 or $150 a year there is no justification for spending thousands of dollars to get that accommodation for the public.


William Pugsley: Will you say that it would not be a reasonable thing to erect a post office and custom building in vour town?	'


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It would not be reasonable because this accommodation is obtained for $100 a year with fuel and light. There is a fairly good post office and the accommodation is all right. It might be a little later but it is all right.


William Pugsley: That is different from Markham. They have wretched accommodation.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would be ashamed to put the country to an expense of $15,00* to erect a post office when we could get suitable accommodation for $100.


William Pugsley: I think my hon. friend stands almost alone in that regard in the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No, I do not think it.
I think that there are a great many- more who will agree with me.
air. SAai. HUGHES. The minister has said that they are going to use this for customs purposes as well. Has he any authority directly or indirectly for making that statement? I do not believe he ever heard there was going to be a custom officer there. It is only a few miles out of Toronto and what is the use of the minister saying that? We will accept his honeyed smile and pleasant manner but let him not try to bluff us.
air. PUGSLEY. In the memorandum submitted in behalf of those who urged the erection of that building it was very strongly put forward that an effort was being made to have a collector of customs appointed and they thought it would be used for that purpose.
air. SPROULE. There was even a more important reason for presenting that view and that is that there was an election coming on. Senator Campbell hawked around the country a number of blue prints and told the people that if they supported the Liberal candidate they were more likely to have a new building erected and it was important to leave the impression that there was going to be an outport of customs and an Inland Revenue office established at that place.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: I have been trying to obtain from the minister a return since the 5th of February in reference to the St. Joseph pier, the Grand Bend pier and the Bayfield pier.


William Pugsley: These are in course of preparation, but they are much longer than I would have supposed, particularly one of them. But I expect that next week the returns will be brought down.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I cannot help thinking that the minister has got it into his head that I am pretty easy. I asked for these returns on the 5th of February and I have asked a number of times across the Mr. PUGSLEY.
floor of the House and he has given me a very polite reply, but I have not received the returns, perhaps the minister can tell us something about that to-night.


William Pugsley: Better leave it until we come to wharfs and harbours.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: If the minister is determined we are not to have the returns in our hands before that time-


William Pugsley: They will be down next week. We are badly off in our department for assistance. We could arrange for our staff to work after hours, but we feel it is not a good policy to make extra allowances to the staff and we have no room to bring in outsiders. You have no idea the large number of returns called for. I am informed that one of those returns would take one man a whole year to prepare. I have asked the hon. gentleman who moved for it to allow me to leave out a lot that has already been . brought down. The returns moved for by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Armstrong) are being prepared as rapidly as possible and next week will be submitted to the House.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: Without any reflection on the staff, if the minister would see that they work as they ought to work for the salary they receive more work would be done.


William Pugsley: I think they work pretty *well.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: That is not my judgment from some of them I have seen round the city.
North Bay public building, $20,000.


William Pugsley: The building is 55 feet 6 by 90 feet, two stories high over basement, built of brick, stone fittings and a stone foundation. It is intended for post office, customs and inland revenue. North Bay is an important and rapidly growing town.


Samuel Hughes: When the Canadian Pacific Railway runs to Sudbury instead of North Bay, North Bay will be merely a crossing on the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario.


William Pugsley: I doubt that; I think it will grow.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: What is the total cost of the buildings?


William Pugsley: The total cost of the buildings, including site, is $61,375.


Samuel Hughes: What is the population of North Bay?


William Pugsley: In 1901 it was 2,530, but I think it has grown considerably since that time.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: What is the cost of the site?


William Pugsley: It would appear to be expensive, it cost 88,100.


Samuel Hughes: From whom was It purchased?


William Pugsley: From Mrs. William Doran.' It is a valuable lot and is well situated on the corner of Main and Fraser streets; it is 66 feet on one street and 132 feet on the other.


Samuel Hughes: Is this building isolated?
Mr. PUGSLEY'. I cannot say.


Samuel Hughes: The minister should consider the importance of having these buildings isolated.
Mr. PUGSLEY'. It is a good idea.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: I have had the pleasure of being in North Bay several times and I think it deserves a reasonable building, but to spend 867,000 in a town of 2,500 population and to spend nothing in other larger towns is not treating the latter fairly. I approve of public buildings in any town of reasonable size in the Dominion provided the money is properly spent, because it is important for strangers coming into a town to see ornamental buildings. But I will not approve of spending so much money in a small place and neglecting larger places. A 825,000 building in a town of that size would be sufficient.
Mr. PUGSLEY'. I am not prepared to say that I would approve of erecting such an expensive building, but I presume the minister was impressed with the importance of North Bay and considered it was for customs purposes as well as for post offices.


Samuel Hughes: It is a distributing centre for all that country.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: When was the site purchased?


William Pugsley: The 31st March, 1905.


William James Roche: Taking the cost of the lot at 88,000 and the total cost at 861,000, that would leave 853,000 for the building. which is 813.000 more than Mr. Hv-man, when minister, said it would cost.


William Pugsley: He probably did not include the fittings, which cost 86,000, and the heating and boilers.


George Oscar Alcorn: 88,000 is an unconscionable price to pay for a lot 66 feet by 132 in a town like North Bay.


William Pugsley: My information is that the lot could be sold to-day for considerably more than the government paid for it. Everything depends on the location of a lot and the possibility of securing other suitable lots. Under the circumstances I think 88,100 was nothing excessive.


George Oscar Alcorn: By what means, under what conditions, and from whom was the site purchased?


William Pugsley: It was purchased from Mrs. Doran and I have nothing here to show that it was not a direct purchase.


George Oscar Alcorn: Who recommended the site ?


William Pugsley: An officer of the department was sent up to examine it.


George Oscar Alcorn: Of course, that would be after the site was offered. Was it taken on the recommendation of a member ?


William Pugsley: I do not know as to that; I have no information. I know that the minister interested himself very much in securing the erection of the building. There was a petition from the citizens of the town and also from the board of trade.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I understand that the population of this town is about 2,000. and this is at the rate of about 845,000 an acre for the land, which seems to me to be a very unreasonable price for land in a little village.


William Pugsley: North Bay is not a village.


George Oscar Alcorn: The minister has not not yet given any information as to how the department came to purchase the site.


William Pugsley: I have no information whether any other lots were offered or not, but the department sent up an expert on land values, and on his report they authorized the purchase.


Samuel Hughes: Has the minister the name of that expert ?


William Pugsley: I have not this evening.


David Henderson: I must say that the price of this lot is to my mind altogether out of keeping with the value of property in that section of the country. Land is not so scarce there. There is abundance of it; and as to location, I do not think it is absolutely necessary that the post office should be in the centre of the town. You may put it in the centre of the town to-day, and in five years it may be in the suburbs. If an expert was sent to value the lot. he must have been misled terribly by the people who were pressing the sale of this lot on the government. It is now ten minutes past twelve ; we sat late last night, till about half-past two ; the House is very thin, and I would recommend the minister to allow us to go home and get a rest. I promise the minister that between twelve o'clock and two, if he insists on our remaining here, he must not expect to get any estimates through. I do not think it is reasonable to ask us to sit after twelve o'clock on Friday night in a thin House. The

business of the House will go on much better if the minister will give us time to rest.


William Pugsley: Most of us have Saturday as a holiday and then Sunday. I really think we ought to get along with the business ; I think both sides of the House ought to bend their energies to that. We have had every opportunity for discussion. I do not want to keep the House unduly, but suppose we go on and pass a few more items.


Samuel Hughes: The minister talks about bending our energies. The government have been holding back ail the important measures. The Northwest Land Bill and the Election Bill are going to take up considerable time, and these estimates will be passed more quickly after we are apprised of those measures.


William Pugsley: The Land Bill has not anything to do with these estimates.


Samuel Hughes: It has everything to do with them.


William Pugsley: I would be sorry if our hon. friends were to give an intimation that they are really going to prevent the passing of estimates in the next hour or two. It would be unreasonable to do so.


Richard Stuart Lake: Surely it is unreasonable, after the late hour that we were here last night, to keep us here longer to-night.


William Pugsley: I do not think it would be unreasonable to pass a few more items.


Samuel Hughes: We want the name of that expert before we let this item pass.


William Pugsley: We will let this item stand until I get the name of the expert.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: We were here yesterday morning till half-past two, the morning before that till three o'clock, and the morning before that till half-past one. We on this side of the House cannot help feeling that the government are trying to force us to remain here at unreasonable hours.


William Pugsley: Surely my hon. friend will not suppose that the government could tire out the opposition. They look as fresh as anybody could wish. All I ask is that we shall be reasonable and show the country that we know how to work and are prepared to work in the public interest.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister talks about what is reasonable, but I say it is not reasonable to keep us here longer in view of the fact that we were here one night till half-past two and another night till three. I think there is a great deal of reason in the contention of. the hon. member for Dalton and other members who say that considering the lateness of the hour to which we sat in the last three or four nights, we should adjourn at this hour of the morning.


David Henderson: 


Samuel Barker: Perhaps the hon. minister will allow me to point out a matter that has some bearing on the present situation. No doubt we did sit up until about two o'clock yesterday morning. I do not myself desire to see any obstruction to the passing of the estimates, but the four or five following items are of a very general character that will be discussed probably at length. The next item is that of public buildings for Ontario.
Mi-. PUGSLEY. Small items only.


Samuel Barker: Yes, but small items become in the main big items. There are four or five of them and these are the items probably the hon. gentleman wants to go on with. We have passed $200,000 or $300,000 to-night after a very long tedious sitting. I would suggest to the hon. gentleman that he should show a little good nature and that if he does it will perhaps bring to him a little indulgence and assistance later on. I have listened to the discussion and I am quite sure that, from the nature of the following items, they will take more time than he thinks.


Samuel Hughes: Now that the minister has decided to adjourn, I would like to ask in what part of the public accounts we can find a vote for the monument on the battlefields and also a monument to Champlain. I am glad to see the Postmaster General present. He will remember a certain occasion on which a number of the gentlemen connected with the press gallery were sailing up the beautiful river and approaching the falls named after a distinguished French writer, and he will recollect the conversation and the proposal to erect a monument to the late Samuel de Champlain on that beautiful spot opposite the falls. I have looked in vain through the estimates for any vote for that monument.


William Pugsley: This item for Ontario public buildings fire escapes we ought to pass.


David Henderson: What about the North Bay vote ?


William Pugsley: That stands. But this item for the Ontario public buildings fire escapes, $5,000 we ought to pass. These public buildings are at Belleville, Goderich, Guelph, Hamilton, Orillia, Petrolia, Paris, Port Arthur, and a large number of others, and the items are all for fire escapes aggregating $5,000.


David Henderson: Now that the minister has given the names of these places, we will find them on ' Hansard ' and tomorrow we shall be able te look into the matter.


William Pugsley: These cannot be at all controversial. Anything that is at all controversial I will let stand over.


David Henderson: I trust the minister will regard these as controversial. I would supplement what was said by my hon. friend from Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Hughes) a short time ago. I do think that ail the sessions of parliament that I have attended, the government has this session shown the least disposition to go on with business.


William Pugsley: Yet when I am trying my level best, you will not let me get along.


David Henderson: The hon. gentleman is very anxious to get his money, but there are measures on the Order Paper we never hear of and it seems to me he should advise his colleagues to bring some of those forward before he exhausts his estimates. To my mind there are important measures that ought to be dealt with before we deal with those estimates. I do not believe in leaving those to the end of the session when every one is anxious to get home and when proper consideration cannot be given them.


William Pugsley: There will be the fullest opportunity to consider them.


David Henderson: Provided we remain here, but I do not think the government has shown a disposition to advance business this session as they have done in former years. I have no hesitation in appealing to the minister to adjourn the House now and let us go home. I do not consider that we are responsible if the estimates are not put through. The government have been delinquent and have allowed business to stand too long.


William Pugsley: If you will consider the Ontario public buildings, I will pass* over the military building and the Printing Bureau and the Ottawra departmental buildings and we will adjourn You are in such a pleasant mood that we might get through the items that are not controversial.


David Henderson: Well, suppose we allow the minister to escape on his fire escape, then we can go home and will come back here even in better humour than to-night- and I think we have been in pretty good humour.


William Pugsley: Oh, work a little longer; it is early.


David Henderson: Early in the morning, but rather late too.


William Pugsley: Carried.


David Henderson: No, it is not carried. And I do not propose it shall be carried so soon as that. I do not know whether these fire escapes have been provided for the public buildings before or not. Where is it intended to purchase them ? Are they to be Iron stairways outside the buildings?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: The minister cannot get an iron stairway for $120. It must be only an iron ladder.


Gilbert White Ganong: Have they a landing at
each story ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Prom whom are they purchased ?
Mr. PUGSLEY'. Very often they can be purchased in the town in which the building is situated. It is ordinary blacksmith work, you know.


Gilbert White Ganong: Very few can be got that way. These are made by people with special machinery for that purpose.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Prom whom has the department been purchasing the fire escapes which have been in use ?


William Pugsley: There is a firm in Ottawa named Smith which made quite a number and also a firm in Toronto.


Oswald Smith Crocket: How much was spent in fire escapes last year ?


William Pugsley: I have not the figures.


Gilbert White Ganong: Do I understand that this fire escape has a special name ? Is it a patent contrivance?	[DOT]


William Pugsley: No, I speak of the Shipway Iron and Bell Co., of Toronto.


Gilbert White Ganong: This is not a contrivance controlled by anybody ?


William Pugsley: No.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: What did that firm receive from the department last year ?


William Pugsley: There was a vote of $3,000 last year, principally spent on fire escapes for the Printing Bureau.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Did the same firm supply them and put them up.


William Pugsley: Yes.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What was the average cost ?


William Pugsley: From $150 to $175.


George Oscar Alcorn: Have the government been in he habit of providing fire escapes for public buildings ?


William Pugsley: Only in some cases. But on account of some of the dreadful accidents that have happened, there is a general disposition throughout the country to require that public buildings should be provided with fire escapes and by-laws have been passed in many places to that effect.


George Oscar Alcorn: For instance, we have no fire escapes on this building in which we meet ?


William Pugsley: No.


George Oscar Alcorn: Or on the other public buildings in Ottawa ?


William Pugsley: I think not. We have started in by putting them on the printing building.


George Oscar Alcorn: Did one firm supply all the fire escapes for the Printing Bureau ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


George Oscar Alcorn: Is it intended to purchase fire escapes for other places from the same firm ?
Mr. 'PUGSLEY. There is no intention one way or the other.


George Oscar Alcorn: What change has necessitated this sudden determination to supply fire escapes where they were not supplied before ?


William Pugsley: I gave the explanation -the calamities that have happened in Canada and the United States in public buildings.


George Oscar Alcorn: Not more in recent years tii a a formerly ?


William Pugsley: Yes, there was the dreadful fire in Montreal only last year. Bylaws have been passed in a number of places, and the chief architect is of opinion that fire escapes should be placed upon public buildings.


George Oscar Alcorn: He has come to that conclusion lately ?


William Pugsley: Yes. In fact, requests have been made by various authorities.


George Oscar Alcorn: Are tenders to be asked for the supply of these fire escapes ?


William Pugsley: Yes, prices will be asked.


George Oscar Alcorn: From specified firms?


William Pugsley: If they can be got locally, they will be got in that way.


Gilbert White Ganong: I do not think that any one objects to the expenditure suggested by the minister. Personally, I think it most desirable. But the minister need not talk about securing these locally. I have had a little to do with fire escapes, and I have learned that you must get them from some one in that particular business. A local man would scarcely know how to measure a building to supply a fire escape. Who had the contract for putting fire escapes on the Printing Bureau building, and at what cost ?


William Pugsley: The Ottawa Brass and Scale Company, at $4,200.


Gilbert White Ganong: Were tenders asked for?


William Pugsley: Yes.


George Oscar Alcorn: 


Gilbert White Ganong: How many tenders were received ?


William Pugsley: The chief architect does not remember.


Gilbert White Ganong: Does he know whether more than one was received ?


William Pugsley: He is not able to say.


Gilbert White Ganong: Does he know whether tenders were really asked for publicly, or was notice sent out to those on the patronage list ?


William Pugsley: They were not advertised for.


Gilbert White Ganong: Notice simply sent out to friends of the government ?


William Pugsley: To those engaged in the business.


Gilbert White Ganong: Especially friends of the government ?


William Pugsley: Oh. no.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think we would be disposed to let this item pass, together with two more, Parkhill and Peterborough. It was suggested that we might take the Owen Sound buildings, but it would have to be opened up again and I think it better, instead of taking Owen Sound, to take Peterborough which is of much the same character and would not elicit much discussion.
Sir. CLES1ENTS. On the item of fire escapes I would suggest that a great deal of money can be uselessly spent on fire escapes. On buildings like the Printing Bureau it is quite proper to have them, but I do not see why a small building should require a fire escape, for instance a post office. They are built practically fire proof and it is not necessary.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: What would be the total cost of the Parkhill buildings the cost of land and the amount necessary to complete the building ?


William Pugsley: It is on a site 50 by 150. We have been for a good while negotiating with regard to a lot and as a result of the negotiations, in which we were very materially assisted by Sir. Ratz, the member for Sliddlesex, the Grand Trunk gave the land free to the government. We have only succeeded in getting a title very recently. Therefore plans have not been prepared and no contract has yet been let. The population is about 1,750. The chief architect says the plans will be for a building to cost about $20,000.
Some resolutions reported.
Sir. FISHER moved the adjournment of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What business will be taken up on Slonday ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We will go on with Supply.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The same branch ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.45 a.m., Saturday.
[Stage Direction]
Monday May 4, 1908.