[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 175) for the relief of Catherine Ann Cannon.-Mr. Stewart.
Bill (No. 177) for the relief of Mary Alexander.-Mr. Stewart.
Bill (No. 176) for the relief of Ada Katurah Stewart Paulding.-Mr. Stewart.
Bill (No. 174) respecting certain patents of the General Chemical Company.-Mr. Stewart.
QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-Mr. BERGERON.
On the orders of the day being called.
Mr. J. G. H. BERGERON (Beauharnois).: I beg to rise to a question of privilege. I was away on Friday last, but on reading ' Hansard ' I find a statement referring to myself in a speech made by the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Sam. Hughes) which is not correct. That hon. member is reported as saying :
I am just coming to that. It was strange that a gentleman, a member of the great Conservative party, following the same noble leader, would not have come to me and said something to me about it. Now I come to whait I have got to do about it. Soon after the notice was put on the paper last year, the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron) notified me that Dr. Worthington had something terrible against me. He is going to expose you, said Mr. Bergeron, and your grafting in connection with the Ross rifle. And he asked: Is it not possible for you to pay back the money?
This is the first time I have heard anything of the matter. The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Worthington) has never spoken of it to me and I have never spoken to the hon. member for Victoria and Hail-burton (Mr. Sam. Hughes) in the way he has here indicated. The whole thing is entirely a dream, as far as I know.



THE GOVERNMENT STEAMER ' CHAMPLAIN.'

[Stage Direction]
Mr. R, L. BORDEN. Before the orders of the day are called, I wish to ask the government whether they have any information as to the use of the government steamer 1 Champlain ' on Sunday last. I have a telegram in the following words from a gentleman who professes to be familiar with the facts as stated :
Government steamer ' Champlain ' used by Tascherean, Minister of Public Works, Quebec, candidate in Charlevoix, for political purposes. Please have question put by whose order and who is paying for it. Conservatives
[Stage Direction]
were turned off steamer yesterday though they offered to pay passage.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I am sorry to say I have no knowledge of this matter. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. L. P. Brodeurl is not present, he is not in the city to-day although I expect him. I shall make inquiries and report to my hon. friend at a later date. If any government steamer is being used for election purposes prompt action will be taken to put an end to that practice.	.



SASKATCHEWAN VALLEY LAND COMPANY.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: I wish to ask the Minister of the Interior for information in respect to the Saskatchewan Valley Land, Company. I have here a letter which explains the matter perhaps better than I could explain it. The letter reads :
Would you kindly inform me if the Saskatchewan Valley Land Company have any agreement with the Canadian government to sell homestead lands. I bought the northeast quarter 12-31-1, west third meridian recently. Their contract calls for actual residene on this land for three years and I have live years to pay for it in. It seems hardly right that a company can take money for this land and compel actual residence which makes it a homestead under homestead rules, and a private concern getting the money which shonid be better applied to the country's welfare. If so, can I obtain full title for this land by paying all the price this fall or any time before the three years? Hoping you will favour me with an early reply and thanking you for your kind consideration, I remain, Sir,
Yours respectfully,
NORMAN WILLERTON, Craik, Saskatchewan.
As I do not understand very thoroughly the exact scope of this inquiry I thought, that as the minister will know the circumstances, it was best to apply to him in this way.


Mr. OLIVER.: If the hon. member will allow this to stand until to-morrow I will have an opportunity of seeing the letter and will be better able to reply.



IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT-HALI-, FAX.

Robert Laird Borden: Is there any objection to lay on the table of the House the report of Mr. Robertson who made an investigation in Halifax recently which I understand resulted in dispensing with the ser-viices of Mr. Joseph Bernstein ? It is understood that the report would be laid on the table of the House.


Frank Oliver: If the hon. member wishes it I would be very glad to place it on the table of the House, is it the wish of the hon. gentleman ?


Robert Laird Borden: 


Robert Laird Borden: Some weeks ago while the investigation was pending I understand the minister to promise that as soon as it was completed the report would be laid on the table of the House. I know of no reason why it should not be laid on the table of the House ; if the minister knows of any, of course that will have to guide him.


Frank Oliver: None whatever ; I simply wanted to have an expression of the wish of the hon. gentleman.


Robert Laird Borden: Has the attention of the Minister of the Interior been called to the statement that one of his officials in Halifax is impeding to some extent the free choice as to location of certain immigrants. I have a statutory declaration which charges that one of the officers of the Interior Department is concerned to the extent of $2 per head in inducing immigrants to go to a particular place and that some 15 of them whose names are given in this declaration have been sent to a part of the Dominion where they did not intend or desire to go.


Frank Oliver: I would like of course to have the terms of the declaration. I might say in a general way that any such action on the part of any official is absolutely contrary to his instructions, and if he is acting in that way he is acting improperly. When I have been made aware of it I will take such action as seems proper. No such information has come to me until now.



SUPPLY-DISTRIBUTION OF ' HANSARD.'

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
['It is perfectly cleart then that the city council are satisfied with the Bill in its present form.']
Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I have a complaint to make about the distribution office. Instructions were giveu two or three years ago by the Debates Committee that the supply of ' Hansard ' to members should he increased as it often occurs that members require more than their allotted share of two copies. There is sometimes a great demand for * Hansard.' especially for the unrevised edition which is supposed to be the more correct. However, the employees in the distribution office seem to assume that they are masters in their own house and seem to care little whether they comply with the wishes of the members of the House. I regret to have to say that members of parliament are not treated in that office as they should he. Instead of being treated as masters they are treated as servants, and an end should be put to that. I may be answered that this is a matter for the Debates Committee but I would point out that the Debates Committee is very badly managed. It has sat two or three times this session and about ten times altogether in the four sessions of this parliament. It meets to appoint a chair-

man and after that it sits whenever it is forced to, and the reports of that committee are made haphazard as for example the report which was presented the other day. I suppose some of the officials who are under that committee come to think they can do anything they like.
A few minutes ago I sent for a copy of Thursday's ' Hansard ' and I was sent one copy and when I wanted to get more I was told there were no more and to understand that there were no more. You, Mr. Speaker, should be the master of all these employees, and if you do not take means to deal with them I shall be compelled to resort to another course. I shall not allow any employee in this House or anywhere else to be impertinent to me as long as I have the honour of a seat here. I think it is in the interest of every member of parliament, whether he sits to the right or to the left of the Speaker, to see that proper treatment is accorded the members by the officials, and if something is not done to correct tlae condition of things which I have pointed out I shall have to defend myself by other means.
Mr, A. JOHNSTON (Cape Breton). The observations of my hou. friend (Mr. Bergeron) should not go unchallenged. I do not think it is fair to the chairman of the Debates Committee who is not here this afternoon, or fair to the members of that committee to say that the committee is badly managed. If that committee is badly run the members of it are to blame, for, as the hon. gentleman knows, the members of the committee receive notices to attend the various meetings and if they do not attend it is their own fault. I happen to be a member of that committee as is my hon. friend (Mr. Bergeron) and I am equally to blame with him for failure to attend regularly. I acknowledge that I have been dilatory in my attendance upon the committee, and upon inquiry I have discovered that my hou. friend (Mr. Bergeron) is in the same position in that regard as I am. The same remark would apply to many other members of the committee. We had a meeting a few days ago when my hon. friend (Mr. Bergeron) was not present, and this question of the distribution of ' Hansard ' was discussed. At that meeting there were present the hon. gentleman from Leeds. (Mr. Taylor), the hon. gentleman from Victoria (Mr. Sam Hughes), the hon. gentleman from Marquette (Mr. W. J. Roche), and myself, and I suggested that at our next meeting we should revise the present list of those to whom ' Hansard ' is sent and make a new list, because in my judgment the existing list is not a proper list. The matter will come up at the next meeting of the Debates Committee. Now, as to the officials of the distribution office, so far as I know, they have always been disposed to grant any reasonable request
made by a member of the House, but of course when they have no copy of ' Hansard ' to give they cannot give it to my hon. friend from Beauharnois or to anybody else. I can hardly believe that the officials of the distribution office are to blame as my hon. friend would seem to indicate. If there is blame to be attached to any one I feel that it must be placed elsewhere. I agree with my hon. friend that the committee should take steps to inquire into the distribution of ' Hansard.' If it is at all convenient I shall attend when the next meeting is called t>y the chairman, and I trust my hon. friend from 'Beauharnois with others will be there so that we may try to settle this question of the distribution of ' Hansard ' once and for all.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Let me tell my hon. friend from Cape Breton (Mr. Johnston) that I have been present at every meeting of the Debates Committee except the last one, and I will avail of this opportunity to explain why I was then absent. The committee sat at 10 o'clock in the morning ; the House did not adjourn until 3 o'clock the same morning and as the post office was closed when I left the House I was not able to get my correspondence. If the notice of the committee were there I consequently could not receive it. When we leave here at 3 o'clock in the morning and get to bed at 4 o'clock we are not very much disposed to get up to attend the meeting at 10 o'clock. Any way I did not know anything about the meeting and it is- the only meeting I missed. About two or three years ago instructions were given by the Debates Committee that when there was an important debate the officer at the head of the distribution office should communicate with the Printing Bureau and order 300 or 600 or 1.000 extra copies of ' Hansard.' When the type is set up and the forms prepared it does not cost a great deal more to print the extra number. There is sometimes a great demand for ' Hansard ' and members should be enabled to get a sufficient supply. The press of the country, in spite of all they can do, do not give a very elaborate report of what goes on in the House, and we can only get it from 1 Hansard.' The officer of the distribution office should get extra copies printed without being told every time. When the Elections Act was under discussion, nearly every member asked for ten or twelve copies of ' Hansard,' but could only get two copies. The discussion on the Ross rifle was a very important discussion, and a good many members wanted extra copies of * Hansard ' containing that discussion, but could not get them. A good many members have complained to me of this matter, and unless there is a change, something is.going to happen, because we cannot be driven in this way by employees of the House.


Wilfrid Laurier: The clerk of the distributing office is not responsible for ordering more copies of 'Hansard.'


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Yes.	*


Wilfrid Laurier: I doubt that very much.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: 
Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: 
Mr.   T.@: 
Mr. CRAWFORD.: I have been told that some hon. members opposite sometimes get as many as a hundred copies.


Mr. SPROULE.: I am afraid the hon. gentleman has been told something that only exists in some person's imagination.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems rather invidious to place on the chief clerk of the distribution office the responsibility of deciding whether a debate is sufficiently important to justify him in ordering an extra number of copies to be printed. I would think that a matter of that kind should be left with the chairman of the committee. The chief clerk might of course be instructed, in respect of the budget debate and other important debates that must occur every session, to have an extra number of copies printed. Apart from that, you can hardly expect him to realize the standpoint of members of this House, and decide whether'or not an extra number of any particular debate would be required. Perhaps the suggestion might be made by the Prime Minister to the chairman of the Committee on Debates to give this matter attention. It is very annoying sometimes to send for a few extra copies and not be able to procure them ; but looking at the matter from the standpoint of the chief clerk of distribution, the very demand for extra copies of a particular debate might suggest to him that other members would be likely to come for further copies, and that therefore he must not exhaust the supply. So far as my own experience is concerned,
I am bound to say that he is not only very diligent but invariably courteous in the discharge of his duties.


Wilfrid Laurier: The distribution office is not under the control off this House alone. It is under the control of the Printing Committee, which is a joint commute of the Senate and the House of Commons. Mr. Davidson is an active and painstaking officer, and will do whatever he is told to do, by that committee.



[Stage Direction]
hW GEO. E. FOSTER (North Toronto).
I rise, Mr. Speaker, to move :
That all the words after that be omitted and the following substituted therefor: The civil service system of Canada should be based on merit and character alone, and all the appointments thereto should be made from candidates whose competency has been established through open competitive examinations conducted unedr a non-partisan civil service commission.
This motion has been a long while in finding its way to discussion in the House.
8133 MAY 26, 1908 9134	
It is not necessary for me to give the reasons; I think they are patent to all who have at all followed it. Suffice it to say that I bring it to the attention of the House at the present time with a good deal of hope that the resolution may commend itself to both sides of the House and be practically agreed to as the principle upon which the civil service of Canada should be based. I am led to that from a good many indications. I think it is clear to all of us who have studied public opinion that, during the last three or four years, opinion in the country, outside of parliament and in political circles, has been paying considerable attention to the question of the civil service, the principle upon which it should be based, and the rules under which it should be conducted; and there appears to be a growing and widely distributed sentiment in favour of a better system than the present one. [DOT]Many of our most prominent daily and weekly organs have advocated the merit system with greater or less force; and it is very gratifying to know that a good many of our public men on both sides of politics have given more or less time to the discussion of the question, and that a great many very strong opinions have been expressed by men prominent in both political parties in favour of a change in the basis of the system. It is therefore in the hope that the resolution will receive practical accord on both sides of the House that I venture to make a few remarks in reference to it. I do not propose to make any apology for bringing the question before the House. It is not by any means an academic question. It is an intensely practical question, and there never has been a time in the history of Canada when it has been more practical and more vital than now. When a country is young and its operations comparatively limited, a civil service system which is not the best and the most carefully thought out, might be fairly effective by reason of a personal supervision given it by heads of departments and the general and every day supervision made by the press and the critical portion of the community. Both these tend to keep it within line and prevent abuse and lead to a fairly good carrying out of the general business of the country. But in proportion as the country widens and its proportions become more important and the amount of business grows, then it becomes necessary for the system to be the very best in principle and very strongest in regulations in order to do the work absolutely necessary. That time has arrived-perhaps it arrived years ago in the Dominion-but there can be no doubt that it has arrived now. So that in view of the public interest concerning the subjeci and its importance and practical nature, I do not suppose anybody expects to hear an apology from me for discussing it.	[DOT]It would be interesting to thoroughly deal with the question historically, but that would take one over a great deal of ground; and the history of civil service reform in all countries is an open page to-day which can be easily read and known by any one who takes any interest in the matter. Therefore I do not propose to deal with the subject very largely in its historical aspect. I propose however to discuss two or three systems of civil service and the operations thereunder, to the end that what has been proved in experience and results may be made patent to our minds and we may have the conclusions which result therefrom. Of course one would not attempt any remarks on civil service systems if he did not at once refer to the system of the motherland, which has had a long history, which is full of rich results, and the lesson of which is open and available to all students of civil service reform. Suffice it to say that in the beginning, the service was entirely in the hands of the sovereign. Everything was at his disposal, and he used it for the purposes that best suited him ; sometimes for the common good, but oftener, I am afraid, for purposes of the royal family and the royal person and its adherents and favourites. After this power was taken away from the King and translated into parliament the patronage system, without any great alleviation, went into the hands of the ministry of the day and the parliament which supported that ministry. So that from the earliest time of the work of the country as carried on by what we denominate civil servants until 1855, there was a period in which patronage was absolutely supreme, in which the principles of civil service were very little adhered to if they were even acknowledged; and history shows us the results in a demoralized, inefficient and costly civil service. About 1853 or thereabouts, the first great forward step was taken and the directors of the East India Company abolished all Patr°"' age with reference to the kingdom, for it really was such which they had under their direction, and instituted an absolute and strict civil service system in which everything was thrown open to merit, and m which that merit was ascertained by means of examination. This radical improvement had its effect in the mother country. In 1855 a system of civil service was introduced against the will of parliament, absolutely against a majority vote in parliament, and was initiated by the executive itself. By judicious explanation of its motives and methods, and a judicious distribution of that information through the country, the executive worked upon public sentiment s that, within a very short time, the parliament which had been adverse to a civil service system based, on examination came to be entirely in its favour and from that
[Stage Direction]
time up to the present, that is from 1856 or 1857, the parliament of Great Britain has never wavered in its allegiance to the system of merit and examination as applied to the civil service. It was not until a good deal later, however, about 1870, that the full measure of civil service reform, so far as principle and regulation is concerned, was applied to the service. In 1870, after repeated investigations and commissions, and as a result of the information thereby gathered, the open competitive system was put into force, and the old system of appointment through patronage or nomination, the old ineffectual departmental examination and system of limited competition, were all done away with, and the principle of open competition for every British subject under proper conditions was established by the parliament of GireatJ Britain and embodied in the British civil service. The results have been, I think beyond all doubt, eminently satisfactory. That they have been satisfactory is shown by the adherence of the British'parliament and people to the system and the continuous strengthening of that system, so that, at the present time, it is, perhaps, stronger than it ever was before, and, during its history, it has served as the starting point and example for civil service systems in almost all the great progressive countries of the world.
In brief, we find the system to be the establishment of a civil service commission, the granting of freedom to every British subject who complies with necessary conditions, to compete for entrance into the service and for the prizes of the service; the absolute elimination from the great bulk of the service of anything like patronage of any kind, and the utter banishment from the service of anything like political influence, either by way of assessment, intimidation, promise, or anything of that kind unfortunately too well known in other countries, our own not excepted. There are certain limited classes of positions which are excluded from this general system, namely, the classes of technical and political positions. But, even in these, the larger portion are still subject to what we call non-competitive examinations. That is, although these positions are not open for competition on the part of allcomers, yet when the head of the department, or whoever has that duty, nominates to an office, the nominees must be examined and receive their certificates of fitness from the civil service examiner, and do not receive the position unless they pass these competitive examinations; and, of course, the successful applicant, as shown by the result of these examinations, gets the position. So, in that case, merit is again defined by examination; and, although at the entrance to it, the number who may apply to be admitted to the competitive exarnin-Mr. FOSTER.
ation is somewhat limited, still there are competitors and they have to pass examinations and the best man wins.
There are two statements that I wish to read on this subject. One was made by Mr. Mundella, who was a member of the British cabinet at one time. He said:
I stand before you the representative of the largest constituency in England, and yet have not the power to control the appointment of the lowest excise officer.
The other was made by Mr. Gladstone, who was still greater in power and influence. He said :
As to the clerkships in mv office-the office of the Treasury-every one of you has just as much power over their disposal as I have.
-	[DOT] In order that the public service might
be indeed the public service; in order that we might not have among the civil officers of the state that which we had complained of in the army, namely, that the service. was not the property of the nation, but of the officers, we have now been enabled to remove the barriers of nomination, patronage, jobbery, favouritism, in whatever form; and every man belonging to the people of England, if htf so please to fit his children for competing for places in the public service, may do it entirely irrespective of the question what is his condition in life.
To these two statements I desire to add a fact which I came across aud which I will give without mentioning names. A very distinguished member of the British cabinet commenced his career as a clerk in the lowest grade of the civil service. He entered through the system of examination, and made his way up to the highest, or nearly the highest executive position of the British government.
I suppose there are now about 70,000 employees in Great Britain coming under the provisions of the Civil Service Act. Two or three instances might be given to show the difference between the condition, of things here and there. Take, for instance, the Inland Revenue. The Inland Revenue service of Great Britain is in charge of a board of commissioners who are appointed by the Crown and hold office during good behaviour. They have over 8.000 officials besides a large number of employees. The entrance is by examination through the lowest grade. There is no removal except for cause, and religion or politics is never a cause of removal. When a removal takes place, the cause has to be written and signified to the Civil Service Commissioners' board, and no interference from politicians, or wardworkers or ministers may interfere with the discipline of this large staff of officials and employees. Not only is there no removal except for cause, but, before removal, there must be a proper hearing. The Customs Department of Great Britain has been managed now for over one hundred years in the manner I am about to

describe. A board of four commissioners is appointed, as in the case of the Inland Revenue. They have over 5,000 clerks, -besides large numbers of employees who are exactly on the same basis as under the Inland Revenue Board-no politics, no interference. The higher places are filled by promotion, and the board annually inspects each port, which I think is a most excellent feature of the system.
Then there is the treasury, which is run by a board of seven managers. There is the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and others, and as these are pasing, ephemeral, there is a permanent secretary in whose hands is placed the chief business of directing the treasury so far as its officials are concerned. The Treasury Board, of course, dominates the policy. However parties may differ, the board defines the policy for the Department of Inland Revenue or Customs. But there is no political interference in any way. shape or form, nor removal except for cause, and the reason, in case of removal, is to be given in writing.
The postal division is managed by a permanent non-political secretary. The post offices are divided. There is the very small and unimportant post office, which is allowed to take care of itself and is judged by its results. If the results are good it is undisturbed; if any difficulties arise, troubles or laches take place, then of course it is looked into and a remedy applied. Then there is the class of post offices which have not over £120 of income. There the clerks are nominated by the postmaster and the postmasters are selected by the Treasury Board, and are removable only for cause. Tne next class are the post offices having over £120 revenue. There the postmasters are selected from the entire service as a recognition of merit. That opens the horizon and gives scope and consequently spirit to the service. They are appointed by the Postmaster General and are removable only for cause, and any application in favour of them by members of parliament or persons in political life is a detriment, and is more likely to militate against the appointment of the candidate than to help him. Then the last are the great city post offices. These great city post offices are under the civil service entirely. All clerks enter by open competition and examination, and the same rule applies with reference to promotions and removals.
Then there is the consular or diplomatic service, which is now almost entirely taken out of patronage, and a system of rigid and thorough examination prevails, combined as well with the record of the person himself, whose experience makes up a large part of that record. In the House of Lords the clerk of Parliament selects those who are to be examined for clerkships, and in the House of Commons the librarian selects them, and they have to make good by competitive examination. Any one, I think, who has the interest of the service at heart would be glad to see a system of that kind applied to both our Houses here, at least I certainly would. So much then with reference to the British service. I will have a little more to say with reference to the results of that service later on in my remarks.
The next country to which I invite the attention of the House is the United States of America. Many of those who have not followed closely the track of progress of the United States in this respect are inclined to think that it is a very poor example of a civil service country to bring before the parliament of Canada, and I have noticed on two or three occasions that when some remark has been made with reference to the civil service in the United States it has provoked a smile. Well, that is not impossible of explanation. No man can keep all subjects within his ken, and until a few years ago when I gave some attention to the civil service in the United States, I myself would have been inclined to put it amongst the more backward of countries, and to conclude, as so many in our country do, that it is delivered over body and soul to the spoils systems, as it was not very long ago delivered over almost absolutely to the spoils system. But to make a long story short, the evils of their system so impressed themselves upon the better thinking public men of the United States, as they had done before in Great Britain, that methods were adopted, a plan of educational work was undertaken throughout the country and carried up into Congress, and it resulted in 1882 in the enactment of tile present civil service law of the United States. Now, wonders have been doue under that legislation, giving as it does a very large power to the president, by proclamation, to bring under the operation of the Civil Service Act such departments and such parts of departments as it may suit him. This of course he does with a full knowledge of what is needed and of what will be fairly well supported. President Cleveland began that work particularly, and he and President Roosevelt have been especially the two presidents who have done so much to widen the scope of the civil service, and by their repeated proclamations to bring constantly wider and wider areas under its scope. In operation the United States appoints a Civil Service Commission of three. This Civil Service Commission, with the president, is authorized to prepare the rules and regulations for the civil service, and what they prepare, when it is promulgated by the President, has the force of law and becomes equal to an enactment. They have the power of examination, and for that part of the civil service which is under the merit system, a careful system of examinations is carried on by

[Stage Direction]
these commissioners, not a pedantic system which takes care simply for the literary parts of the examination, but one which is intensely practical in its end. It is carried out by men who mingle with all parts of the service in every part of the United States, who become thoroughly saturated with its needs and with its capabilities as well. They conduct their examinations on the line of getting at the best that is in the applicant, practically deciding, as far as they can, what is the best the candidate can do for the service into which he wishes to enter in any one of a dozen of different great trends that the service takes. They then carry on their examinations. All who fail to get 70 per cent on an average in these examinations fail to get their names on the register; all who make 70 per cent or over are placed upon the official register in the order of time and in the order of merit, and this is the register of certificated candidates for employment. When the head of a department requires some one to fill a vacancy he applies to the Civil Service Commission and the Civil Service Commission look over their different branches, having regard to the kind of work that this head of a department requires, and hand him the thr'ee highest names on the register in that line of work. The appointing power has then a choice between those three. He selects one and the appointee must be placed on probation for at least six months. If he fulfils the requirements he is then permanently appointed. If he does not, then the head of the department must state to the Civil Service Commission the reasons for his failure. The Civil Service Commission then give him the next three highest names out of which a choice must be made.
Mr. PATERSON.: How do the commissioners get the list?


Mr. FOSTER.: By examination.


William Paterson: Made by themselves ?


George Eulas Foster: Made by themselves.


William Paterson: Do they examine from all over the union?


George Eulas Foster: From all over the union.


William Paterson: Have they no boards of examiners under them?


George Eulas Foster: Oh, certainly, do you suppose that three men could extend themselves all over the union and cover the work?


William Paterson: They do not themselves get the list.


George Eulas Foster: They get the list because they are the body who manage and control the whole system, who appoint all sub-examiners.


William Paterson: Is there a board of examiners for each state ?
Sir. FOSTER


George Eulas Foster: That is according to the necessities of the case; in some states there is more than one body of examiners and when I say that the commission do it, I say it in a sense that the Minister of Customs collects the revenue. He has to do it through those whom he appoints and for whose actions he is responsible. The examination papers are under the control of the commission in every respect.


William Paterson: They are prescribed by them.


George Eulas Foster: They are prescribed by them. Of course, as I said before, they are careful to procure information from every source, to know what a department wants, to know what its various services are, the kind of work it does and what kind of talent is best fitted for it. They consult the heJads and chief officials of departments; they do not simply sit down, draw their salaries and issue mandates, but are a real, live, governing, actively-working board who try to saturate themselves with the service and making every effort to get the best services for the country from the material within the country. I have now explained the register.
The applicant who gets his name upon the register and is so enrolled is eligible for a year, but not for a longer period unless the Civil Service Commission extends the term of eligibility for another year or some other period which they have the power to do. This is to prevent the list becoming crowded with names whose owners have gone into other employment or grown stale by lapse of time. This keeps the list from becoming old and burdened. There is a possibility of making emergency appointments. Suppose that no one is at hand ready for appointment, then the head of the department can make an emergency appointment, but he must immediately notify the board of that appointment and the appointment cannot be for more than three months, unless the board, under certain circumstances, see fit to allow it to go on for another three months. But it is their duty, the moment they are notified of the emergency, to see that the position is filled by the permanent person just as soon Sas they can get a suitable applicant.
Two great reforms have been brought about in the United States by the operation of this system, two great sources of corruption in the civil service and in politics, taking the two conjoined, have been eliminated, first, the levying of political assessments which at one time in the political history of the United States might have been described Sas au open practice universally carried on, and, secondly, the use of the service for political purposes in any way. The Civil Service Commissioners' reports of later years, that of this year particularly, declare that these two evils have

been practically rooted out of the civil service. No person is allowed within a department under the civil service to solicit assessments of any kind and no officer in a department who acquiesces in such a practice will be allowed to go unpunished. (The law in this matter has been for a good many years coming to the point of perfection. It is very difficult to eliminate the use of political influence in the service, by the head of a department using his influence over employees, and in the thousand and one ways in which political use may be made of the civil servant as a partisan. One of the chief difficulties in eliminating this evil was that if a charge of political partisanship was made, it was left to the head of the department, whoever he was, to deal with the charge and it was found that this system was ineffective. Some heads of departments were loyal and true to the principle of the system and they would carry out the law with rigidity and success. Others were still more politicians than they should he and in their hands the law would become almost a dead letter, so there was still a lamentable lack of effectiveness. This evil has been cured by President Roosevelt handing over the investigation of matters of partisanship to the Civil Service Commission itself. That has been the effective step that has put the quietus upon that form of partisanship and of political use of the civil service. The last report of the American Civil Service Commission, 1907, which I have here chronicles that as the final and decisive act which now puts this matter in the hands of the commission and rings the knell of partisanship or political use of the service of the United States. Here when a charge of political partisanship was made, when it was alleged that a civil servant of the Department of the Interior was fooling with politics the political head let it go in one ear and out of the other, at least it was not taken heed to. Now in the United States instead of its being left any longer with the head of the department, the charge is to be investigated by the Civil Service Commission itself and they, having the good of the service at heart, may be relied on to make it effective and uniform.


William Paterson: What is the meaning of partisanship there ? Does it extend to the vote?


George Eulas Foster: It even goes this far, by one of the decisions, that if a civil servant carries around the nomination paper of a candidate that is doing political service.


William Paterson: It does not extend to the vote?
M!r. FOSTER. It allows every man to vote, to express his own opinion, to express it privately. The civil servants have a perfect right to the vote and to the franchise, as I think every civil servant should have, as he is a citizen of the country and
he has a right to his vote; he may have his private opinion and is allowed to express it to his friend or his family or in any other private way, but the moment he goes outside that it is political partisanship and may become a charge and subject for discipline. The last civil service report of the United States, page 13, is my authority for the statement I have just made with reference to the trying power. The considerations I have mentioned led to the amendment of rule 1 on June 15, 1907, when the president put the matter under the control of the commissioner. The amendment provided:
That persons who by the provisions of this resolution are in the competitive classified service, while retaining the right to vote as they please and to express privately their opinions on all critical subjects shall take no active part in any political management or any political campaigns.
With reference to the enlargement of the system a most important change affecting excepted positions was made by executive order November 7, 1908, under which 1,100 deputy collectors of internal revenue were transferred to the competitive class. The report says :
This is an important advance as it has been impossible ,to secure satisfactory results in any part of the service to which any considerable proportion of positions of the important classes are exempted from examination.
This illustrates the power I spoke of, possessed by the President of bringing in portions of the service under the sweep of the Act.
Quoting still from the report:
The United States undertook work in the Philippine Islands a few years ago. Some seven years ago (this report goes on to say), on September 19. 1900, the Philippine commission passed an Act for the establishment and maintenance of an honest and efficient civil service in the Philippine Islands by which provision was made focr filling vacancies^ in most positions in the civil service by examination.
The Filipinos, owing to lack of knowledge of the English language, were not eligible, and this report goes on to say :
It was impossible to get eligible men. It was necessary a/t first to fill almost all the positions by English-speaking_ people. Rut what would happen as the Filipinos at that time had no knowledge of English? They qualified in the Spanish examinations only and got appointed only 'to those positions in which a knowledge of English was not essential. As the years have passed the Filipinos have steadily acquired English and they now take part in English examinations and during the year ending June 30, 1906, 53 per cent of the Filipinos examined took the examinations in English and it was found possible to appoint Filipinos to 80 per cent of the vacancies filled by local appointees. By amendment to the Philippine Civil Service Aot the classi-

[DOT]jl44
fieri service was greatlv extended until it includes almost all positions above the grade of unskilled labourers, except the Philippine con" stabulary. The Philippine Cdvdl Service Act provides that employees of the Philippine assembly selected by it shall be in the unclassified service. One of the first acts of the first assembly was to waive this exception and provide for the appointment of its employees under the Civil Service Buies and Regulations.
This is an indication that the merit system has the support of the people, and the remark that is made upon it Is the great impetus it has given to education in English among the Filipinos ; their desire to participate in the service has given them a trend in an educational way in the acquirement of the English language and the knowledge that appertains thereto. Then In Porto Rico they have applied the civil service regulations in the same way and they have now an effective civil service in that island, a thing which of course was unknown before the people of the United States took possession of it:
The federal services were placed under the Federal Civil Service Act by an Act of Congress of April 12, 1900, and examinations and appointments have since been made in accordance with civil service law, and on March If, 1907. a civil service law was passed by the legislature of Porto Rico and approved by the government to take effect January 1, 1908.
The above quotations from the United States Civil Service Board for 1907, serve as indications to show how widespread is the work which has been done In civil service reform in the United States of Ameriica and its dependencies. There is also another point to be kept in mind with reference to the United States service. The United States service is divided into two classes, one called the classified service and the other the unclassified service. Not all of the service in the United States is under the examination system and the merit by examination system, of which I have been speaking. I wish to briefly give an outline of the service in that regard. First, there is subject to the civil service law' the classified civil service. That takes in all persons employed in the executive civil service of the United States, however they are remunerated, whether they are permanent or temporary, by regular salary or otherwise, first those who are merely employed as labourers or workman, and second those whose appointments are subject to consent or ratification by the Senate. These two classes are exempted from the classified service, but all others are included in it and are subject to examination, except those who come under schedule A who are appointed without examination or upon what is called non-competitive examinations. That is to say, the head nominates them and then they are to be examined by the Civil Service Commission to see whether thev are Mr. FOSTER.
qualified or not. Or, if the head wishes it he can have them undergo a competitive examination and conform to the general rule of the service. Under schedule A you get a pretty large list. For instance, it includes : two private secretaries and confidential clerks which are allowed to each head of a department such as the Navy or the Interior; one confidential clerk and private secretary to each inferior department : one to the head of certain bureaus, and such appointments as attorneys, Chinese and Japanese interpreters, persons receiving not more than $3,500 and doing work in connection with their own private work ; quasi naval and military officers under enlistment, employees of the government in foreign countries in many cases. It is a special and technical class which is embraced in schedule A and these officers are therefore not subject'to examination though they are within the classified service. In the unclassified service is included all appointments by the President which have to be approved by the Senate, and all unskilled manual labourers in Washington and in the field service. But with reference to the unskilled labourers there is ttiis somewhat remarkable feature, and it seems to me to be very praiseworthy : the unskilled labourer in Washington and in the field service does not get in helter-skelter ; whoever comes first and may have the null is not selected. The whole of that unskilled manual labour department is under the head and direction of the Civil Service Commission and certain machinery is provided by which it is all tabulated and registered, and the Civil Service Commission direct and dominate.
In practice it so works out that the whole matter is practically under the Civil Service Commission thi'ough its appointment upon the employment board, and the head of the department takes little interest in it. All applicants for employment are examined and inquired into as to their physical and mental qualification-they have to undergo a medical examination ; as to their character and habits-their record is thoroughly searched ; as to the experience they have had and which is shown by vouchers which they get; and of course the age-limit restriction has to be taken into account. On the information thus got these men are rated, mid ail who rate over 70 per cent are put upon the labour register; and when labourers are wanted in this field or the other field, application is made to the civil service board, wbo at once send the men who they think, from that examination, will be best fitted for the work. In that way incompetent people are weeded out from the great unskilled labour department which I have spoken of. and it is put upon a basis where character, good habits, ability and record comes to be a determining factor. To show the progress that has taken place, I take two years. In 1903 there were 271,000 in tlie executive civil service, and of

those 135,485 were appointed after competitive examinations. In 1907 there were
337.000	in the whole service, and of those
197.000	held tlieir position by competitive examinations. Making up the other 140,000 employees are 6,314 postmasters of first, second and third clashes, and 53,345 postmasters of the fourth class ; that is, nearly
60.000	postmasters who do not come under the examination system.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: How many postmasters altogether ?


George Eulas Foster: assessment, subscription or contribution, and no person shall enter, or remain in any said office, building or room, or send or direct any letter or other notice thereto, for the purpose of giving notice of, demanding, or collecting a political assessment, subscription or contribution, nor shall any person therein give notice of, demand, collect or receive, any such assessment, subscription or contribution. Any person who shall be guilty of violating any provision of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanour.
Section 29-Official influence-Whoever, while holding any public office, or in nomination for, or while seeking a -nomination or appointment for, any public office, shall use or promise to use, whether directly or indirectly, any official authority or influence (whether then possessed or -merely anticipated) in -the way of conferring upon any person, or in order to secure or aid any person in securing any office or public employment or -public contract or any nomination, confirmation, promotion, or increase in salary, upon a consideration or condition that the vote or political influence or action of the last named person or any other, shall be given or used .in behalf of any candidate, officer or party, or upon any other corrupt condition or consideration, shall be deemed guilty of bribery or an attempt at bribery -as the case may he. And whoever, being a public officer or having or claiming to have, authority or influence for or affecting the nomination, public employment, confirmation, promotion, removal, increase or decrease of salary or position of any -public officer shall use or promise or threaten to use any such authority or influence, directly or indirectly, in order to coerce or persuade -the vote or political action of any citizen or the removal, discharge or promotion of any officer or public employee, or upon any other corrupt consideration shall also be guilty of bribery or of -an attempt at -bribery, as the case may he. Every person found guilty of such bribery or of an attempt to commit the same as aforesaid, shall, upon conviction thereof, be liable to be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars nor more than three thousand dollars, or to be imprisoned not less than ten days nor more than two years, or to both said fine and imprisonment in -the discretion of the court. The phrase ' public officer ' shall be held to include all public officials in this state, whether paid directly or indirectly from the -public treasury of the state, or by fees'or otherwise, and the phrase ' public employee' shall be held to include every person not being an officer who is paid from said treasury of the state.
These are two pretty drastic and far reaching provisions, meant to bring about a certain result and it would seem as though they would be effective for that purpose.
When we come to Canada-for I think w'e have been long enough in this excursion outside-what can we say for the civil service during the last decade or score of years ? I am discussing this subject absolutely free from partisanship of any kind, with the sole desire of putting my view of the case before the House and the country. I try to weigh my words and use my ex-Mr. FOSTER.
perience and what knowledge I have, and I think I am not to be found fault with if I say that, in so far as Canada is concerned within the last twenty or twenty-five years, we have not made any considerable progress. If we would be fair to ourselves, we would admit that in these later years we have retrograded instead of progressed. We would admit that to-day the foundation of the civil service itself and the structure built upon that foundation, does not occupy as good a position as it has in past years, for in an advancing and growing country not to be making progress is. I think tantamont to retrograding. I do not think there is such a thing as standing still with reference to this matter; there must be progress or there will be retrogression. If I were to say then that the civil service itself is not as strong as it was fifteen years ago, that the morals of the civil service is not as high as it was then, that its efficiency is not so great as it was at that period, I believe I would be saying what my own experience, observation and information absolutely warrant me in saying.


William Paterson: Have you thought that out fully ?


George Eulas Foster: Yes, I have bestowed a good deal of thought ou the subject and am quite willing to stand by my words. But I will take another authority, the Civil Service Commissioners, who will probably go even further than I in this respect. And remember that the chairman of that commission is a man probably as well versed, not only in the theory but the practice of the civil service in Great Britain and this country, as any one you could find.
Now, what are some of the reasons why the civil service, instead of making progress, has, if anything, retrograded ? I am expressing my own opinion, I am not binding anybody, when I say that one step towards that retrogression was the abolition of the superannuation system by the present government shortly after they came into office. Taken up in some way, whether in an odd moment and for political purposes, or whether by people who had studied it and come to a conclusion which they thought was right and acquiesced in by men who in their hearts knew it was not right but gave way, when the party came into power it found itself pledged to abolish the superannuation system, and it abolished that system. There was another step, and that was the abolition of the yearly increase of all deserving civil servants who had the recommendation of the deputy head of the department. The very moment this latter was abolished, the civil servant had nothing substantial, firm, to hold to. Do his work as faithfully as he might, still he knew that he received no increase as of right. And what else did he

know ? He knew that if he were to get anything he must rely upon pull, he must get his member or somebody who had influence to secure advantage for him in some way. That is a blunt way of stating it, but that is really what took place. It is true that this rule was entirely reversed within a year or so; but the lesson had been taught. The civil servant had been told : It is not your right, it is not even a prescriptive right for you to receive this increase ; if you get it, you will get it at the will and pleasure of your minister. Now, that had the inevitable effect of throwing the civil service off its true line, the line of thinking what was due to the country, and of setting it to work at making influence, getting members, candidates and others to use their influence in favour of those who could win their support. And so, very great harm was done to the civil service in that way.
! With reference to the superannuation system, I appeal to my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier)-I do not know whether he has time to give to that or not that the superannuation system is not something extra, not a piling of something else upon that which is already sufficient; the superannuation system, if it is well considered, is part and parcel of the remuneration of the civil servant. It should be made an addition to the yearly wage for two reasons : one to induce the continuity in the civil service which is the greatest element of its efficiency, and the other, to make the man feel that after hedging himself out from all the live currents of business life come when he has fifty or sixty years of age and is no longer able to breast these currents in a new business, he shall have something at least to look forward to during the time of his old age. Now, that united with the yearly or monthly wage makes what gives you the best possible for the service of your country. To cut away that support, in my opinion, is to cut away one of the foundation pillars of a good service. But, having that or something which would produce the same result, you make a good beginning in the establishment of the best civil service system. Now, I put another point: It is absolute wastefulness to do away with the superannuation system-and I ask the particular attention of my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) to this. The superannuation system is not to be judged alone by the dollars spent on it. Here is another way to judge it : Suppose you allow your civil servant only the yearly wage-that is, you abolish the superannuation system : Within a very few years you pay more than you would pay if you had not abolished it. And why ? Because in every department of this government and in every corridor of these buildings, you have
men whom you cannot turn out on the street, yet who cannot do the work of the department. There they are, and you must put on extra men who would do the work that these older men do not do. We alt have a little human nature, and when an old employee who has been in our charge for years has come to the time when he cannot earn the money that is paid to him, we do not, in fact, turn him out in the street. And so, we have a wasteful system, a costly expenditure. And, whatever we do with reference to the civil service,
I hope we shall not fail to have as part of our plan a superannuation system or some contrivance for the same purpose. It may be widened a little-as the civil service authorities in Great Britain are this very day discussing-to provide that when a man dies after having paid all his life into the civil service, his family shall not be left with nothing ; or, even when a man goes out of the service, battered and worn, and dies after receiving his superannuation allowance for a year or two, his family may still have some consideration. There ought to be inventiveness enough, ability enough, in this parliament to devise a scheme which will be economical, but in the end fair to-, these great interests and calculated to put our civil service upon a better basis than it is on to-day.


Wilfrid Laurier: Will my hon, friend allow me to ask him as a matter of information : Is there a superannuation system in the civil service of the United States ?


George Eulas Foster: There is not. But there is a pretty strong agitation for it. Besides, they pay at a much more generous rate of wages than we do in this country.
Now, there is another point: We have got into a habit, it has become like a burden strapped to our backs, of contracting civil servants out of even the Civil Service Act that we have. This was pointed out by the commission. In one year, for one cause or another, there were fifty cases of ' notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act.' In this way the civil servants to whom this was applied were taken out from under the law. So we had discrepancies, we had wide differences, and bitterness was left in the hearts of those who thought they were equally deserving but got nothing. That does not help the civil service. One of the worst things to import into a civil service, perhaps the one thing that saps their loyalty worse than anything else, is the mere idea that they are not being treated fairly, that some get more than they should and that some, equally faithful, get less. As long as it is a matter of exception, under the charge of the minister, these things will occur more

or less. Then there has been the re-enforcement of the patronage Influence, there Is no denying that. The patronage system was never so greedy, grasping, insistent, heartless, conscienceless as it lias been during these last years, never in the history of Canada. This is a part, I suppose, of the material growth of the country. It may not be the fault of the present government more than of the past government, but the spirit is different now from what it was. and everything that makes is looked to, and as I said, the result is that this spirit is stronger and more grasping than ever before.


William Paterson: Have you thought that out fully?	.


George Eulas Foster: Yes, I have. It Is not only in the initiatory stages. Patronage today follows the-man all the way through. Will the Prime Minister let me give him a supposititious case, which is not a supposititious ease-I mention no names. A man enters the service, he passes his examination, goes into the department, does his work for years and years, does his work well and faithfully, and rises by his yearly increases. The time comes when he stands at the head of his class, the time comes when provision is made for promotions. Then he says to himself:	I must
go to the man I have worked under and I must ask him to give me fair consideration. Here I stand above so and so, there is my work, it shows for itself, and I must go to my chief. He goes to his chief, puts in his plea, and what answer do you suppose he gets? Have you any political influence? Think of it, just think of it- Have you any political influence? There is a man who has done his work for fourteen or sixteen years, done it well, and there is not a black mark against him. And when there are chances for promotion, all that he wants to do is to let his work speak for itself. The work is all chucked aside, and his chief says to him: Have you any political influence? Well, no, Sir, I didn't suppose that was necessary. I supposed you knew my work, and the recommendation is in your hands, I have to depend on you. Can't you get somebody to recommend you? In the end what happened? In the end it filtered down to this, that lie had to ask the defeated candidate in the county, and the defeated candidate put it to him just as plain as this:	Who
is your father? Who is your brother? Where do your people live? How have they voted? They all went against me, I believe. And he was simplv told :	Let
your father and his brothers go to the parish committee and if they can get their recommendation perhaps something can be done. Now, there is no need of any comment on that. I said that I was not treating this subject in a partisan way. But there is the minister's chair, and in that Mr. FOSTER.
chair, if he were present, would be the minister who absolutely put the patronage in the city of St. John into a committee of wardworkers, called them together, and said: I cannot do this thing, you must do it, I put it into your hands. What malversation of the trust of office ! At least, for Heaven's sake, if it has to be done, can't we decently keep it under cover in some way? A man says : You better be open and above board. Yes, except for this, the infernal example of the thing, because from Vancouver to Sydney goes the teaching that the ward committee appoints to office, and every ward committee from one end of this country to the other usurps the place of government. Who is responsible for the work of the departments? The deputy head and the minister whose deputy he is. But you overturn the pyramid absolutely when you take away from them the choice, under proper conditions, and the' possibility of having proper conditions, of the very best man, and put it into the hands of a distinct and partisan patronage committee. Now, I have freed my soul as regards the patronage.


William Paterson: What minister is responsible for that?


George Eulas Foster: Is that the best the Minister of Customs has to say on that subject?


William Paterson: I think so. Is not the minister responsible to parliament?


George Eulas Foster: Well, leave it that way, if the hon. gentleman wishes. Now, we have in this country the semblance of an examination system, but it is only a semblance. lrou appoint your civil service examiners, you empower them to examine, and they do examine. In the first place, who comes up to the examination ? No one can enter unless he belongs to the party in power with any hope that he will get a position. The Prime Minister shakes his head. Will he deny that that is the tendency ?
iSir WILFRID LAURIER. I have no such information.


George Eulas Foster: But will he deny that that is the tendency? Is it not well known that all the chances are in favour of the man who belongs to the party which is in power? I think we can go that far-all the chances. Now and then one gets in, there may be the personal influence. I, as a Conservative may have a very strong friend who is a Liberal, and if I pass the examination he may secure my appointment. But that is very seldom done. I am right then in saying that the whole trend is in that way. <So our present system is an advertisement of all those who do not belong to the party at present in power, not to offer for examination to the

civil service, because they don't have much of a chance to get in. Then what is the next thing? Those who do come, having the party imprimatur, and who pass the qualifying examination, where do they go? Into an absolutely confused limbo of names. They pass the examination, and they are notified that they have passed. But where Is the register that is kept, where is the register of the dates when they passed and their standing when they pass? And where is the obligation, when the appointing power comes along, to take a man from the top or to make a choice of men from the top? There is none of that. Consequently there is no merit system at all. All that you gain is that before a man gets in he passes a small qualifying examination or a small preliminary examination, and it is not a very tedious affair to the young man or the young woman fresh from school. It would be a pretty hard thing for the Minister of Customs or myself to pass it, but those who are fresh from school easily pass.


William Paterson: We could have done it once.


George Eulas Foster: I have passed different examinations in my time, but I would not like to tackle this examination now. So we have no competitive system for making appointments. You may say we have promotion examinations. True, we have, but here is the thing about promotion examinations. If you have a good head and a good deputy you will have good square promotion examinations; if you do not, you will have a lax system so that you have no uniformity and there is contrast between one department and another, one in which there is some desire to fill the spirit of the Act, the other in which there is no desire, no uniform direction, consequently there is contrast and heartburning.
Out of this state of things comes, in the first place, lack of principle. Of course we all agree that the principle that should animate a young man going into the civil service is the desire to do his country's work and to do it well. Our effort should be to bring out the best that is in him to do that work. This can only be done under certain conditions and the present conditions are not favourable to that, so in too many cases the young man's determination degenerates into this : 1 will do my regular day's work as well as I can and get out when the hour of closing comes, or : I will try to make myself agreeable to my next chief and maybe I will get on his good side and be helped up. While the civil servant ought always to try to please his chiefs, his first aim should be to do his work, and it is foreign to all proper principles that he should simply do his work so as to please his chief with the idea that the chief will secure promotion for him. Then the loss of spirit comes verv rapidiv. What do we find, with 291
reference to the British people ? The hold they have on the world, in India and other countries is due to the general opinion that they deal justly and fairly. That is a wonderful thing for a nation, a wonderful thing for a service. Is it or is it not a fact that in this service there is a loosening and a diminution of that idea that people are dealt fairly by and a growing idea that there is partyism, favouritism and pull and that the sharpest fellow will probably get along the best. That is the tendency and of course out of that comes a lack of efficiency. That is my observation and if I should read portions of this report of the Civil Service Commission it would be strengthened and confirmed by the findings of the commissioners. To summarize, the commissioners say that the servce is deteriorating. that more inefficients are entering and fewer efficients are remaining. To that we will all subscribe. I have heard the Minister of Finance and other ministers say in this House how difficult it was to keep the best men. It is equally difficult to get the best men. If inefficients are coming in and the efficients leaving the service, it must be to the great deteriment of the service. Disclipine is affected, the commissioners say. Discipline is inevitably affected unless you have just rules, uniformly applied and carried out with fairness through the different departments. The Act is not enforced. The Civil Service Commission point to the 50 ' notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act to the contrary ' votes and to grading under other names.


William Paterson: Do the Uuited States never depart from their system ? Suppose that an officer shows exceptional merit, would they not waive the strict provisions of their system ?


George Eulas Foster: Yes, every system has a process by which that can be done. In the United States it is done by reference to the Civil Service Commission.


William Paterson: Here we do it by the judgment of parliament.


George Eulas Foster: That is where the great check comes. The Civil Service Commission wants to secure the best results for the service. The head of the department says : That is the very man I want for this position, the commission look up the man's record, examine him, put him through a course of sprouts and if they coincide in the opinion of the head they have power to advance him in practically the same way as the Civil Service Commission in Great Britain have power to advance men. It must be that way because these exceptional circumstances must be provided for.
The commissioners find that the patronage evil is everywhere, and everywhere it is deleterious. The government in their commission said they thought the principle of the Civil Service Act was right. The com-



mission take issue with them, they think that all political patronage should be eliminated, that the Act should be repealed, that the merit system after competitive examination should be brought into force, that there should be a board of civil service commissioners, with rigid probation and careful inspection. I notice that the Australian Act provides for plenty of inspection and for a board of inquiry.
One word as to what the civil service is. The country at large, I think, has probably a very inadequate idea of what an important thing the civil service of a country like Canada is. To my mind the civil service is more important than governments. I do not think a cabinet is as important as the civil service itself. The civil service is really the most important thing we have. What is the civil service ? It exists for the state. The civil service is not a sort of charity place in which to throw people for whom you want to provide. That is foreign to the idea of a civil service. It is not for any particular part or any particular ministry, it is there to do the great, unending constantly pressing business of the country which can be carried on in absolutely no other way and by no other instrument. So we want the best civil service we can get and no state is where it ought to be until it gets the very best possible civil service obtainable. We should have in our civil service, the best men that Canada can produce, for carrying on affairs as are carried on by the civil service. What are its functions, its great work of managing the affairs of this country ? Look at it. We come here and are small lords in our way as representatives of constituencies, and then we have a few of these greater lords, the ministry, for the time being. They are important in their own estimation and in reality as well. But these are all evanescent, we come and go, ministers are here to-day and there to-morrow ; but there is one force, one power, one mechanism, which is here always and constantly at work and on the quality of its work depend members and ministers and all the outcome from the best talent in the way of political work that we can bring to bear. Where do we get the money to carry on our work ? It is collected by a tireless, honest, competent civil service and in proportion as they lack these characteristics the revenue does not come to us as it ought to. We vote the money and it has to be expended, and then we go about our various business, political and otherwise.
What becomes of the $100,000,000 that is voted by parliament? It passes through the avenues of the civil service and upon the honesty, capacity and loyalty of the civil servants depends whether that money is well expended or not. The vote for public works goes to the Public Works Department ; your draftsman draws his lines, your engineer makes his plans, your supervisors watch the expenditure of every dol-


George Eulas Foster: 
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance).: Mr. Speaker, the words of the motion which my hon. friend has placed in your hand are not in themselves objectionable, and the same may be said of the greater part of his speech. Indeed, if we except a small portion towards the close of his remarks, I will frankly say that he has given us an informing speech, which should be useful to us all, and has handled the question in the non-partisan spirit to which he has referred. Towards the close, however, I am afraid that he strayed away from that firm faith and yielded to the temptation to present to the country the idea that such evils as are alleged to exist in the civil service to-day are evils which have largely arisen under the administration of the present government. To that portion of my hon. friend's speech I must take exception, and I must tell my hon. friend that, with

hardly an exception, every one of those defects, so far as they are grave and serious, existed in the civil service in the days when he was a minister of the Crown, every one of them was brought to my notice by a previous Civil Service Commission, and my hon. friend was not moved to find a remedy. My hon. friend may say that is importing the element of partisanship into the discussion, but it is only for the purpose of defence. I find no fault with any argument my hon. friend may advance, whether based on the experience of former years or on the experience of the present time, looking towards improvement in the civil service ; but I do say that he must not found that argument on the assumption that those evils, as far as they exist, are evils which have grown up recently. Take, for instance, the matter of the statutory increases. In the ten or twelve years that this administration has been in power, the law and practice respecting statutory increases has been exactly what it was in the days of the preceding government. The law respecting statutory increases never made it matter of obligation to give a statutory increase to every official, but contemplated giving it only to such officials as were worthy to receive it. My memory is that for two years greater restrictions than were formerly in existence were placed on the payment of the statutory increases ; and this necessarily led to some process of selection. My hon. friend says that that process was political. I am bound to say I hear that accusation to-day for the first time. I know that so far as the matter came under my observation, politics never entered into it at all. What each minister was told was that the policy of indescrimin-ate statutory increases should not be followed, but that he should make a selection of those deemed most worthy to receive it; and in making that selection, I am quite sure that the element of political partisanship was not considered at all. My hon. friend has referred to the fact that we have sometimes introduced into the estimates the words, ' notwithstanding the Civil Service Act,' and contends that we are deliberately contracting men out of the Civil Service Act. That is true, but I want to say to my hon. friend that if he takes all these cases and compares them with the large number of people in the civil service of [DOT]Canada, he will find that the number of exceptions has been insignificant. Is it possible to adopt a general law' in a matter of this kind? Can you lay down hard and fast rules, by which every man shall get a certain salary and no more? Put into a department two men on the same day, under equal conditions and at at the same salary. Five years later look at their record. One will prove to have been a man of routine, doing good and useful service in his way, while the other will have developed a power which is valuable, and which it is necessary to recognize in order to keep him in the ser-Mr. FIELDING
vice. When he reaches the maximum of his class, it is necessary to make some exceptional arrangement in order to give him the recognition to which he seems to have become entitled. I grant that it is not desirable that this should be done too frequently ; but when a man dispalys exceptional fitness for the public service, the minister should not be tied down by a hard and fast rule which would prevent him paying that man one dollar more salary than the other man, who may be a good and worthy man, but whose place could be filled at any moment if he left it. So that these exceptions to which my hon. friend referred are not very great in proportion to the whole. This claim as to political influence in the service is largely magnified. I do not say such influence is not an evil. I am not contending against civil service reform; I am not objecting to the general rule laid down by my hon. friend, but it is a pity he should have let his imagination run riot and seek to persuade the country that this evil is of such an enormous extent. My own observation is it is not, and I say this from the experience of the years I have been in federal politics, and I say it also from information I had in the earlier period when I had no connection with this parliament. My hon. friend said that down in St. John county they had a patronage committee. That seems something dreadful, the way he puts it. But let us think for a moment and see whether there is any great evil in having a patronage committee. I am not a sufficient admirer of the system to have such a committee in anything I have to do with myself, but if an appointment has to be made in a distant portion of the country, one must get information somewhere, and where is one more likely to get reliable information than from the intelligent men who are the leaders of the party in that district? Undoubtedly they will give the preference to men of their own party, but if I am to make a selection in a distant part of Canada of some man to serve my department, what better course could I pursue than to get the advice of some of the leading men in that locality? Whether you call these gentlemen a patronage committee or a committee of any other kind makes no difference. The name should not alarm people. It was said that the patronage committee nominated the postmaster in Toronto. Well, I am confident that under no system could you have got a better man to fill the office than the one chosen. Reference is made in the report of the commissioners on the civil service to the case of the postmaster at Kingston. Well, I have not the pleasure of knowing the gentleman, but I am informed that he is an em-minently well qualified official. I prefer myself in anything I have to do to avoid the forming of a committee in a matter concerning my own constituency, or anything like that, but in dealing with affairs

at a distance one has to get advice from somebody, and if a number of gentlemen of good standing and repute associate themselves together, the fact that they are called a patronage committee should not by any means lead to the conclusion that the representations they make are not fair and in the interests of the government service. My hon. friend was not as fair in the latter part of his speech as he was in the beginning or he would not have expressed the opinion that there are evils now which did not exist formerly. If we frankly admit the evils and seek to bring about a remedy, that is what the public expect and appreciate. But what I cannot understand is why my hon. friend should choose the present time for bringing forward his motion. He has given us a very interesting speech, save the small portion to which I take exception, but it does seem strange that he should feel it necessary to follow his excellent sentiments with a motion which takes the form of a motion of non-con-tidence. There is nothing in this question which should lead him to approach it with the desire of dividing the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then accept the motion.


William Stevens Fielding: The better way would be not to make it as a non-confidence motion or not make it at all, and having drawn attention to it, I trust my hon. friend will see that there is no occasion to divide the House and will withdraw it. Another reason why the time is not opportune is this: Some time ago my right hon. friend the First Minister announced the intention of the government to deal with this question of civil service reform. Last week the House was informed that a Bill would be brought before parliament dealing with the subject. On Friday last the Minister of Agriculture placed on the order paper the customary notice that a Bill would be introduced to amend the Civil Service Act, and on the order paper to-day I find Bill entitled an Act to amend the Civil Service Act standing in the name of the Minister of Agriculture. That Bill would be probably on the table to-day but for the fact that my hon. friend is necessarily absent, owing to circumstances both sides of the House deplore. What strikes me is that when a Bill is on the notice paper dealing with the whole matter in a concrete form and likely to come forward in a few days, there can be no reason why my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) should challenge discussion and divide the House on the abstract question. Having drawn attention to the matter, I certainly think no good purpose can be served by his dividing the House. Let him wait for the Bill which the government has announced, and then there will be ample time to discuss the whole question. A premature discussion now is neither desirable nor expedient.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I shall not take up much time as I have given but little attention to this question outside of observations since I have been in tbe House. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) says the patronage committee is a good thing. He defends political patronage in the selection and maintenance of civil servants. Well, in that respect he is entirely out of accord with the judgment of the Civil Service Commission which he helped to appoint to look into this question and give the House the benefit of their observations.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend is not quite accurate. What I did was give instances in which the patronage committee had nominated men to office, and I said that so long as we had no competitive examination the nominations received in that way were deserving of consideration.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman said that if somebody had to be appointed in a distant locality, how are you going to get the information you required? But it is not with regard to remote parts of the country that the patronage committees are appointed. They are at work right here in the capital, and their work is more apparent and effective to-day in Ottawa than it is in any other place in Canada. To show that the patronage committees nominated excellent men the Minister of Finance gave us some examples, and the only conclusion we can draw from his argument and his illustrations is that the patronage committee is the proper system. But that is not the judgment of the Civil Service Commission, because they say that patronage is radically wrong. My hon. friend says that this is a non-confidence motion and asks why it was moved on the motion to go into Supply. But, on similar occasions, motions of this kind have been accepted and then they become no longer motions of want of confidence. There is nothing to prevent the Minister of Finance from admitting that the principle laid down in that motion is a good one and one the government should accept. There would then be no controversy between us. The next point made by the minister was that there is a Civil Service Bill to be laid before the House in a few days, and therefore there is no necessity of dealing with the question now. Could there possibly be a better time to present all the data to the House, that the House might be in possession of all the facts? The government itself could take all this data into consideration, and even if it were necessary for them to delay their Bill for a few days in order that they might bring the measure into accordance with the best and soundest information afforded them, they could make a much better Bill and one more acceptable to parliament. Surely there could be no more opportune time to discuss this question than just before the introduction of a Civil Service Bill.

Certain facts have directed my attention to the need of civil service reform. As 1 have already said, I speak rather from information than any thing else. I have been in this House for a somewhat lengthened period and have heard of civil service reform over and over again. It is said that the opposition is always in favour of introducing civil service refoi-m and the government is always against it. I do not know whether the government's position on the question is due to the fact that it is a large question and difficult to deal with, or due to the fact that a real reform would wipe out the patronage system on which they depend for keeping in power. Whatever the cause, they do not seem to be in favour of civil service reform.
That the object proposed by this resolution is a good one must be patent to every member of the House ; it would give us a better civil service, one more useful to the country and one more independent of political parties. The establishment of the Civil Service Commission was for the very purpose of setting forth to the country what defects existed in the civil service, and the appointment of such a commission was in effect, a declaration by the government that they desired to remedy these defects. The Civil Service Commission has shown that many reforms are needed, and it is the duty of the government to take advantage of the information fuirhished by the commission. The commissioners say, among other things :
It was the universal feeling amongst the officials who gave evidence before the commissioners that this patronage evil was the curse of the public service.


William Stevens Fielding: Which report is the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) reading from?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am reading from the Civil Service Commission's Report, page 13.


William Stevens Fielding: Not the old report ? [DOT]


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The report of 1908.


William Stevens Fielding: It sounds very like the old one.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Minister of Finance rather resents the statements of the commission, judging by the arguments he has used before the House. The report proceeds :
Many of the witnesses were very frank on this subject, and the commissioners earnestly recommend that all persons who are interested in the maintenance at a high state of efficiency of the administration of the affairs of the Dominion should very carefully consider the evidence submitted on this point with this report.
Then they go on to draw attention to the fact that, though we have a civil service law, in many cases it is violated. They say
Mr. SPROULE
that in 1906, over fifty votes were put through this House containing the old stereotyped clause ' Notwithstanding any thing in the Civil Service Act.' This is an absolute violation of a principle in the Act that should be held sacred. The commissioners go on to point out that while many members of the civil service carry on their work with zeal and with scant remuneration, there are many others who give very imperfect service to the country. It is to be supposed that it is for the purpose of remedying the evils pointed out? that the government are introducing the Bill which they are about to present. Why should they object to any one giving such information as will assist them in perfecting this Bill?
One of the great existing evils is that the civil service to-day is not open to the fair competition of all. Why ? Because political pull has destroyed fair competition. The Civil Service Act of 1892 was intended for this purpose, but it has been warped from that purpose in one way and another.


William Stevens Fielding: Under the Act of 1892, was the civil service open to the competition of all ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: So far as the civil service examination was concerned, it was open to every young man and woman in the country.


William Stevens Fielding: The same is true to-day.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And that was a great step in the right direction. It made it clear that there must be a certain standard of excellence on the part of those who aspired to positions in the civil service. I frankly admit that politics entered more largely into the section from amongst those who had passed the civil service qualifying examination than ought to have been the ease, but at least the Act gave assurance that those from amongst whom the choice was to he made had certain necessary qualifications. And the promotion was to be solely on merit. Is it on merit to-day ? I am told it is not, but that political pull controls the situation.


William Stevens Fielding: There is not a shadow of evidence to support that statement.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Need I point to any other fact than the fact that the civil service has so many appointments based upon nothing but nepotism ? There are ministers and ex-ministers who have sons in the civil service who never passed the examination. And there are sons-in-law and relatives of leading men in the government party who have been put in regardless of their qualifications. Had I the time to collect them, I could give the names of dozens of such cases. Why, it is a burning scandal the way members of parliament and min-

isters have been able to get their relatives into the civil service whether they were qualified or not to the exclusion of many who were well qualified but who were without the political pull which was used to such good effect for the benefit of their rivals. It does not need a civil service commission to point this out, it is apparent to every one.
Let me point out just a few of the benefits that would accrue from an improved system if it were adopted. First and greatest would be the improvement in the civil service ; the work would be better done and at less cost. There is no doubt that there are many members of the service who give faithful and conscientious service, who do their very best. But there are others who cannot exert their best powers because they have not the necessary stimulus to their ambition. They know that, no matter what their merit, they cannot get permission without political pull. If the civil service were ruled by merit these men would be spurred on to give better service to the country. Another great advantage would be that members of parliament and the government would be relieved from very unpleasant work which now they are compelled to go through. Members waste a large portion of their time giving excuses to those for whom they cannot secure appointments in the civil service, many of whom are not qualified and should not be applicants for positions in the service. Then it would relieve members of parliament from all that, and from what I know of the feeling of the members with regard to it, in my judgment 24 out of 25 of the members of this House would gladly welcome the introduction of such a system. If they were supporters of the government they would be able to give the one answer, that they had lost the power of patronage. It would relieve them from a very onerous and a very disagreeable work. Then it would prevent the government and their supporters from the exercise of patronage in order to keep themselves in power. Why Is it that in England the governments do not live as long as they do here ? It is because they have no political patronage to exercise. In England as soon as the government begins to live it .begins to die. Byelections almost invariably go against the government, because the government has no political patronage by which to influence voters, and they cannot keep themselves in power by that means. What was it that kept Sir Oliver Mowat and G. W. Boss in power for so long a time, over 34 years ? It was the most scandalous nepotism, it was the abuse of political patronage, the worst that has taken place in any country in the world. It was not merit, not faithful service, not the administration of the government in the public interest; but it
was the power they were able to exercise over the people through political patronage, the power they had. of appointing thousands and thousands of persons to office that kept them in control of the government year after year. A reform system would make the governments more useful, and it would do away with the nepotism which is exercised by the Prime Minister, the other ministers of the Crown, and members of parliament in their desire to appoint their own relatives to office.
Then I say that all civil servants should stand on exactly the same basis as other citizens of the country. In my judgment they should be compelled to pay their debts the same, they should be compelled to pay their taxes the same, and they should be allowed to exercise their right of franchise, but not to become political partisans by going on the stump and actively supporting a political party. I think they should certainly have the right to vote. There are several other things that I would like to say, but as it is six o'clock I shall have to forbear saying them now. I agree -with every word the motion contains. It would be in the interest of the government that this motion should pass, and in my judgment the government should say : We believe in the principle enunciated in this motion, and we accept it. In that wav this motion would cease to be one of want of confidence.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 153) to incorporate the Saskatchewan Power Company-Mr. McCraney.
Mr. MeCRANEY. Since the House was last in committee on this Bill I have received a wire from the mayor of Saskatoon with respect to It. It will be remembered that the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. J. D. Reid) took some exception to the powers which were given in the Bill, especially with reference to the length of time within which the company will have to go into operation, and he suggested to me the advisability of sending a copy of the ' Hansard ' containing the discussion to the council of the city of Saskatoon. I did! that and the reply that I have is as follows:
Saskatoon, May 22, 1908.
G.	McCraney, Esq., M.P., Ottawa.
Council satisfied with Power Bill as printed, JAMBS R. WILSON,
Mayor.
Mr. W. J. ROCHE.: Has tlie lion, gentleman not received any other communication?


Mr. McCRANEY.: Prior to this time I received a wire from the mayor saying that a delegation might come to Ottawa with respect to the Bill but this was received: by me subsequently.


William James Roche: I may say that I had a communication from Saskatoon in which it was stated that the hon. member was being wired by either the mayor or the council saying they were sending a deputation of two, that they considered the Bill too sweeping in its character and that the people's interests were not sufficiently safeguarded. I understood the hon. gentleman's telegram was subsequent to the telegram he has read.


George Ewan McCraney: I did receive such a wire as the hon. member mentions, but as this wire which I have read was received subsequently I felt that it revoked* anything that the previous telegram contained.


William James Roche: You received the other telegram since the debate occurred a week ago?


George Ewan McCraney: Yes. The telegram that I have read is the last telegram I have received on the subject.


William Stevens Fielding: Does my hon. friend remember the purpose of the amendment of which I gave notice the other night?


George Ewan McCraney: I have no objection whatever to the amendment which the Finance Minister has proposed, and had the matter laid before the law clerk of the House. If it is still satisfactory to the minister I shall move it.


William Stevens Fielding: I was going to suggest the omission of the words I inserted ' agreed upon,' as the word ' appointed ' would be sufficient, that is 'at such time as the board appointed ' would be sufficient.


George Ewan McCraney: I accept that.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Bill as amended reported.
Mr. McCRANEY moved the third reading of the Bill.
Robert Laird Borden: Some inquiries were made by the hon member for Grenville (Mr. J. D. Reid) with respect to the interest of the city of Saskatoon.


Mr. LENNOX.: An explanation was made in your absence.


George Ewan McCraney: I have sent over to the non. member a copy of a telegram which I too'n reCeive<1 from the mayor of Saska-Mr. McCRANEY.


Robert Laird Borden: It is perfectly cleart then that the city council are satisfied with the Bill in its present form.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 172) to incorporate the Dominion Power Development Company.-Mr Hall.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Fielding for Committee of Supply and the proposed amendment of Mr. Foster thereto.
Mr. j. E. ARMSTRONG (East Lambton). Mr. 'Speaker, in rising to support the resolution I heartily congratulate the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) upon the a >ie manner in which he has placed his facts and figures before the House and the non-partisan way in which he has dealt with the question. We appreciate the work the lion, gentleman (Mr. Foster) did in gathering such valuable information, and I hope that every member of this House agrees with him that civil service appointments should be filled only on account of merit and after proper examination. The words of Gladstone, quoted by the hon. gentleman, ought to be convincing, and ought to teach us that we should no longer continue in our present slipshod and haphazard manner of conducting the affairs of the country. The hon. gentleman referred to the superannuation system and the necessity of making it part of our civil service-law. The patronage system has been one of the greatest curses to the civil service, and the sooner it is done away with the better for the country at large. The report of the Civil Service Commission has distinctly laid it down that improvement must be along the lines of securing better examinations and granting greater powers in dealing with the civil service. The report of that commission confirms the view of the member for North Toronto that partisan favouritism and puli are largely the cause of the irregularities which have occurred in the civil service. The money which this Dominion receives from the people of Canada is largely expended through the instrumentality of the civil service and hence the necessity for an honest and competent staff in every public department. 1 regret that the Minister of Finance was rather inclined to introduce party politics into the discussion. It may be true, as he said that the evils in the civil service are not peculiar to the present administration, but if he compares the report of the Civil Service Commission of 1892 with the report of the last Civil Service Commission, I am sure the comparison will not be satisfactory to him. On the very first page of the last Civil Service Commissioner's report I find :

The commissioners report that in the short and possibly inadequate feme 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 11 the commissioners state :
The commissioners also heg to point out that besides a certificate of good health no person should he admitted to examinations unless his character is such as to qualify him for employment in the service. As only one certificate as regards moral character is required by the Board of Civil Service Examiners it is quite within the bounds of possibility that there may be collusion between the candidate and the giver of the certificate.
On page 13 the commissioners make use of this strong language :
Prom 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.
Suffice it to say that the strongest possible condemnation of tbe_ present administration of the civil service of Canada can be founu within the pages of this report. As representatives of the people we cannot too soon provide a remedy for the evils therein pointed out. We need not only a strict civil service law but we need a civil service commission of independent men who will not only look after the interests of the civil service hut the interests of every department of government as well. We need a purchasing board ; a board not composed of party politicians who will purchase supplies for the government under the wretched patronage system that has prevailed for the last number of years, but of men who in purchasing these supplies will always keep in mind the best interests of the people of the whole Dominion who contribute the money. The resolution before tbe House deserves our enthusiastic support. It is universally admitted that those who were leaders of the country in the earlier years had not to contend with many of the evils of the present day. Corruption now seems to be an element in the daily administration of our affairs. Partisan tyranny and debasement, the outgrowth of contention for patronage, office and power, were almost unknown in years gone by, whereas to-day they run riot throughout tbe land.
['I have the honour to inform the House that I have received from Armand Lavergne, Esq., his resignation as member for the electoral district of Mont-magny, and that I have issued my warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to make out a new writ of election for the said electoral district.']
Mr. JOHNSTON.: Why do you not read the civil service report ?


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: Does the hon. gentleman wish me to read more from that report ?


Alexander Johnston: Certainly, and wake up.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I shall he able to accommodate the hon. gentleman in that regard before I have concluded my remarks. The patronage system is now recognized as a great problem in our public affairs, and I believe the Prime Minister recognizes that fact. There is not a minister administering a department who does not recognize that to the patronage system, and to party interests he has to devote a large part of the valuable time which under good government should be devoted to the interests of the country. Pew thoughtful men are so blind as not to see that a great reform is essential to prevent a great national calamity. Older nations have found that good methods, clean administration, honest, wise, prudent, faithful, men of worth and capacity in the civil service, demand the serious attention of their legislators. Intrigues, bribery and want of principle hung over the administration of public affairs in Great Britain and the United States before the introduction of radical civil service reform. In a young country such as ours abuses will naturally grow as our wealth accumulates, our population increases and the duties and responsibilities of public men multiply.
Therefore it is our bounden duty as members of parliament to put on the statute-book a civil service reform law that will be of benefit to our people and our public men, who to-day, from the Prime Minister down to the latest addition on the government side, squander much of their time in looking after the political aspirants in their constituencies instead of devoting their efforts to the public good. The people of Canada have little to say in running this country. The Prime Minister has more power than a king. He appoints the men in his cabinet. They in turn appoint civil servants. He appoints members to the bench. He appoints commissioners and representatives in foreign lands. He appoints members of parliament to positions of emolument. He appoints men to the Senate. He appoints lieutenant governors and is credited with appointing premiers in some of the provinces. Members and ministers under him in many instances are afraid to assert their rights for fear of losing patronage in their ridings and their positions as members of parliament. While reforms have been carried on in other lands, we in Canada have continued our careless and almost reckless policy. I firmly believe that the day is not far distant when a radical change must take place. These abuses must be removed. The man who says no is not acquainted with the proper meaning of our constitution or the kind of people who compose our nation. We as a country must realize that peace, prosperity and the general advancement of our interests de-

pend not only on the men in high places, but on the fidelity and ability of those in the public service, down to the very lowest. We must not let prejudice or partisan interests stand in the way of improvements to our civil service. Let us make searching investigation into every department, and obtain information from other countries so that we may have the best system available, and do it now. The surest way to correct abuses is to investigate and expose them. No business man can carry on a successful, business with loose methods and careless administration such as has been exposed in the departments of this government. Prussia set an example by investigating her civil service in 1815. France followed in 1830. Great Britain made a thorough investigation of the civil service in 1854. The United States made a thorough investigation in 1879 and since that.time, but Canada in 1908 is still following the abandoned principles of the 18th century. During the last three quarters of a century a complete revolution has taken place in the civil service of other countries. Rigorous and impartial rests of qualifications have been applied to civil servants and where formerly incompetency, routine and peculation were uppermost, efficiency and fidelity have taken their place. The prosperity and development of -Canada will largely depend on our civil servants, for they materially assist in developing our resources and by public economy and good judgment husband our strength. The civil servants should not be instruments to serve the ends of any political party. It should be our pride and ambition to make the standard of our civil servants so high that each department could be pointed to as conducted and carried on by servants of superior character and capacity. The conduct of the civil service in Great Britain at the time of the war with the United States is largely blamed for the loss of the country to the south of us. If the United States could take out of the quagmire of corrupt poltical influence, the civil service of that country, and place it where it is to-day, surely we with our small population, are not going to say that we are helpless to deal with this question. When you see prominent politicians of both parties fti the United States favouring advanced legislation in regard to the civil service, when you see the presidents one after another promoting civil service reform, and vieing with each other to carry it forward, and when you find that under the present civil service system the people of the United States are able to save on the average $10,000,000 a year, we in Canada should at least take into consideration whether it is not possible for us to remedy the defects that exist in our civil service system. Public administration in Great Britain is reduced to a science, having its principles, methods, theories, tests of character and capacity, along with responsibilities, so Mr. ARMSTRONG.
arranged that the officer dare not depart from these principles. The abuses we have in Canada to-day were endured half a century ago by other nations and the arguments used by this government were used then in defence of similar abuses. The most important lessons -a nation can learn from its own history are to be found in the exposure of its own errors. Surely we have had sufficient historical facts dealing with the careless conduct of our civil servants to warrant a progressive step towards reform. No excuse can be offered why the basis of our civil service should not have as high a position as that of any other nation. If we think our methods perfect and allow false pride and conceit to stand between our duty, and self inspection, we shall continue to Ije blind to the peril of a decline in the moral and intellectual tone of our official life. If partisan leaders, and political majorities are to be the domineering spirit of our national life, then will the voice of truth be silenced and our nation drift on to a day when there will be a national awakening, and our people rise to curse the men who for party gain who were afraid to undertake a reform that woulil elevate our people and place us in the front rank of the nations of the world on this important subject. Look at our position from an outsider's standpoint and compare our advances in civil service reform with those other nations, and we will feel humiliated.
The hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) tried to show this afternoon that the civil service of to-day was fully up to the standard of 1892. But let him take the civil service report of 1892 and compare it with the last report and he cannot help being convinced that the standard of the service, as a whole, is not an enviable one and that instead of the service growing better from year to year it is being undermined by the party system of patronage and is growing worse.
In 1825 public offices in Great Britain were purchasable like merchandise in the markets, also offices in the army, state and church. This practice was stopped in 1871. Read the history of the civil service Reforms in Great Britain, it is a history of struggles to gain positions they hold today. From 1834 to 1868 both parties seem to think that a strictly partisan system of administration was no longer practical and from) that day it was doomed, and any party trying to resurrect it would court defeat.
Why cannot we, as two great political parties, deal with this question on its merits and deal with it quickly? Are our offices public trust for the common good or are they partisan outposts for the special benefit of those who can capture them? I gee before me the ex-Minister of Railways (Mr. Emmerson) and I well remember when a few years he practically defined his position as minister by stating that in the appointment of any man on the Intercolonial Rail-

way, even down to the very navvies, he would take into consideration the interests, of his party and not the welfare of the country. Surely we cannot expect from the civil service the best return if we allow party system to be carried on in the way I have pointed out.
Should parties seek the approval of the people by their strength of a sound policy and principles, or should they seek it through patronage and manipulation of elections? Should members of parliament grasp all the patronage possible and use it to discharge election pledges or partisan spoils and political intrigue? Should members come here free from these incumbrances and devote their energies to promote the welfare of the Dominion pr should they come merely to look after the patronage in their riding? These are questions we should deal with. We are not living in the 17th century, neglecting to educate our people and denying them the right to vote. We are in the blaze of public opinion; we are public servants of a reading, writing, thinking people who do not say to their members: Go to Ottawa and devote your time and talents towards planning and scheming to get your friends into office whether they are competent or not. They do say : Devote your time and talents towards improving legislation ; see that the money is properly expended, that our people are not over-taxed, and that the civil servants are doing their duty. If appointments were to be increased in Canada one hundred fold, is it not clear that party struggles would be still more bitter and politics more corrupt than they are to-day? Is it not wise, therefore, that we should consider the question at present and deal with it effectively? Should we not make a determined effort to rid the politics of this country of the patronage system and clear the civil service of this dead weight on its efficiency? Were we to do this, not only would members on the government side be greatly benefited, but the ministers would have more time to devote to the public interest. For every person or faction conciliated by an appointment there are generally speaking many offended who sought the appointment. Any party relying on patronage and spoils and not on the basis of principle and good administration is not worthy of the confidence of our people and must suffer defeat. The duty of a member of parliament is plain; he should have a constant regard for the old laws of the land, and also see the need of new ones for the common welfare of the people.
This resolution may appear to the government side a new and radical step towards civil service reform, but I feel satisfied that if we should take that step, the duties of the Public Accounts Committee would be to a considerable extent done away with, because there would no longer
be abuses in the departments of this government, the exposures of which have taken up so much of the time of that committee. Instead of the members of the government devoting their independence, dignity, time and talents to their duties as representatives of the people and parliamentarians, we find them in many instances devoting them to party patronage and becoming really patronage brokers. They go from office to office, begging or bullying. To-day it is one thing, to-morrow another. To make a place to-day perhaps for a needy dependent or perhaps an unscrupulous supporter seems to be their chief duty in public life. Departments are beseiged and the time of the officials wasted, while if we had civil service reform that would be largely done away with.


Alexander Johnston: You should stop it.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: My hon. friend is not one of the men who want to stop things of that kind. He is one of the men who believes in opening the door to the grafters and boodlers and heelers. He is the very man who can stand up in the Public Accounts Committee and defend the civil servants of this country in not furnishing the people with the information they should. There is no man more ready and willing to defend this government in its nefarious transactions than the hon. gentleman. I am not, therefore, surprised to see him averse to taking any part in considering a resolution of this kind which is for the general benefit of our people.
As members of parliament they hold the pistol of their prestige at the heads of departments, and the result in many cases is to force into the public service such of their relations or friends to become a drain on the treasury for the rest of their lives. Were such officials compelled to undergo a preliminary examination, conducted by an independent and competent board of examiners, this could not happen.


Mr. EMMERSON.: From whom is my hon. friend (Mr. Armstrong) quoting ?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I am quoting from my own knowledge of what is going on in the departments of this government. And, as the ex-Minister of Railways (Mr. Em-merson) well knows, a large portion of his own time, when in office, was taken up with men who were begging and bullying him for appointments on the Intercolonial. He knows that the time of members on his side was largely taken up with this patronage system.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am afraid the hon. gentleman is drawing on his imagination.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I am not ; I am drawing on the actual experience of the ex-Minister of Railways himself. He knows that he felt compelled to defend in this

House the system of appointing none but politicians to positions on the Intercolonial. He knows that, never during the time that he was in charge of that railway, did he ever appoint any hut partisans to positions in that service. And when we find ministers of the Crown ready to defend the system of party spoil and party pull, we cannot expect from them a Civil Service Bill that will institute reforms of great benefit to the people.
Members having this power make promises for votes and the results are fre

 quently disastrous. Official life is lowered and manv of our best men do not offer themselves for parliamentary honours, owing to the results that inevitably follow. Patronage distribution by members tends to bring the public service into disrepute and has a tendency to convert public officers into active politicians.


Mr. TALBOT.: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I draw your attention to the fact that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Armstrong) is reading his speech.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Of course, the rule is plain ; an hon. member is not permitted to read his speech.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The statements 1 have made within the last five minutes have been mainly dealing with the exMinister of Railways and others on the government side of the House. I have a number of notes to which I wish to refer, and I think it is for the general good that they should be placed before the House. X am surprised that the ex-Minister of Railways (Mr. Emmerson) should take such a decided stand in this regard. Perhaps he will allow me to read the words of the Earl of Duft'erin on the civil service. In a speech delivered in Toronto, he dealt with the civil service. He said :
But, after .all, the chief danger against which you have to guard is that which concerns the civil service of the country. Now, the civil service of the country, though not the animating spirit, is the living mechanism through which the body politic moves, and breathes and has its being. Upon it depends the rapid and economical conduct of every branch of your affairs; and there is nothing about which a nation should be so particular as to secure in such a service, independence, zeal, patriotism and integrity.
Perhaps, the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Talbot) might take note of these remarks of the Earl of Dufferin.
But, in order that this should be the case, it is necessary that the civil servants should be given a status regulated by their requirements, their personal qualifications, their capacity for rendering the country efficient service, and that neither their original appointment nor their subsequent advance should in any way depend upon their political connections or opinions.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: 


Mr.   BREEDING@: Would the hou. gentleman give us the date of that speech ?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The date was September 24, 1878.


William Stevens Fielding: Just the time the Conservatives came into power ; and to the day they went out of power they did not introduce any reform Bill.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: That is a very broad statement for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) to make. He knows that he has before him the Civil Service Bill of 1892. He held it up before us this afternoon.


William Stevens Fielding: I did not produce a Bill of 1892 ; it was the report of that year. The Civil Service Act had been in force for many years and had been amended from time to time.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: We will say, then, that the minister held up the Civil Service Report of 1892, and threatened this side that if we tried to show that the civil service at the present time was not up to the high standard he would like to lead the people to believe it to be he would quote from this report. But if the hon. gentleman will allow us to quote extensively from the recent report of the commissioners, we will show that, so far as the civil service is concerned it is degenerating rather than improving, and so far as the Earl of Duf-ferin was concerned, he was not finding fault with the civil service as it was in 1878. Lord Dufferin went on :
If you take my advice, you will never allow your civil service to be degraded into an instrument to subserve the ends and interests of any political party. The success of a political party ought to depend upon its public policy and the ability of its chief, and not upon the advantage likely to accrue to its individual adherents. In fact, the more the area of personal profit consequent upon a change of government is limited, the better for the country at large. On the other hand, the independence thus conceded to the members of the civil service imposes upon them a special obligation, namely, that they should serve their successive chiefs-no matter to which side they may belong-with a -scrupulously impartial zeal and loyalty. There is no offence which should be visited with swifter or more condign punishment than any failure in this respect. A civil servant who allows his political sympathies to damp his ardour, devotion, zeal and loyalty to his departmental chiefs is a disgrace to his profession.
These are strong words from the Earl of Dufferin. When we find men attempting, as some are, to burk inquiry into the civil service, we cannot but feel that the time has come when civil service reform becomes imperative.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention, once more, to the fact that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Armstrong) is reading his speech.	,


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: And I wish to call the attention of the hon. gentleman to a letter in my possession which will show that the patronage system is carried to its utmost, is carried on in most reckless fashion under the present government. I am sorry the hon. member for Halifax is not in his seat, because 1 have a letter here, and printed on top of it are the words ' M. Carney & Co., Halifax, N.S., February 19, 1906.'
Gordon Farnell, Esq.,
Dear Sir,-Your letter received. We recommend you to tender $1 below what Stewart has the contract for. We think he will be as high as before, maybe higher. Get the contract. Afterwards it may be in order to get more.
We are, dear sir,
Your obedient servants,



[Stage Direction]
This goes to show the extent to which the patronage system is carried in Canada. When we see the present system carried to this extent it is high time that we should put forth our best energies to see that a civil service reform Bill is placed before this parliament with the least possible delay. There is not a doubt in my mind that as the Minister of Finance says that the ministers are responsible for what occurs in their departments, he will say that the Postmaster General is responsible for the letter that was printed by these men, possibly down in Halifax.
William Stevens Fielding: Certainly I say that the Postmaster General is not responsible for a letter which is not written by him, or by any of his officers.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I thought I understood the Finance Minister before dinner to say that the Postmaster General was responsible for the party patronage, and that the patronage committee were practically the source from which he gets his information. If this is a sample of the patronage committee that they have in the city of Halifax, and the way they are distributing the patronage in the different departments of this country, it is high time some investigation was made in regard to that system.


William Stevens Fielding: There is no reference there to the patronage committee, as the hon. gentleman quoted the letter. I did not hear anything in it about the patronage committee. I heard that the representatives from Halifax advised a man to tender low. There was nothing wrong in that. He said they might afterwards be able to get some more. I do not say that that was right, but the Postmaster General is not responsible for that. If the hon. gentleman can say that the contractor got anything more improperly, the Postmaster General would be answerable.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: It is not wrong for a man to say that he would likely get more, and to tender $1 below the other man?


William Stevens Fielding: Not $1 below' the other man, but $1 below the existing contract price. That would be a perfectly legitimate advice to give, with the expectation of getting more. I wTould not write such a letter. Although I do not think any harm came of it, the Postmaster General could only be held responsible if he gave more.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I think I should read this letter again so that the Finance Minister may understand it fully.
Gordon Farnell, Esq.
Dear Sir,-We recommend you to tender $1 below what Stewart has the contract for. We think he will be as high as before, maybe higher. Get the contract. Afterwards-
This is the nice point.
-afterwards it unay be in order to get more.
We are, dear sir,
Your obedient servants,



Mr. FOWLER.: Who are they ?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I understand they are the members for Halifax.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Did they get more?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I have not investigated that, perhaps the ex-Minister of Railways will look into the question for us and see if they did get more.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I would take your word for it.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: It seems strange that they would make this promise that he should get more, if they did uot see that he did get more. However, I can only say that I strongly support the position taken by the hon. member for North Toronto. I think that members of parliament on both sides of the House are desirous of seeing a civil service reform Bill brought down that will not only be of benefit to the civil servants who are doing their duty in carrying out their contracts in a proper manner, but that will fill the public offices by men who are worthy of the position, and who will faithfully protect the public interest. Every dollar that these men are distributing through Canada belongs to the people of Canada, it does not belong to any government. Therefore I say that we should have the very best civil servants that this country can produce. I hope the resolution which is now before the House will obtain the support of members on both sides of the House.


Henry Robert Emmerson: If what has been read by my hon. friend (Mr. Armstrong) who has just taken his seat, is to be considered as orthodox,

while the platitudes he has expressed are of a very high altitude, I fear that I cannot be considered entirely orthodox. I think the same evil arises in politics that frequently arises in religions, because hypocrisy pervades every class of politician, as it pervades many of the religious classes in this world. Now, sir, it seems to me that we are dealing with a question of civil service reform. My hon. friend from Lambr ton closed his speech with a reference to the distribution of patronage. I understand civil service reform and patronage to be two entirely separate questions. It may be true that there are evils in connection with the civil service, it may be true that occasionally men who are not qualified are appointed to public offices. If that is true today, it has been true in Canada for the last 25 or 30 years, even before that time. But I think it can be fairly said in respect to the public service of Canada, that in the main it is filled by men of high character, men well qualified to fill the positions to which they are called, whether you refer to the inside or to the outside service. While it may be fashionable in a sense to declaim against this so-called evil, imaginary in the main, and while this criticism may be indulged in in a stereotyped way, yet to look at the question fairly from a practical standpoint, is there a man in this House or out of it who can say that the evil, in so far as it is an evil, would not exist after the institution of competitive examinations? I do not oppose that principle but in my judgment it will not cure the difficulty. There is influence and influence. Political influence is not the only influence that is exercised in connection with the appointment of men to office, and when we talk about competitive examinations, it seems to me that we do not reflect as to what those examinations are. I heard a reflection with respect to the appointment of postmasters, because, forsooth, they had not been called upon to pass an examination. What is the nature of an examination ? The young man from school is fitted perhaps to pass that examination, but I venture to say that if the members of this House were called upon to pass it, to answer the questions asked, nine-tenths of them could not do so, as they are so far removed from their school days. Would it be claimed that because they could not pass those examinations they are not fitted to fill positions such as that of postmaster ? My own experience and observation with respect to the civil service at Ottawa and elsewhere is that the young man who has been forced to work his way, who has been schooled by experience, who has had to battle with the ups and downs of life, and who seeks and secures a position in one of these departments is the man who in nine cases out of ten will fill the position with greater credit to himself and with Mr. EMMERSON.
greater satisfaction to the country than the university student who steps out from his college halls and can pass the examination. Can it be said that the answering of certain examination questions is a thorough test? Does it indicate qualifications of capacity, originality and initiative? The best civil servant is the man who has originality of thought, who can initiate an idea and carry it into execution, not the man whose memory is the best and who can answer questions, geographical, historical, mathematical or otherwise. Any hon. member who reflects will realize that it is not the man who graduates from college at the head of the honour class who makes the successful business man or the successful man in the real conflict of life. Very often the man who does not succeed in those examinations is, from a practical standpoint, the best man and scores the highest successes in the battle of life. So I hold that the competitive examination will not cure these evils.
There are influences apart from political influences. My hon. friend referred to my experience in connection with the Intercolonial and the Department of Railways and Canals. I can say in all honesty and seriousness that men were appointed and are being appointed to-day in connection with that railway because of their qualifications, because of their fitness. I will admit and I have admitted on the floor of this House that under existing conditions of party government in this country I, as a man, if it came to a question of selection between a political friend and a political opponent, other things being equal, would favour the political friend. Why? For the simple reason that I want a man who will work in concert and in sympathy with me. There is political influence in the service but it is not always political influence favourable to the party in power. There is as much political influence in the civil service in the departments at Ottawa to-day in favour of hon. friends opposite as there is against them. It will be admitted that such influence does not prevail on either side to any great extent, but in so far as civil servants indulge in their political convictions, in so far as they may be led to favour this or that side, the evil does not exist against the Conservative party to a greater extent than it does against the Liberal party. If our hon. friends opposite will but admit it, they know that they have as many friends politically in the civil service, not only at Ottawa but throughout the country, as have the Liberals. I am not confining my remarks to the inside civil service. I refer to the outside service as well. As to the Intercolonial, and I know the men of the Intercolonial as well as any man in Canada, there are more men in the service of that railway whose political prejudices are against the Liberal government than there are men politically in favour of it. Hon. friends opposite know it, and any one from

New Brunswick or who has knowledge of those employees will admit that to be the condition in that province and from end to end of the Intercolonial Railway.
My hon. friend from Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) assumed a very high altitude and delivered an essay very well in its way but certainly not practical. The essay was pleasant to listen to as he read it, but, Sir, we are dealing with practical things. During my political experience I have often listened to those who have favoured legislation with a view to reforming human nature. My experience has been that this cannot be done by legislative enactment, and I believe that if you base all your hopes upon making human nature different from what it is, from what you find it, by an attempt at legislation, failure will be written in large letters wherever that attempt is made.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: How is it that other countries are able to accomplish these things ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Other countries have not accomplished it. My hon. friend has referred to Great Britain and they have had civil service reform in Great Britain, but go to the departments of the public service there and see if you can find the evidence of it. Do the English civil servants who come to this country stand any higher in intellect, in capacity, in common sense, in initiative than our civil servants do ? I appeal to any one who has experience in this respect to say if he thinks the introduction of what is called civil service reform in Canada would bring the benefits which the hon. gentleman has dwelt on. I have some experience of the administration of affairs both federal and state in the United states and I can say that my experience is that the standard of the civil service in the United 'States is not as high as is the standard of the Canadian civil service. I say that the officials in the outside and inside service of Canada will more than favourably compare with similar officials in Great Britain or in the United States. It is true there has been a real attempt on the part of all governments to live up to our Civil Service Act, but it is also true that there has been failure and I will not agree that such failure has been a disaster to the counti'y. The success of the civil service in my opinion lies more in the common sense that is exercised in the selection of individuals to fill positions than it does in the administration of the Civil Service Act. I see gentlemen sitting on the opposite benches who I believe could not pass the civil service examination, but am I to be told that because of that they are not fitted to be post-masters or officers of the excise, or officers of the customs, or to fill various positions in the public service ? Is it to be said that a man who has had experience in the public affairs of this country, a man who knows the working of our constitutional system and a man who has knowledge of our business life is not fitted to fill a position of trust and responsibility simply because he cannot answer certain questions in mathematics or give the dates of historical happenings ? I fear we are carrying this idea too far. My hon. friend (Mr. Armstrong) told us that time and again during political contests, presidents of the United States have advocated civil service reform. That is a high sounding phrase and we have heard of it in this country as well as in the United States. I hold that men should be qualified for the offices to which they are appointed, but I also hold that the test of qualification is not to be found in an examination on set questions any more than is the capacity of a man who comes out of college to be measured by the examinations which he has successfully passed even if he be in the honour class. The school of experience best fits men for positions of trust and responsibility. When my hon. friend (Mr. Armstrong) spoke of the want of probity that has been found here and there among the thousands of civil servants, does he think that lack of probity would be removed by an educational test or a competitive examination ? Training and environment may be taken into consideration, but the answers a man may give to set questions on an examination paper will not alone qualify him from the standpoint of integrity and probity to fill a public position. Among the thousands of the employees of the government how few there are who fall in the way of temptation. Take the history of Canada since confederation, go into the postal service, the excise service, the customs service, go into every service of the government and see how few have fallen. The hon. gentleman spoke of the temptation that arises in connection with the distribution of patronage and incidentally he referred to the desix-e of men to get all they can from the government. That in a measure is true but after all it is human nature, and it is not alone in the political arena that such weakness is to be found. In the management of our charitable organizations, in the management of our church organizations if you like, human nature will be found to be equally weak. It is my opinion that the cant and hypocrisy that is indulged in in connection with this question is calculated to mislead the people of this country as to the practical working of our governmental system. As between the two great parties in Canada it would seem to me that honours are about easy in the sinning in connection with civil service appointments. During the eighteen years that hon. gentlemen opposite were in power I had an opportunity of observing their methods, and I can truly say they ignored all these principles which they now advocate for the civil service. My hon. friend from North Toronto has joined the army of latter day saints but he was a member of a government
91S3

*whose methods were not above reproach. When the Conservatives came to power in 1878 they dismissed nearly 500 employees from the Intercolonial, and they replaced them next day with their own partisans. Even a Civil Service Act would not have prevented these gentlemen from pursuing that course.
Take the men who were high in office in the Intercolonial in 1878. There was Air. Brydges, one of the most competent railway men who has ever been on this continent, and certainly one of the most efficient who has ever had a home in Canada. I will not say that he had to walk the plank; perhaps that is not a high sounding phrase; but his services were dispensed with. Hr. Lut-trel, who came from Ontario and went to the maritime provinces, was a railway man of capacity and efficiency, and he too was told that his services were no longer required. One after another of those in the employ of the Intercolonial at that time were obliged to step down and out, and their places were filled by partisan friends of lion, gentlemen opposite, and they continued for eighteen years to hold those positions. And where to-day are the men whom hon. gentleman opposite appointed in 1878? They are holding high positions in the railway service of Canada. The manager who was there when this government came into power in 1898 is there to-day, and almost every head official, every one who could give effect to his political prejudices quietly is allowed to remain. Would it have been any better if these men had been under a Civil Service Act? Does my hon. friend from Lambton propose to work out a system of civil service reform by which every official and employee of the Intercolonial shall be called on to pass a certain educational examination? Are they to be put through their p's and q's? Is it to be determined whether they -will properly dot their i's or cross their t's? There is an educational system on the Intercolonial. The men employed in the various branches of the service where technical skill is required have to pass examinations; the men who run the trains, the engineers, the firemen, the brakemen, the conductors, even the switchmen, are all required to submit to certain educational and other tests, physical as well as intellectual. My hon. friend, in the remarks which he chose to address to my humble self in reference to the period when I had the honour of presiding over the Department of Railways and Canals, said there were hundreds of partisans appointed to the Intercolonial Railway service without regard to fitness or qualification.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Oh, no.


Henry Robert Emmerson: If my hon. friend's remarks meant anything, they certainly meant that, because my hon. friend was making an argument in favour of the sub-Mr. EMMERSON.
mission of a civil service that would require these men to pass a civil service examination. I then innocently, and I thought mildly, suggested to my hon. friend that he was speaking without any knowledge of the facts-that he was simply drawing on his imagination; and I want to tell him that if he will better acquaint himself with the conditions that have prevailed on that railway for a number of years past, he will find that qualifications are the first essential when men are appointed to positions on the Intercolonial Railway. In what way would civil service reform affect conditions on the Intercolonial ? My hon. friend called attention to the examinations that have been held in the Public Accounts Committee, and there again he drew upon his imagination. Would the hon. gentleman have a civil service reform Act that would, include the foreman of dredge scows, or the inspectors and foremen appointed from one end of the Dominion to the other? Many of these men are employed temporarily. Many, it is true, are permanent; but they are continued as permanent in the departments because of their efficiency. If any one will speak from a knowledge of what is transpiring daily in the departments in Ottawa, and will tell the truth and the whole truth, he will be forced to admit this. I can speak with some knowledge in respect of the Department of Railways and Canals, and I want to say that in the main and on the average the employees in that department will compare favourably with those of any department of government in Canada or the United States. And with regard to the men on the Intercolonial Railway-I am referring now to the great army of employees who are entrusted with the management of our trains-our telegraphers, our conductors, our brakesmen, our locomotive engineers, our firemen, even the men who are entrusted with the duty of looking after the track, the section foremen and the section men-they are men who will compare favourably with the same number and the same class of men connected with any railway on this continent; and it seems to me that when hon. gentlemen seek to condemn and criticise in a sweeping manner the employees of the government, no matter-under what conditions they are serving the interests of this country, they are creating an impression that is false and should not go abroad. I referred a moment ago to the English civil service. I do not wish to condemn sweepingly the men who fill positions there: but I will say this, that from the opportunities for observation which have been mine, they do not stand higher, either in point of intellect, capacity or integrity. than men to be found among the same classes in Canada. I would illustrate it in this way. It is true that when we sent to South Africa the best of our brawn, we sent men who had not in many instances been trained in the colleges, who

had not even been trained in respect toj military edication. But when Paardeberg, occurred, who were the men who distinguished themselves? Were they the trained men who had been disciplined under the rules of the British military service or were they Canadians who had originality of thought, who initiated ideas, who could exercise the eye and the brain and the hand? That was the class of men who made the British arms victorious at Paardeberg. You can carry that illustration into this question and compare the civil service of Canada with that of Great Britain in the same way. Many of our civil servants have not been trained in university halls, but they have been trained in a harder and better school. Many of them had to start out from the farm and work very hard, and what schooling they could secure they got at the night school. They worked all day in order to take advantage of that night school. Today these men are the equals of any to be found in the civil service of the United States or Great Britain.
It seems to me that in uttering these sincere convictions, 'while I am not orthodox, while I am not indulging in the cant and hypocrisy apparently too prevalent throughout this aDd other lands-in uttering these sincere convictions I am but doing justice to the practical conditions which prevail in this country. My hon. friend from Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) read to us a lesson with respect to our duties as representatives of the people. Well, it occurs to me that our highest duty is to study the conditions in the country and provide for those conditions. I am not averse to a Civil Service Act, but if the key note of that Act is to be the passing of certain educational tests, which are simply a test of memory-if that is to be the standard, and that alone, then I shall not favour any such legislation, whether it comes from this or any other government. We should apply common sense to this question, and I think I can say this on behalf of those who have been charged with the responsibility of administering government departments from confederation down that- in so far as I have had personal knowledge of or acquaintance with the gentlemen who have held positions in successive governments-they applied in the main the proper and the best test when making appointments-and that is seeking a knowledge of the capacity and breadth and ability and integrity of the men who were looking for office. My hon. friend very much mistakes the routine of the lives of ministers if he thinks their time is taken up in selecting men for positions.
Some reference was made to the patronage committee. I rather like the term. I want to say in all frankness that I have in every section of the riding I have the honour to represent a patronage committee from whom I ask opinions, and when cer-292
tain positions are to be filled, I write to these men-who are men of capacity and integrity and I know will not mislead me-* and ask them about the capacity, qualifications and character of the applicants and their political proclivities as well. Because wherever responsibility is thrust on me, if I can get the necessary qualifications within the ranks of my own party I shall do it. And there is not an hon. member opposite who, if he is true to himself, will not say the same thing. They did it when they had office, and if this country should ever lie under the misfortune of being misgoverned by them, they will continue to do it. Let us be honest about these things. Let us not endeavour to deceive ourselves. We are certainly not deceiving the people. And in doing that, we are meeting the views of the great masses of the people throughout Canada. Why, it is an outgrowth of party government. The same thing occurs in Great Britain and the United States despite their Civil Service Acts, and in making these remarks I am not in any way reflecting upon these high and moral reflections of the Pecksnifflau type or these flights into a higher atmosphere attempted by our hon. friends.


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD.: Higher criticism.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, this species of higher criticism indulged In by hon. gentlemen opposite, but never put into practice when they had the opportunity.
There is one thing I want to say before sitting down, and that is with reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Lamb-ton (Mr. Armstrong) regarding political influence in connection with the Intercolonial Railway. I have said before, and I repeat, that there are influences not always political but which move the great railway system of Canada and the United States. These influences are just as baneful if political influence is baneful-as the small amount of political influence exercised or attempted to be exercised in connection with the government railway system of Canada. I have said that political influence, in so far as it is exercised, is most Insignificant as compared with the community of influence which is exercised through the boards of trade, and the latter will be admitted as not political in its character. The Canadian Pacific Railway, the Grand Trunk Railway, the Canadian Northern and the other great railway systems of Canada are moved by influences which you may not term political, but which are to be found in all the avenues of our business life, our social life and our church life. All these influences must be recognized. They are to be found in the church synods, in the conferences, in the associations, in the conventions. And they are an incident of human nature. No Civil Service Act will remove them from being exercised, nor will



It change the human nature which is necessarily a part of our system.
It seems to me that this amendment might very properly have been dealt with on another occasion, and might better have come up in another form. Certainly, no good can result from it, for, while it speaks of the principle, it does not show in concrete form how that principle is to be applied, the details worked out in practice, or the abuses which are complained of remedied. When the Bill of which the government has given notice is placed before us it will be well for us to discuss its details, for we can see whether it is far-reaching or limited. But, holding the convictions I do, and holding them sincerely as I do, I could not refrain from giving utterance to them. I want the country, if I am wrong, to know that I am wrong. I want the country to know just where I stand in this matter, and I am not ashamed of the position I take in reference to it.


George William Fowler: Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt the country is intensely interested, X have no doubt it is waiting and watching with bated breath to know just the position the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) takes upon this important question. I am glad the hon. gentleman has at last taken the country into his confidence and told them what his position is. And I must congratulate him upon having proven to his own satisfaction, and, I think I may say, to that of the hon. gentleman beside him -judging from the applause with which his remarks were received-that education is a serious handicap to any gentleman who enters the civil service of this country. The hon. gentleman said in so many words that to be an honor graduate of a university absolutely and utterly unfitted a man fox-occupying a position in the civil service ; that the less he knew the better he was qualified for the position.


Henry Robert Emmerson: If my hon. friend will allow me, I made no such statement, nor did I use any language from which such an opinion could fairly or properly be inferred.
I was pointing out that educational qualifications or the examination by which they were proven were not the sole test.


George William Fowler: With the hon. gentleman's usual misfortune, he has been unable to make clear to the members of this House just what he did mean, for, taking his words as they were uttered, and reasoning logically from the statement no other conclusion could be reached than that education was a real handicap to a man


William Paterson: No, no.


George William Fowler: The Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) does not agree with that. And yet that hon. gentleman pounded his desk when the hon. member for Westmore-Mr. EMMERSON.
land made that statement. I assumed that that statement struck a responsive choi'd in the heart and intellect of the Minister of Customs.


William Paterson: He did not say that.


George William Fowler: That is exactly what the hon. gentleman did say, and ' Hansard ' will prove it to-morrow. I cannot agree with the hon. gentleman on that point. I will admit this-that a man may be a graduate of a university, and still be a fool, if you will. The bare fact that he has a diploma from the univei-sity does not confer common sense upon him, and without common sense no man can be successful in any walk of life. But, to say that education is not necessary and to say that we should do away with all educational tests, is, to my mind, to utter an absolute absurdity. Why, my hon. friend from Westmoreland would turn back the clock altogether. Why are we in this country spending tremendous sums of money to endow our educational institutions if education is a handicap and if in any walk of life the less education a man has the better he is fitted for almost any position he may fill ? The hon. gentleman would have us conclude that the most successful members of our civil sei-vice, the gentlemen who gender the best return to the country for the salaries given them, are men who have least education. He would do away with educational tests altogether. Why ? Because, as he tells us, they are only a test of memory and therefore worthless. Would he have members of the civil service .without memory ? Is it not an advantage to a man in the service that he should have a good memory ? The hon. gentleman does not undex-stand, apparently, the accepted idea of the uses of education. He seems to think that education means simply a jumble of dates, mathematics and that sort of thing. He forgets that the idea of education is the-training of the intellect, the development of the mind. And how are you to know whether a man has that training or not unless you subject him to examination ? How is it in the case of men appointed to the care of technical matter on the Intercolonial, for instance ? They must pass examination, they must show diplomas to prove that they are capable of filling the positions to whicii they seek appointment. If a man looks for appointment as a mechanical engineer, he must have a certificate that he has had the training of a mechanical, engineer, or he will not be employed. I had almost ceased being surprised at any statement that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Emmerson) might make, but I must confess that I was surprised when I heard him speak as he has spoken with reference to this matter.
Now, while the civil service of Canada is a very creditable service in the main, I do not agree with my hon. friend, for I think it can be improved. I think there is room for

improvement everywhere, in point of fact. My hon. friend would say that we stand still in Canada. He compares the civil service in Great Britain with the civil service in Canada, greatly to the disadvantage of the former. He speaks of some members of the British civil service who have come out here. I do not know to whom he can refer. I have never met any of these dunderheads that he speaks of as belonging to the British civil service. The civil service of Great Britain has given to that country some of the brightest minds the world has ever known. It gave a Milner to South Africa, a Cromer to Egypt and a Hart to China. Why, I could occupy the time from now until morning giving a list of the great men of the civil service of Great Britain, if it were necessary to do so ; but it is not. The hon. gentleman spoke of the Intercolonial. That is a favourite topic of his. And the terms in which he spoke of it, and of the people employed upon it, has given me a contrary opinion to that which I formerly held with regard to one subject. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Emmerson) is going to be a candidate again. It has been rumoured that he would not be a candidate. I judge that he is making a bid for the vote down there. He states that a majority of the people engaged in the service of the road are of the Tory persuasion. Now, Sir, that is a statement on which I must take issue with the hon. gentleman, and any person who looks over the statistics in connection with the elections in the county of Westmoreland will know very well that that is not the case, and I want to say here now that if it were the case, the hon. gentleman would not be sitting in the seat he occupies to-night. The hon. gentleman is only elected by the votes of people employed in the shops at Moncton ; outside the city of Moncton the hon. gentleman does not and cannot get a majority.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I presume that my hon. friend wants to be accurate, therefore I may tell him that my majority outside the city of Moncton at the last election was some 300 or 400. My majority was between 1,000 and 1.100, and I only had a majority of between 600 and 700 in' the city of Moncton. Therefore I had some hundreds outside the city.


George William Fowler: Well, I accept the hon. gentleman's statement. But I say that at the last local election the majority outside the city of Moncton was very much the other way, and I think the hon. gentleman, when he faces his electors again, will find that to be the case. The Conservative majority outside the city of Moncton was a very large one, and had it not been foil the vote of the railway shops, the four Conservative candidates would have been elected in that county. The hon. gentleman would have us think that all the old 2924
men who were appointed on the Intercolonial during the Conservative regime, in the city of Moncton, were continued, that no changes were made. He spoke of the changes that were made in 1878, and he cited two cases, I think Mr. Brydges and Mr. Luttreil. The hon. gentleman forgets that the chief engineer of the Intercolonial was dismissed after his party came into power.


Henry Robert Emmerson: After investigation, and for cause.
Mr. FOWLER, Yes, for cause, because he obeyed the order of his superior. Now the hon. gentleman also denies most strenuously that there were strained relations between himself and the then Minister of Railways, because he would not accede to his attempts to secure the dismissal of the present manager of the railway.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That statement is very far from the facts, nothing ever transpired in that direction at all. My relations with Mr. Blair were in no way affected by reason of that.


George William Fowler: I can only say that it was very current at the time and that the statement came from his close friends and relatives, just as close blood relatives as you can get. I suppose the hon. gentleman will also deny that there were strained relations between himself and Mr. Blair.


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, our relations were almost of the most friendly character. Mr. Blair and I-if this is pertinent and relative to this discussion-were always the closest personal friends. He thought differently on some political matters, but not in connection with the officials of the Intercolonial.


George William Fowler: So far as that is concerned, we must accept the statement of the hon. gentleman, no matter how much we know to the contrary. Now, Sir, this is not the first time that matter was referred to. Mr. Blair was at that time alive, and -was in this House, and I myself had the honour to refer to it, and the hon member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) did not then deny, because Mr. Blair was here, I suppose that was the reason that Mr. Emmerson would not deny it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: If he were here and heard my hon. friend's statement he would deny it, because it is not in accord with the truth.


George William Fowler: My hon. friend was here, and the scene that took place between the two gentlemen, the scene of reconciliation, was most pathetic, when the hon. gentleman as I stated then, fell upon the neck of Mr. Blair and admitted that he had sinned -that is, that Mr. Blair had sinned-and Mr. Blair admitted that he had sinned and

was willing to be forgiven. Tliat is^ within the memory of hon. gentlemen in thi>s House; and then my hon. friend did not get up and deny it, as he has denied it tonight.
Now, Sir, so far as civil service reform is concerned, I think this resolution is certainly along the line of improvement. It does not seem to me that it is the correct thing for us to stand in the way of this improvement. What argument has been put forward against this resolution? The sole argument of the Finance Minister to-day was, you were in power for 18 years, you had a civil service reform report made in 1892, and nothing was done under it. That is the sole argument. Is there to be no advance in this country? Is there to be no improvement. Twelve years have elapsed since our hon. friend's opposite came into power, they have had the advantage of that 1892 report, because it was not a report to the Conservative party but to the government of Canada; they are now the government of Canada, and that report has been before them. Therefore if the Conservative government, if the Conservative party, who were in power in 1892 were remiss in their duty in not acting upon that report up to 1896, four years, how much more reprehensible has been the conduct of this government who have been in power 12 years, three times as long, and have still delayed acting upon it. Therefore they are threefold as guilty as the old government.
I listened to the speech of the hon. member for North Toronto, I think his speech was absolutely non-partisan in its tone, and high in its character. How was it met by hon. gentlemen who spoke from the other side? With sneers, that is all. My hon. friend from East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) spoke of the high character which the civil service should maintain, spoke along the lines of obtaining for the civil service the highest possible character in the men who are appointed, and in the promotion that would be thrown around those men, yet my hon. friend from Westmoreland (Mr. Emmers'on) has answered that with a sneer. He drags in the church, as the hon. gentleman always does when he speaks. Surely that is not very high statesmanship on the part of our friends opposite. Surely if they are going to persist in their present line, if they are going to retain the civil service as it is at present, and the civil service system as it is at present, surely they have some better defence for it than sneering against the propositions of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House. I would think that we have a right to expect from the government that is in charge of the affairs of this country a very different line of argument.
Now what do we desire to do? What does the hon. member for North Toronto, by his resolution, desire to do? He desires to remove as far as possible the civil ser-Mr. FOWLER.
vice of Canada from the influence of politics so that merit should be the only thing to be recognized. What to-day is the only thing recognized? Is it merit? No, it is political pull. That is the way promotions are made, not by merit but by political pull. So much the better for the country if it sometimes happensi, as I have no doubt it does happen, that political pull and merit happen to be united in the same person. But there is many a man in the civil service to-day, meritorious, thoroughly equipped, able in every way, yet he gets no advancement by reason of the fact that he is suspected of being sympathetic towards the party that is now, and will be for a week or two yet, in opposition in this country-only for a brief time, however, I may say, for the benefit of my hon. friends opposite. Now what we propose is to remove that political influence with respect to promotions in the civil service of this country; what we propose is to throw a protection around the civil servants of this country so that they may no longer, if they wish to speak on political subjects to a friend, whisper it where no one can hear; so that they may be able to vote as their conscience dictates without having to watch to see if anybody is trying to find out how they vote, if that vote happens to be cast against the party in pow7er. Because I hold that the civil servant in this country has just as much right to exercise his franchise as has the member of this House, he has an absolute right to vote either for or against the party in power. I do not believe that he should go upon the public platform and advocate the principles of either party; if he does that, if he goes that far, he must fall with his party and should resign when his party goes out of power.


Mr. R. SMITH.: Does not the right to vote carry with it the right to use legitimate influence for a principle ?


George William Fowler: Logically that may be correct, but it would open the door to a great many difficulties that must be avoided by simply allowing the civil servant the right to vote and to express his opinions, not on the public platform and not taking an active part as a canvasser. There seems to be a distinction there, even although my hon. friend does not seem able to perceive it.


Ralph Smith: I am following this debate. I have heard that statement by different speakers, but I have not heard a good reason why it should not be done. If this government employ men and forbid them to use legitimate influence in favour of principles that they consider good for this country, would it not be just as reasonable for employers of labour to forbid men who happen to work for them to ex-
9193 MAY 26, 1908 9194	
press opinions because those happened to be against their own ? Mr. FOWLER. No employer of labour would permit his employee to go out and become an active canvasser on behalf of the rival institution over the way. Mr. R. SMITH. In England it is a common thing to find men on the public platform with their employer advocating opposite political principles. Mr. FOWLER. There is no objection to their advocating different political principles, but I say if the employee of one manufacturing concern was advocating the advantages of the opposition manufacturing concern over the way, he would not hold his employment very long and that seems to me to be a fair illustration of the position in so far as the civil service is concerned. I have nothing further to add, I have simply to say that I believe the resolution of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) is along the right lines and is a resolution which every man should feel himself able to support. I think the government should adopt it. It is not necessarily a vote of want of confidence. The government can consider it not a vote of want of confidence and the whole House can vote for it. Let us try to improve the conditions of the civil service if we can, let us improve the conditions of the civil servants in every way in which it is necessary to make improvements. If we are not paying enough let us pay more ; let us be sure, however, before we increase the salaries of the civil servants, that the salaries are not large enough now. Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Carleton, Ont.). As no hon. gentleman on the opposite side of the House seems disposed to continue the debate, I would like to say a very few words before it closes. The hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) treated the House to a very frank declaration of the stand which he takes on this subject, but let me say that if he did touch and I do not think he very closely touched the real question, everything that he said and fifty times more, was answered in Great Britain more than half a century ago by men like Mr. Gladstone and Lord Macaulay, whose utterances on this subject would most completely dispose of every possible argument that has been advanced to-night by the hon. member for Westmoreland and would dispose also of a great many more formidable arguments which he did not advance. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) has dealt in the first place with the time at which my hon. friend for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) has brought this subject forward. He did not allude to the fact that this motion was placed on the order paper	on the very first day of this session, that its consideration was postponed from time to time for the purpose of having before , the House the report of the Civil Service Commission, and finally when that report did not come down until the government had taken practically every day for their own business the hon. member for North Toronto dropped his motion from the order paper with a distinct statement that he would renew it after the report of that Commission was available to members of . this House. Therefore, so far as the question of time is concerned, there is nothing with which to reproach the member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster). The Minister of Finance also relied upon the claim that this was a motion of want of confidence in the government, being a motion in amendment of that proposed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) that the House should resolve itself into Committee of Supply. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) did not put this forward as a motion of want of confidence in the government; he deliberately abstained from introducing matters of a controversial nature except in reply to some observations made during his speech by the hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) and even then he touched the matter with a very light hand and his speech, on the whole, might he said to be of an absolutely uncontroversial nature. Over and over again this government, since it came into power in 1896, has accepted amendments proposed in a very much more controversial spirit and they have passed, in some cases by a majority and in most cases by the unanimous consent of this House. In 1899 Sir Charles Tupper proposed a resolution as an amendment to the motion for Committee of Supply, touching the responsibility of political heads of departments. The government accepted the motion and it passed the House unanimously. In 1900, Mr. Russell, then member for the City and County of Halifax, proposed a resolution with regard to preferential trade with Great Britain. The motion was accepted by the government and passed by a majority. In 1901, Mr. T. O. Davis, then a member of this House, proposed a motion with regard to the test case touching the taxation of Canadian Pacific lands in the west. The government accepted the motion and it passed unanimously. In 1902, Mr. Bourassa proposed an amendment with regard to the embargo imposed by Great Britain on Canadian cattle. It was accepted by the government and passed this House unanimously. In 1903, Mr. Costigan, then a member of this House, proposed an amendment with regard to the question of Home Rule for Ireland. The government accepted the amendment and it passed by a majority. In 1905, Mr. Armstrong, the member for

East Lambton, proposed a resolution in amendment for an efficient system of cold storage. The government accepted the amendment and it passed unanimously. In 1905 the member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) proposed a resolution with respect to the interference of civil servants in Dominion and provincial elections. The government accepted the amendment and it passed unanimously. All these rt'ere amendments to the motion for Committee of Supply. During this very session, I myself proposed a resolution in this House in amendment to supply .touching the rights of parliament to original documents in possession of departments of the government. I did not take the course which the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) has taken to-day ; I proposed that resolution in a very controversial spirit indeed and challenged the government to vote it down if they dared. They accepted the motion and it passed this House unanimously. It is idle then for the government to pretend that they must reject this motion to-day on the ground that it is an amendment to the motion for Committee of Supply.
The Minister of Finance dwelt very lightly on the subject of civil service reform and he and the member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson) justified appointments to the civil service of Canada by means of patronage committees in the different constituencies. They qualified the real object of patronage committees by suggesting that it is to afford to the government or to the head of a particular department information as to who mav be the best man available. But every 'one who knows the real object of' the patronage committee knows that such is not the purpose for which it is formed, nor the motive which actuates its work. Nine times out of ten what influences the patronage committees is not whether a particular man is the best man for the public service, but whether the amount of party service he has performed entitles him to the position. The question debated above all others in the patronage committee is whether or not a particular appointment will do the party the most good in the particular district from which the man is appointed. My hon. friend (Mr. Emmerson) spoke a great deal about hyprocrisy in religion and politics and I shall not follow him in that, but I do say that if he has the slightest knowledge of these patronage committees, he will understand that I have correctly described their purpose and motive. Is it advisable in Canada to continue the system of making appointments to the public service through the instrumentality of the political organizations of one party or the other ? If it is a good system, as the Minister of Finance and the member for Westmoreland seem to think, then why not allow the patronage committees to recommend promotions in the service, why not refer the question of Mr. R. l. BORDEN.
promotion to the patronage committee of the particular district from which the appointee in the first instance came. If you analyze the suggestion in that way you will see how utterly absurd and misleading it is to say that any such system can be in the interest of this country or any other country possessing self-governing institutions.
My hon. friend from North Toronto has made a very able and exhaustive speech in support of his motion and so I shall not deal with the question at any great length. Let me quote the words of a well known writer in the United States which expressed very distinctly and very forcibly the maxim that public office is a public trust. I take this citation from a pamphlet written by Wm. Dudley Foulke, a member of the National Civil Service Reform League of the United States:
Public office being a trust, the man or party who administers it has no more right to bestow it for personal gratification or political advantage than a judge would have to take away the property of a litigant on personal or party grounds. If it is asked then, why we want appointments controlled by rules and examinations, why we are not willing to trust the discretion of the executive or that of the legislators by whom the executive functions are now so largely assisted, we answer: For the same reason that we insist that the judge who passes on our lives, liberty or property, shall be governed by fixed rules of law.
My hon. friend from Westmoreland was very strong in liis contention that we should apply common sense; let me quote from the present Attorney General of the United States, who has made a careful study of this subject :
I want to tell you then, in a very few words, what civil service reform is. It is nothing in the world, ladies and gentlemen, but the application of sound sense and sound morals to the choice and retention of your public servants. You place in the hands of a president, or a mayor, or a governor great powers of pat' ronage. He holds those powers, he is entitled to fill the offices in his gift, solely in the public interest. He received those offices, or the right to fill .them, from the people; he did not create them. The salaries of those officers are paid by the people's money; they are not paid out of his pocket. The duties of those officers are fixed by the people's laws; he has no more power than any other citizen to fix their duties, although he himself is hound, by the same laws, to see that those duties are properly performed. In short, the offices in his gift belong to the people, and he holds them as the people's steward and trustee.
And as to the history and objects of civil service reform perhaps I cannot do better than to quote the Hon. Carl Shurz. a man of international reputation :
The reform of the civil service as we advocate it, aims at two objects: to secure to the people an honest and efficient public service, and to eliminate as much as possible the demoralizing element of patronage and political and personal favouritism from out political

life. The first is accomplished by subjecting candidates for public employment to examinations and probations testing their fitness for such employment; -and the second by making such examinations competitive, so as to give the fittest man the best chance for appointment and to exclude appointment by favouritism, personal or political, and thus the use of the office concerned -as party spoil. This is not a matter of abstract theory, but of simply practical common sense.
I do not know that I can add much to tbe arguments in favour of civil service reform *which are contained in these three citations. Let me ask what will he accomplished by civil service reform ? In the first place we will accomplish better service to the state. No one pretends, as my hon. friend from Westmoreland, seemed to think we pretend that appointment by competitive examination will in every case bring the best man into the proper place. I do not believe competitive examination will accomplish that, but I do believe that by that system you will get an infinitely better class of officials than you will get by the exercise of mere party patronage and mere political pull. In the next place you will bring about a more assured status for the civil servant, and it is important that the civil servant should have ail assured status. The man who understands that the exercise of political influence can put over his head in the government service another man who upon a fair test of merit would never get the position, will surely not feel himself inspired with the same interest in the public service as if he knew that faithful and intelligent work done by him would in time bring about its fitting reward. In the next place it will remove the power and therefore the temptation to appoint to public office for personal or party ends. I do not know any distinction between bribing a man by money and bribing a man by the promise of public office, and when you have a system under which any man engaging in political work feels himself assured at some time in the future of obtaining a public office because of the mere fact that he has done that political work, you do not get very far away from bribery. In tbe third place, the reform which my hon. friend from North Toronto is advocating will strike down that political corruption which does more or less arise from the use of party patronage.
The present system causes many and various abuses to flourish. In the first place, the heads of departments do not appoint their subordinates. In some cases at least subordinates in the different departments are appointed when they are not required. The head of the department would not select the man whom he is bound to receive if he were left to exercise his own good judgment. Inefficient appointments are made. There are useless men in the departments in Ottawa to-day ; every
minister of the Crown knows that. I do not mean to say that the men now on the treasury benches are responsible for all of them. I am not making this statement with any idea of casting discredit on the government. The same system as has flourished under this government, perhaps in the more intense degree, has also flourished under the previous administration. Under both. I believe, not only have inefficient appointments been made hut places have been created in order that political supporters of one party or the other might be satisfied in their demands. The political influence of appointees is exercised. That more or less destroys discipline. My hon. friend from Westmoreland (Mr. Emmerson)-who has left the chamber, I regret to say-spoke of the Intercolonial railway and the marvellous condition of affairs under his administration. I have been told, on authority which I respect as highly as I do that of the hon. member for Westmoreland, that there are men on the Intercolonial today who cannot and dare not keep their subordinates under them in a proper system of discipline simply because they know the effect which the political influence of these subordinates, appointed by political pull, can exercise upon them. Does that tend to good service or good discipline ? Political support is bartered for promise of office, and the time of ministers and members is needlessly and absurdly taken up with patronage. My hon. friend from Westmoreland was rather inclined to deny that.
I have discussed this subject with hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House who are sincerely desirous of seeing reform in this connection brought about. I have not discussed it with ministers, and do not know what their experience may be ; but members of parliament on the other side of the House have told me, in some cases that half their time, in other cases that three-fourths of their time, was taken up in dealing with matters of appointment to public office, and in that way they were prevented from giving that attention to public affairs that they would like to give and that they would be able to give if this system were abolished and a system of competitive examinations were substituted for it. In the United -States, according to the pamphlets to which I have just referred, the abuse previous to the inaugura tion of their present system, existed to an enormous extent. One of the writers whom I have quoted describes a visit which he made to one of the departments at Washington, where -he found a regular book like a ledger kept in which every member of Congress and every senator was not only with every appointment which had been made upon his recommendation, but -with the salary and position described, so that it might be known exactly by a

glance at this book from time to time, to what extent his power of recommendation to office had been exercised. It reached a ridiculous extent in the United 'States, such an extent as influenced public opinion, and brougnt about the establishment of the National Civil Service Reform League, and created such a public agitation that civil service reform has made enormous progress in that country. While they may not yet have attained the standard that has been attained in Great Britain, no one can deny, notwithstanding the vain remarks of my hon. friend from Westmoreland, that their system is many years in advance of that which we have in Canada. It is idle to pretend that the civil service of Canada, under a system of party patronage, is equal or can be equal to that of Great Britain. The civil service system of Great Britain is the admiration of the world, and when any hon. gentleman arises in this House and declares that our system is equal to or at all approaching it, he merely shows that he has made no study whatever of the subject, and does not in the least know that which he professes to discuss. I do not deny that we have splendid civil servants in Canada ; but their value is great, not by reason of our system, but in spite of.it. It may sometimes happen, it does very often happen, that an appointment made for political reasons is a very good appointment, and the man so appointed may render excellent service to the state. But we must not on that account shut our eyes to the abuses that have arisen, and to the general demoralization in the public life of the country when the reward of office is regarded as a fair exercise of the party power. If a party continues in power, as it very often does, for eight or ten or twelve years, even for eighteen years, as in the case of one administration, the result is that the appointments, made almost altogether from one political party, leave a large minority in the country absolutely unrepresented in the public service. In other words, you exclude from the civil service of the country the ability, the capacity, the good character,. of nearly one-half the population, who, by reason of this system of party patronage, are not considered as eligible for appointment to the public service. Is it not time that we in Canada should do away with that system ? Suppose any great banking institution in Canada, any great railway corporation, any great commercial corporation, made appointments to their service from political considerations or the equivalent of political considerations, do you imagine that it would have the splendid service which many of these great organizations possess 1 And is there any reason why the government of this country, which ought to be the greatest and most efficient organization in Canada, should not have I Mr. R, L. BORDEN.
the very best and most efficient service that is to be found in Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific ? Surely there is no reason why it should not be so. The public service presents certain attractions, and men are ready to enter it. If it were put on a reasonable, business, common sense basis, I cannot bring myself to think that it would not attain the same standard as has been attained in Great Britain, and that we should not have vastly improved results to the people of the country as a whole. I am glad to know, if I am properly advised, that the province of British Columbia in the present year is leading the way in establishing a system of open competitive examinations by a non-partisan board, and that in connection with the system which they are so establishing, they are making efficient provision for the old age of public servants of that province by proper superannuation allowances. We have this example. We have the example of all our business institutions throughout the country so far as superannuation is concerned. I agree with my hon. friend from North Toronto (Hon. Mr. Foster) that the two should go hand in hand. We want in Canada a system of appointment by competitive examinations, to be under the control of a board which shall give to that subject the whole of its time and energies, and endeavour to bring about in Canada the same conditions which have prevailed so many years in the mother country. That alone will not be sufficient. We have to put our civil service on a proper basis of remuneration and in the possession of the assurance that when old age comes, after reasonable service to their country, they shall not be turned out with the fear of poverty and distress before their, eyes, and that they and those dependent upon them shall be provided for by that same country which they have served for years.
My hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) has proposed this resolution in no controversial spirit. He has proposed it as a motion which he thinks might reasonably be accepted by the government and which ought to be embodied in the measure they propose to submit to the House before many days. I sincerely trust the government will reconsider the attitude of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) and thus take a great step forward in the progress towards civil service reform. We can all unite in the declaration of this principle-a principle which is not a new one, which is not an experimental one, which has been tried and tried successfully, in the mother country for half a century at least and which, during the past ten or fifteen years, has met with the same success in the great republic to the south.


Rt.   H@: Under ordinary cireum-

stances, I would have no fault to find whatever with the motion moved by my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster). 1 may say to him at once that, in the principle laid down, I am disposed to very largely agree, if not absolutely. But in my humble judgment, the time is singularly ill chosen to present such a motion. -My hon. friend had many opportunities in the earlier part of the session to move this resolution. You, Mr. Speaker, had hardly taken your seat, when the hon. gentleman put on the notice paper the motion now in your hand. It was called again and again, he had every opportunity to move it, he did not do so for reasons better known to himself, he withdrew it at last in order to bring it on now as an amendment to the motion to go into Supply. But I would call attention to the fact that this very day, were it not for an unfortunate event which we all deplore, my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture {Mr. Fisher) would in all probability have introduced a measure of civil service reform. It is not for me to say at the moment what will be the character of thajt measure; but when such a Bill was on the order paper, and when the cause why it was not brought before the House is known to my hon. friend, I would have expected that he would have waited until the Minister of Agriculture introduced his Bill. Then if the Bill were not to his taste, he could move his present motion by way of amendment or move it as an amendment on going into Supply. This is the only reason why we cannot accept the motion of my hon. friend. I am not discussing the merits of the Bill. If the rules of the House had permitted an amendment, I would have moved one which would have explained our position, but since we cannot explain our position by a motion, it isopen for us to explain it by giving our reasons against the motion. We do not want to enter into a controversy on the merit of my hon. friend's motion. We shall have every opportunity to do this when the government Bill comes up, as it certainly will in a few days, if not to-morrow.
This would be a sufficient answer at present, but in courtesy to my hon. friend perhaps I may notice some of the arguments he has offered to the House. Bet me say, first of all, that I do not want in this matter that we should appear better than our fellows. We have, in the twelve years we have been in office, accepted the system, which has been in existence since confederation, of making appointments on party lines. In this we followed the example set by all our predecessors. In the eighteen years the party opposite held office, appointments to the service were made on party lines also. It is said by my hon. friend that this system is not the best. I agree altogether with him, but even if the service has been recruited on party lines, I think it only fab- to say that the present service
is a very efficient body of men. For eighteen years it was recruited from the ranks of the Conservative party, yet on the whole I am satisfied that the great majority of the members, whether appointed through Conservative or Liberal influence, have ceased to be partisans, and while retaining their own convictions, they are, in the discharge of their duties, nothing but public servants. That recalls to me a conversation I had, shortly after taking office, with an eminent member of the service. He said to me: Of course I would not deny my convictions to you. I was appointed by the late government, but is it unnatural that I should act towards the government as honestly as I can ? Lawyers are all party men, but when a lawyer gives his services to a client, he does not know the politics of his client. In the same manner a public servant does not know the politics of the goveimment which employs him. But allowing this to be the case, I am not blind to the inconvenience and the condition of the service as it is today. There is a great deal in favour of a system of having appointments made simply on merits and not from other considerations. My hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) has given the history of the service in other countries. He has stated truly that whilst in the beginning the civil service was recruited by every government from the ranks of the party in power, abuses crept in which induced first one government and then another to adopt the system advocated by my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster). The British government led the way, the American government accepted the same principle, but I would observe to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition and the hon. member for North Toronto that it is a task of some difficulty to establish that system in a country like the United States. The first law adopted by congress goes back twenty-five years, if not more and then, after twenty-five years, it is not as much in force as it is in Great Britain.


Robert Laird Borden: That indicates we should lose no time.


Wilfrid Laurier: It indicates that we should lose no time. I quite agree with that. But we are ready. We have a notice of a Bill on the Order Paper, certainly we cannot go faster than that. And if we are to lose no time, my hon. friend should have told the hon. member (Mr. Foster), who sits next to him, because he has taken a good deal of time. He had his motion prepared six months ago, but it is only to-day that he has presented it to the House. We shall have, I hope, more diligence. But there is one thing we should do for the civil service. My hon. friend from North Toronto has spoken lengthdy and well upon the great benefit the civil service has rendered to the public. He has stated-In words not too strong for me

-the great advantage that a country like Canada derives from a good civil service. But perhaps he will agree that there is one duty that we owe to the civil service, a primary duty above all others that we should never forget. And it is very press-ing-we should pay them promptly the money that is due for their diligent service.


Haughton Lennox: I am a little disappointed that the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) did not see lit to deal with this question at an earlier period in the debate. However, he is an old parliamentarian and he perhaps knows best the time to take the matter up. "We have had complaint and excuse by both the First Minister and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) that the time is inopportune for dealing with this question. I have listened carefully to their arguments, but I have not been convinced; I have not been able to see that the time is inopportune. It would seem to me, with all deference to their opinion, that no more opportune time could possibly have been selected than now when we are about to discuss a Bill and before that Bill has been actually introduced. We know how difficult it is for the government to preserve its face after it has actually introduced a Bill, how difficult it is for them to come down from a position they have taken on the formal introduction of a Bill, and, therefore, how desirable it is that before they commit themselves to any scheme we should have a full discussion of the subject in parliament. Especially is this true with regard to this matter.
Now, the Prime Minister complains of the delay of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster). He says that, almost before the Speaker has taken the Chair at the opening of the session, the hon. gentleman had given notice of a motion along these lines. So he did. Does the Prime Minister complain that he has had too timely a notice of this discussion? Let me say that, whilst I appreciate as a member of the House the fact that we have had ample notice so that we could take this matter into our careful consideration, I want to call attention also to the fact that he is hardly fair when, in dealing with the matter, he omits to mention that the hon. member for North Toronto was prevented from early and timely discussion of this question by the fact that the Civil Service Commission's report had not been brought down. And when the report was brought down the opportunity had gone by for dealing with this as a formal notice of motion. What does it propose ?
That the civil service system of Canada should be based on merit and character alone

Does the Prime Minister object to that? Does he think the civil service system of
Sir WILFRID LAURIER
Canada should not be based on merit or character, but should be, as it has been in the past, a subject of patronage, a subject regulated and controlled by politics as in the past, as admitted by every honest member of the House? This existed to some degree under former administrations, but it exists to a most dangerous and humiliating degree under the present administration. The discussion of this question, so far, has been very moderate-too moderate, I think, taking the attitude of hon. gentlemen who have spoken on the other side into consideration. I think it is no harm, probably to remind the Prime Minister that the country has become aroused to the position, particularly since the report of the Civil Service Commission which is studded with statements of the evils of the patronage system, and is aroused to the determination that the element of patronage and political interference shall be eliminated from the public service. The resolution goes on :
-and the appointments thereto should be made only from candidates whose competency has been established through open competitive examinations conducted under a non-partisan civil service commission.
Do hon. members object to that? Would they say that candidates should not be appointed by reason of competency? Do they claim that it is improper that competency be established by open competitive examination conducted under a non-partisan Civil Service Commission? Now, it seems to me that the only controversial point in this is the Civil Service Commission. There is not an lion, member on the other side who will join with the government in voting down this resolution who would dare to go to his constituents and say that he is opposed to any principle enunciated in that resolution unless it be by possibility the provision for a Civil Service Commission. That may or may not be a desirable solution of the question. But we have the example of other countries, notably Great Britain and the United States, in support of the principle of a Civil Service Commission of a nonpartisan character conducting these examinations. While the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance oppose this amendment they shoxv no reason except-and I say it advisedly because the right hon. Prime Minister has used this language- the quibbling reason, that the motion is brought at an inopportune time and even that reason is opposed by every fact connected wTith this matter. I say that hon. members who support the government are called upon to vote down this resolution upon reasons which will not commend themselves to the public. Let me examine some of the statements made in this connection by the Minister of Finance. And,
I must say, in passing, that I never saw that hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) more

embarrassed, more agitated, I might almost say more confounded, than he was this afternoon. And what is the reason? The right hon. gentleman who leads the House could give the answer, perhaps, if he saw fit. But the fact remains that the minister spoke for fifteen minutes without giving one substantial reason why this amendment should not be concurred in. The leader of the opposition has put it beyond question that the government is not bound to take the attitude that they have to vote against this amendment as a motion of want of confidence. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition has shown that not only in cases where a motion was brought forward that was not controversial in a party sense, but even where it was put forward in a controversial sense, and the government were challenged to vote it down, as in the case of the production of documents, they accepted the motion. What is their position to-night ? They ask their followers from one end of Canada to the other to vote down this proposition, and if they do so, perhaps nine-tenths of their followers will find it very embarrassing to them when they come to seek election within probably a very short period.
Now the Minister of Finance said that almost every one of the evils referred to by the hon. member for North Toronto existed under previous governments, and were mentioned by the previous commission. It may be so, but I have never found it in the report of the commission of 1892. It is noticeable that the hon. gentlemen who say so do not venture to give quotations from that report. But did not these hon. gentlemen say they were going to do better than the Conservatives ? Have they fulfilled their promises yet? The people do not think so. It was their duty to take up the report of that commission when they came into office and deal with it, but although eleven years have passed since then, they have done nothing towards reforming the abuses pointed out in the civil service system. Now the Minister of Finance says that the hon. member for North Toronto complained of the increases that were made from time to time as having been made on a political basis. I did not so understand my hon. friend from North Toronto. I rather think that the Minister of Finance felt guilty in that regard, and that he imagined something had been said that was not said. If the hon. member for North Toronto did not say it he could have said it. Any one who has watched the discussions in this House, as I have for eight years, knows perfectly well that when we have asked in reference to these increases the conclusion was irresistible, from the specious explanations given, that many of these increases had been made for political reasons alone, and a good many were denied their statutory increases where there could be no substantial reason given. The Minister of Finance
attempted to answer the complaint of the Royal Commission regarding the virtual amendment of the Civil Service Act by the introduction of the words ' notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act.' That has been an abuse during all the time I have been in the House, and it is growing yet. It is almost always inexcusable. An extraordinary attitude was taken by the Minister of Finance, I might almost say a damnable attitude, when he said that the evil of political influence was magnified. Mr. Speaker, it is scarcely possible to magnify the evil of this pernicious system of political influence, and political patronage. You cannot confine it, as the Minister of Finance suggested, to mere patronage committee alone, it is the patronage of the politician from one end of the country to the other, in regal'd both to the inside and the outside service, and the employees of the government who are not in the civil service, as well. Take up the report of the commissioners. Almost on every page of their report they speak about the influence of politics. On page 23 they say :
Owing to the good times which have recently been prevalent and the large revenues received from customs, the old-fashioned notions of frugality and liying 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 he 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 political patronage at what may be called retail rates.	[DOT]
I said a moment ago that it is not patronage committees only that we complain of but it is patronage lists that exist wherever stores or supplies of any kind are bought. Almost every official that was examined before the Royal Commission spoke of these lists as a matter of course, that of course everything was bought with a view to politics, that no service was performed, uo pei-son was employed, no goods were purchased, as a rule, except iu view of some political advantage to the party.
As a rule your commissioners found in the outside service that polities enter into every appointment, and politicians on the spot interest themselves not only in the appointments but in subsequent promotions of officers.
My bon. friend the leader of the opposition said, to follow out the argument of the hon. the Minister of Finance, that not only would you dictate the appointment but you would regulate the promotion afterwards. The commissioners have found that not only is the appointment controlled by the politician in the first instance, but the promotion. the status the man shall occupy from time to time, his progress, is guided by the band of the politician.

In the outside service those who have the ' political pull ' use it for all it is worth; they pass hy their superior officers and bring pressure to procure anything that may prove to their advantage.
Again-and this is in the Customs Department, I am sorry the Minister of Customs is not here:
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.
Again in the Inland Revenue Department:
Of course in the Inland Revenue Department political appointments to the public service prevail, and as a rule the officers in one distract are confined to that one district.
A great deal has been said about that district business, particularly on the Intercolonial Railway and services of that kind.


Mr. GRAHAM.: Is my hon. friend reading from the report about the Intercolonial Railway or is that just put in by my hon. friend himself?


Haughton Lennox: That is a remark of my own, but in order to be altogether within the book I shall give some references to the Intercolonial Railway. I read now from the evidence of Mr. Butler on page 1185. He is asked :
Q- Most of the copyists are women?-A. Yes.
Q. Did politics have anything to do with their entering the service, do you know?-A. I imagine that influence was exerted in their favour; I imagine that political influence insured their appointment.
Q. But except in the case of one man you had nothing to do with it?-A. No.
Q. Nine-tenths of the copyists are women ? -A. Yes.	,
Q- And the greater part of the extra clerks are women-A. Yes.
Q. Is that because they are content to enter the service _ at a lower rate than $500?-A. 1 think that is the case. Of course, there is a great deal of pressure to get women into the service.
Q. Brom whom?-A. From political friends.
Again :
Q- There is a Treasury Board minute of 1879 about the use of political influence by government employees. Did you ever hear of it?
And the deputy minister, Mr. Butler, one of the most efficient officers we have in the service in Canada answers:
No.


George Perry Graham: In 1879?


Haughton Lennox: It was passed in 1879 but it is in force. The minister apparently thinks that it should not be enforced because it was passed in 1879, just as al-
Hr. LENNOX
though time was spent by a royal commission in 1892 and valuable information collected, aud it was shown that some evils were capable of being remedied, he still thinks after eleven years in office that they ought not do anything but fold their hands. The chairman says :	[DOT]
I think you had better get a copy of the minute. It lays down the principle that no officer should use political influence. By the mere use of political influence, pro tanto, he renders himself subject to dismissal.
And the deputy answered :
I was inclined to issue such a circular to the men in the outside service.


George Perry Graham: That is concerning promotion, it is for increase of salary, not appointment.


Haughton Lennox: He was pointing out the fact, as I understand it, that not only was political influence used to get these men into positions, but when they are in positions they use influence to get promotion and defy the head of the department to some extent. For that reason Sir John Macdonald had that minute passed so that every civil servant should know that if he dared to use political influence he was for that reason liable to dismissal forthwith. I hope the minister will take it into his consideration very seriously, because the department referred to is one of the most vulnerable except perhaps the Department of Marine and Fisheries. Political influence is used on that railway in another way.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend will note that he did not answer my question. He has not read an item or an extract concerning the Intercolonial Railway or its employees as yet.


Haughton Lennox: Why not?


George Perry Graham: Because it is a fact.


Haughton Lennox: I am dealing with the evidence of the Depnty Minister of Railways and Canals.


George Perry Graham: Not concerning the Intercolonial Railway.


Haughton Lennox: 
George Perry Graham: Hear, hear.


Haughton Lennox: Why? For political purposes aud for political purposes alone, there is no getting over that fact.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That was not political influence, that originated at the time of confederation, for the purpose of giving to the Canadian manufacturers access to the maritime markets.


Haughton Lennox: We have not finished with this question, but I understood the matter in a different way. I understood we constructed the railway for the purposes of giving communication from the maritime provinces to these provinces and back again, but I did not understand that we ever advertised that we were going to give them anything more than a fair, square deal havins reference to the rights of all the people of Canada.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The only communication between Ontario and the maritime provinces previous to the construction of the Intercolonial Railway, was by way of American seaports and American transportation lines, and in order to divert the traffic through Canadian territory the Intercolonial Railway was constructed and for the same purpose the rates were made inviting.


Haughton Lennox: I have heard that discussed in this House repeatedly and have heard hon. gentlemen from the maritime provinces as familiar with this matter as* the hon. gentleman who has just spoken,' and with just the same facility in expressing themselves as he has, and they have said that there was no discrimination in rates, that they got nothing better than the ordinary rates prevailing on other railways, and no advantage more than they would get from any company railway. We have on the other hand the evidence of the deputy minister that the people in the maritime provinces are getting such rates as no other people get in any portion of the world. That is according to the evidence of the Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals, Mr. Butler.
I wish to give another quotation in that connection.
Q. I mean to say it should be run for the least possible money and made an efficient machine all round?-A. We have got the most efficient railway in Canada, .the best roadbed and the best passenger service you can find in Canada to-day, and we are doing the work for practically 50 per cent less than it costs the other railways, that is to say we are taking out of the customers of the railway not much more than one-half what the other railways are taking.
Q. What do you mean by that?-A. We are not charging the customers of the railway much more than one-half what the other railways are. Our freight rates are much lower, our passenger rates are much the same for the short haul but for the long haul they are lower and we are paying onr men as good wages as the other railways and keeping our standard up to the highest pitch.
I venture to say that evidence will be construed by the majority of thinking people as showing _ that the railway is used to serve local and political purposes rather than the interests of Canada, and we know that to a large extent the deficits on the Intercolonial Railway are attributable to that fact.


George Perry Graham: Pardon me. That is a very trite question just now, and I know the leader of the opposition will appreciate the question I am going to ask the hon. gentleman-In view of the remarks of my hon. friend is he in favour of increasing the rate for freight and passengers on the Intercolonial ?


Haughton Lennox: I am not going to assist my hon. friend in that regard.


George Perry Graham: If the rates are wrong the hon. gentleman ought be able to say so.


Haughton Lennox: WTe may have to consider that question at an early date.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Who gets the benefit?


Haughton Lennox: Let me answer one question at a time. We may have to take the matter out of the hands of the Minister of Railways at a very early date and when we do we will deal with it in a way that is fair to all classes interested. Let me refer to another quotation which will deal with the Intercolonial but in another way.


Wilfrid Laurier: I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the question before us for discussion is the civil service not freight rates on the Intercolonial Railway.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: A discussion of the rates charged on the Intercolonial Railway is not relevant to the question before the House.


Haughton Lennox: I am sorry the right hon. gentleman did not mention the matter sooner because I have finished my reference to it. The witness was speaking about the employment of men on the Intercolonial and the following evidence was given :
Q. Who has the appointment of trackmen?- A. The roadmasters would have the general supervision of the force, say from Riviere du Loup to Obaudaere Junction and then another roadmaster from there 'to Montreal. The road-master holds the foreman of the track responsible for the carrying on of the work. The men are appointed generally on the recommendation of members of parliament in the case of vacancies. That is to say, a man must be a good man; he must be able to make good or he is dropped from the service, but when a vacancy comes the member in whose county the vacancy occurs has the say as to who shall succeed.
I think the patronage system here is more serious than in the aspect in which the Minister of Finance dealt with it this afternoon, because here we are dealing with

the lives of people who .travel upon the Intercolonial railway and we are making appointments not with regard to who are the best or fittest men but upon the recommendation of the member for the county, continuing he is asked :
Q. Do yon not consider that objectionable ?.- A. Well it has worked out fairly satisfactorily.
Q. What about the appointment of engineers and firemen?
That is a more serious matter still because the engineer has the lives of the passengers in his charge and the answer is :
A. In the first instance the fireman or the trackman is liable to be appointed upon the nomination of some political friend, but once he is appointed he has to make good. He joins the brotherhood immediately and works up step by step.
Q. And the majority of the employees, are appointed politically or do they come under the brotherhood?-A. They belong to the brotherhood but they all enter the service in the first instance, I fancy, on the nomination of some member of parliament.
Again Mr. Giroux is examined with regard to the service on the canals and he says :
Q. How did all you people get employment in the beginning?-A. I have been employed two years through Mr. Rivet, my deputy.
Q. Then the member for the district sends your name to the department and you get employment ?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. That applies generally throughout the canals?-A. Yes, sir.
Q. There is no passing examination or anything of that kind?-A. Jfo.
Let me now quote from the evidence of Mr. Fottinger :
Q. Then, in all the shops in the month of August you had 2,467 employees?-A. Yes, all over the line.
Q. Are all these 2,467 men employed in the shops appointed primarily by political nomination?-A. Primarily they are recommended by some supporter of the government. Of course there are exceptions to that sometimes. For instance, mechanics of the machinist olass have been very scarce and we have been compelled to employ, any one who came along in that capacity.
And only when they are compelled do they neglect politics in the matter.
Q. If you found a good class of mechanics coming out as immigrants would the chief superintendent or master mechanic have power to secure their services if he needed them?-A. If he needed them.
Q. Apart from political pressure?-A. Yes.
Q. The appointment of one thousand and odd people in the shops at Moncton gives a good deal of political patronage to the member in that district?-A. I may explain that the Moncton shops have been considered to belong to the whole line and not merely to the county Mr. LENNOX.
in which they are situated although in practice the county gets the majority.
They belong to the whole line for what purpose ? For political pull and nothing else. These men tell all this without a blush :
Q. It has nothing to do with the by-elections?-A. Nothing whatever.
Q. The trackmen are exclusively appointed from the district?	,
They are dealing with the question of men being confined to a particular district and that they dare not be appointed out of their district or else there would be an insurrection amongst the politicians.


Alexander Johnston: Who said that ?


Haughton Lennox: Mr. Fottinger I think. Any how it was sworn to.
Q. It has nothing to do with the by-elections?-A. Nothing whatever.
Q. The .trackmen are exclusively appointed from the districts in which the tracks are laid I suppose; you don't get your trackmen from the county of Rimouski to go into the adjoining county?-A. Well, the track district runs from Ste. Flavie to Camphellton and goes through the counties of Rimouski and Bona-venture and a small part of Restigouche. These trackmen are local people. They are on a certain definite piece of line about six miles long, so that they will naturally fall into the county in which they are employed.
Q. I have heard that trackmen in Rimouski are stopped at the border and replaced by other trackmen in Bonaventure, and that these again are stopped at the border and replaced by trackmen from the next county?-A. I have not heard that in regard to Rimouski, and it would not be the case with respect to trackmen. But there is a class of men that we employ going about on trains cleaning ditches and so on, and it may have occurred in regard to that class of work. It has occurred in Cape Breton.
Q. I have heard the story that at Cape Breton you went through four or five counties, and at the county line one carload of men was dropped and another carload was taken on?-A. That has been the case sometimes, hut they were extra men.
And they were engaged at a time when an election was coming on, for extra political purposes.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That statement is not in the evidence, is it ?


Haughton Lennox: No.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is a remark of your own ?


Haughton Lennox: That is a remark of my own.


Henry Robert Emmerson: You are drawing on your imagination ?


Haughton Lennox: No, I am not drawing on my imagination. It is borne out by the evidence I have read and the statements of

the Royal Commission appointed by the government ; it is borne out by facts that we have had established before this House from time to time ; and it is true to the knowledge of my hon. friend who has just spoken. Here is another passage :
Q. Now we come to the working expenses. Do you purchase all your stores by lowest tender after advertising?-A. The general storekeeper sends out circulars to the different persons in the trade who are recommended by the members.
Q. -But in the case of big purchases?-A. In regard to ties and lumber we send out posters which are put up at all the stations along the railway, and everybody can tender that wishes to do so. In regard to the large works, they are advertised in the newspapers, and every one who wishes can tender.
Q. Take coal, for instance, do you call for tenders for the coal supply for the line?-A. We call for tenders from all the companies in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There are no others.


Haughton Lennox: There are no others in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, but you need not be confined to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, I suppose.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Where else ?


Haughton Lennox: The United States, I suppose, for one place, and in British Columbia there is lots of coal.


George Perry Graham: Would you run the Intercolonial in that practical manner ?


Haughton Lennox: The hon. gentleman's experience will be enlarged after a while, if he is patient. The evidence goes on :
Q. A great part of your expenditure, covering several pages, is for oastings and all that sort of thing?-A. The castings are got by tender. We do not make our own oastings; they are made at River du Loup for the province of Quebec, at St. John for the Moncton shops, and at Halifax for the eastern part of the system. Tenders for castings are asked by circular


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The hon. member will see that he is again drifting away from the subject.


Haughton Lennox: I do not think so, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: If I am obliged to rule, I shall have to rule.


Haughton Lennox: If you rule, I will stop that branch of the inquiry ; but if you had not ruled, I would have imagined that the question of how the administration is being carried on in regard to the civil service is very pertinent jo the question whether the system proposed in the motion is a better system than the one that has been pursued in the past. However, I have given enough for illustration, and I have referred only to one department. The Department of Marine and Fisheries is full of very much more
startling evidence than that which I have read in reference to the Department of Railways.
Now, the Minister of Finance says that the civil service is open to all. The civil service examinations are open to all, but that is as far as it goes as a matter of actual fact. All can pass the examinations if they think fit, but a very large percentage of the young men and young women of this country who would pass the civil service examinations are deterred by the fact that they know that it would be a mere farce to do so because their chance of getting an appointment is so exceedingly remote. The Minister of Finance knows as well as anybody else that the civil service is not open to all in any other sense than the mere passing of the examinations. To give authority for that statement, let me quote what the Civil Service Commissioners say. At page i5 of their report you will find this statement :
The commissioners also beg to point out that in the list of passed candidates published in the r Canada Gazette J no attention is given to merit.
A matter that was particularly dwelt on by the hon. member for North Toronto, and that merit should be one of the means of securing employment in the civil service, it is essential that a record should be kept of those who have passed the examinations and the order in which they have passed; hut no such record is kept. The one who merely scrapes through is just as likely to get an appointment if he satisfies the political pull, as the candidate who has passed exceedingly high, and the minister knows that as well and even better than I do, if he would only say so. The commissioners go on to say:
The candidates are gazetted, alphabetically. No doubt it has happened that the candidates who have just fluked through the examination by means of greater political influence have recedvd appointments over the heads of more worthy and better qualified candidates.
In the matter of promotions the same patronage fear is apparent. 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.
I will not say more upon this question now.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Haughton Lennox: If it were not effective I do not think the bon. gentleman would be anxious for me to sit down; but as it is not suiting their purpose and is not advancing their interests, they are anxious that I should give it up. Well, I am not going to

try my case in their court. I am going to a higher and more responsible tribunal. When I find that bon. gentlemen opposite are restless, it rather inspires me with the belief that I am doing good service to the country by proceeding a little further.


Alexander Johnston: Will you stop if we cry 'go on ' ?


Haughton Lennox: I will stop when I think I have fully discharged my duty. I want to refer to a few extracts from the report of the royal commissioners. Speaking of the Militia Department, they say :
There are officers enough in the department, both inside and outside, to do all the work efficiently, if they were properly trained and 'organized; hut there is no efficient 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 bind, and there are no written or printed rules and regulations known in the service, which your commissioners think is lamentable.
It is practically impossible to fix responsibility on anybody. The deputy is supposed to shoulder responsibility for everything ias 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. 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.
Then the commissioners go on to deal with the question of bookkeeping by the Faulkner Company. They point out:
After months of work by the highly paid experts the result has been at least greatly improved books as far as mechanical reform 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 I give discount. In other words, some of the government's officers aire serving two masters, and apparently succeeding with both-scripture notwithstanding.
It is certain that under such a state of


Haughton Lennox: things it must he impossible to develop high character in the service, or rather to prevent the deterioration of what character there is.
As some evidence that the heads of the department have been quite aware of it, we find on one of the files a memorandum by 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 cure suggested is too ludicrous to be taken seriously, but, as evidence of the condition of things,, and the department's knowledge of it, this memorandum is significant. It was marked approved and initialled by the minister at that time.
Coming to the question of the lighthouse board-this scheme which was adopted for purposes which I do not think the government would like very fully to explain-the commissioners say :
Between June, 1905, and June, 1907, this board approved of and passed applications for new and improved aids to navigation amounting to $1,691,813. With the voting away of this vast amount of money the responsible minister had nothing to do. He was simply asked to initial the minutes of the different meetings of this most powerful but irresponsible board. The effect of this state of things is disastrous. It means practically the removing of all responsibility from those to whom extensive powers of administration and expenditure are granted.
When one realizes the enormous pressure being constantly brought to hear on the government of the day in favour of grants and bounties of all kinds, from one end of the country to the other, it would surely seem to be a most unwise thing to create a board with extensive powers, which can be and are used in sympathy with this universal outside pressure, and without being accountable to anybody.
The two outside members of this board simply represent the shipping interest, which is their own. They cannot serve the country and themselves equally well in the same matter. The other members of the hoard are government officials, who, whatever their standing may be, personally or officially, are not independent of political influence or departmental pressure. They are in no proper sense qualified to fill such a position of trust as a seat on this lighthouse board should mean-where the most absolute sense of justice, with complete independence, is called for; with a keen desire to administer the people's money with the utmost economy and good judgment, and with all prsonal considerations sunk.
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.
It is pretty clearly urged, so that I need not stop to emphasize it, that that board

is an utterly irresponsible body, utterly unconstitutional and one which never should have been created. And when the opportunity now presents itself, we should avail ourselves of it to have a better system than we now have. Again :
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. . . Organization, discipline, zeal for the public service, and regard for economy are all conspicuous by their absence.
A word or two about the Department of Militia may not be out of place. The commissioners say :
The expenditure in this department is going up by leaps and bounds. In 1903-4 the total expenditure, both in capital and consolidated fund, was in the neighbourhood of three and a half million dollars. In the estimates lately submitted to parliament for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1909, appropriations are asked for aggregating $6,500,000. That is to say, in four years and three-quarters the expenditures will have increased, if the supply asked for is granted, to the extent of $3,000,000.
About the Militia Council also they have something to say :
In addition to the council an officer has been appointed, called the inspector general, at a salary of $6,000 per -annum. In Great Britain the appointment of inspector general was made for reasons which do not exist in Canada; -but as the inspector general in Canada has only to report, your commissioners are very doubtful, however valuable the reports may be, that the retention of an officer at such a large salary is beneficial and altogether in the public interests. From past experience, it would seem as if this office were being made a stepping stone to the retirement of high military officers in Canada on large allowances.
Then summing up they say :
In conclusion your commissioners have to point out that the expenditure has grown in a little over four years from -three and a half millions to six and a half millions; that the permanent and headquarters staff have increased to the number of about 220; that in addition to the general system of high pay the favoured men of the militia service in Canada draw pensions ont only for themselves but for their wives and ohildren; that the staff is sufficient for a corps of one hundred thousand men according to the evidence submitted; that the desertions have been one in three; thht 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 so-me years ago; that while only 40,000 men came out for drill of ages from 18 to 50, 293
yet compared with the population of over a million men in Canada between the ages of 20 and 40, the proportion seems small. Whether with all the large expenditure of public moneys the result as detailed shows efficiency, your commissioners leave to the consideration of Your Excellency.
I had intended to read the account submitted through the commissioners of the difference in expenditure in the Militia Department now and in 1904, but I will not now take the time necessary for that purpose. I think the instances given prove with abundant clearness that the time has come when we should have a thorough revision of our civil service along the lines marked out by the resolution of my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster). And, whatever the right hon. Prime Minister may say as to this being an inopportune time, I am sure the country believes that the time is most opportune for bringing in a measure along these lines. We shall await with interest the bringing in of the government measure to see if it carries out the main recommendations of the Civil Service Commission which the right hon. gentleman appointed and whether it is framed along lines which will leave these appointments and promotions free from political influences. In the meantime I shall have great pleasure in supporting the amendment.
House divided on amendment (Mr. Foster).
YEAS:
. Messieurs
McCarthy (Calgary), McLean
(Queens, P.E.I.), Morin,
Northrup,
Owen,
Perley,
Porter,
Roche (Marquette), Schaffner,
Staples,
Taylor,
Walsh (Huntingdon), White
Wright (Muskoka)-39.
NAYS:
Messieurs
Lavergne,
(Drum. & Arth.), Loggie,
Lovell,
Maclean (Lunenburg), McCraney,
McIntyre
(Strathcona),
McKenzie,
McLean (Huron), McLean (York C.), McLennan,
Marcil (Bon a venture).
Alcorn,
Armstrong,
Avery,
Barr,
Bergeron,
Borden (Carleton), Brabazon,
Broder,
Daniel,
Foster,
Fowler,
Herron,
Jackson (Elgin), Lake,
Lennox,
Lewis,
Aylesworth, Beauparlant, Bickerdike, Bole,
Bourbonnais, Boyer, Brodeur, Brown, Bureau, Caldwell, Calvert, Carney, Cash,



Chisholm	Martin (Wellington)
(Antigonish).	Meigs,
Copp,	Michaud,
Crawford,	Oliver,
Cyr,	Paterson,
Demers,	Parent,
Dugas,	Pickup,
Emmerson,	Pugsley,
EthieT,	Ross (Cape Breton),
Fielding,	Ross (Rimouski),
Finlay,	Ross (Yale-Cariboo),
Finlayson,	Savoie,
Galliher,'	Smith (Nanaimo),
Geoffrion,	. Stewart,
Girard,	Talbot,
Graham,	Telford,
Hunt,	Templeman,
J ohnston,	Tolmie,
Kennedy,	Turcotte,
Knowles,	Turgeon,
Lachance, v	Turrifi,
Lanctot (Laprairie-	Verville,
Napierville),	W atson,
Lanctot (Richelieu),	Wilson (Russell)-72 [DOT]
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Laurier (L'Assomption),	
Ministerial.
Logan,
Parmelee,
Green way,
Clarke,
Gordon,
Black,
Burrows,
Tobin,
Beid (Restigoucbe), Devlin,
Maopherson,
Borden
(Sir Frederick),
Lemieux,
Caron,
Carvell,
Dyment,
Conmee,
Fisher,
German,
Grant,
Hall,
Harty,
Hughes (P.E.I.),
Fortier,
Jackson (Selkirk),
Law,
McColl,
Macdonald,
McCool,
LeBlanc,
McIntyre (Perth),
Miller,
Pardee,
Wright (Renfrew), Adamson,
Proulx,
Ratz,
Schell (Glengarry),
Schell (Oxford),
Sinclair,
Sloan,
Sifton,
Smith (Oxford), Zimmerman,
Amendment negatived.


Haughton Lennox: PAIRS: Messieurs
Opposition.
Lefurgey,
Worthington,
Tisdale,
Marshall,
Ames,
Elson, Lennox, Monk, Ganong, Stanfield, Bristol,
Wilmot,
Haggart,
Barker,
Beattie,
Bennett,
Blain,
Chisholm (Huron), Christie,
Clare,
Clements,
Cockshutt,
Crocket,
Forget,
Henderson,
Hughes (Victoria), Kemp,
Lalor,
Lancaster,
Leonard,
Macdonell,
MacLarem,
McLean (York S.), Martin (P.E.I.). Osier,
Paquet,
Pringle,
Reid (Grenville), Seagram,
Smith (Wentworth) Sproule,
Thompson,
Ward,
Wilson (Lennox).
House went into Committee of Supply.


George Eulas Foster: Is it the intention, of the government to keep us longer here to-night 1


William Paterson: I would like to pass one or two items.


George Eulas Foster: We came here at 3 o'clock this afternoon, and it is now after 12. We have debated a very important resolution this afternoon. We are, we will suppose, Christians and men, and I do not think we have any right, either on one side or the other, to strain our endurance to an unnecessary point. It does seem to me that if we are called upon to sit much later than 12 o'clock at night it is straining to a point of endurance which is unreasonable, at this time of the year and in this kind of weather. The plea is made that it is necessary to get through business. So it is; but there is other business than the estimates that are before the House, and this House cannot prorogue until the other business as well as the estimates are carried through. We might as well be frank with each other, and say that there are some points of legislation about which there is a difference, that difference has existed for some time, and although it has existed for some time, we seem to be no nearer getting a decision from the government as to whether they propose to press that legislation or not. I think the government ought to treat us fairly and frankly, and they will find the opposition anxious with them in putting through the other necessary business of the session.


William Paterson: I have no desire to keep the House late, but 1 will tell you how the thing stands. I want to get $2,074,500. It is all in one item, it generally passes like that. We are only asking for what is necessary. To-day we should have drawn our cheques to pay our outside officers. I suppose there are 2,000 men who, if you do not give them this money, will have to go without their pay. The hon. gentleman speaks about it being un-Christian to sit late. Would it not be more un-Christian to put us in the position of being unable to pay men who, we have been told to-night, have been faithful men and who have well earned their wages ? At any rate, so far as I am concerned, and I think I have my colleagues and the Prime Minister with me, I will make an effort to get the money, so that these men who are under my charge cannot at any rate lay the blame upon me if they go without the wages which they have fairly earned. I will give what explanations members may desire. I suppose there are a hundred men in this city alone who will have to go without the pay they have earned if I do not get this money, and others are scattered from the Atlantic to the Pacific; too many of them, as hon. gentlemen opposite know, do not get salaries that enable them to do without their money when it is due. Therefore

I desire to stay long enough at any rate to let those gentlemen know that the head of the department is not to blame if they do not get their money.


George Eulas Foster: There is another way in which the situation can be stated. I do not propose to be put in the wrong by the specious reasoning of the (Minister of Customs. It is perfectly right that these men who do the work should have their pay and these men would have had their pay many days before this if the government had not obtruded between them and their pay obnoxious legislation, obnoxious to a large portion of this House and the country. The government have it within their power in a very short time to allow these men to get their pay by withdrawing, or by putting aside, a portion of the legislation which is not necessary to the well being of this country, either to the Department of Customs or to any other department of the service. It is a party interest purely and simply which is involved in that legislation, and it is obtruded, not in the interest of the service of the country but of the party.


William Stevens Fielding: There is a large batch of legislation proposed, which stands on the Order Paper, but because the hon. gentleman differs from us as respects some portion of that legislation, therefore the customs officers shall not get their money. We are not discussing the legislation to which my hon. friend refers; he is welcome to his view upon that, and at the proper time and in the proper manner he may discuss that legislation as much as he pleases. We are proposing now to ask this House to grant supplies to carry on the public service of the country. We decline to mix up any other question with that. We now ask the House to grant the necessary supply, and no excuse that the hon. gentleman may urge with regard to some other item will be accepted by the country as a sufficient reason for withholding the necessary supplies.


Mr. A. A. MACLEAN.: We have been here now for six months, I cannot get home every Friday night like some members of Quebec and Ontario. Four months are sufficient to pass all the public business, I think the government are to blame for the length of this session. During the last four months the supply could have been taken up at almost any time.


William Stevens Fielding: The charge of the hon. gentleman, I am bound to say, is entirely unwarranted. Again and again during the greater period of that six months we have brought forward some part of these estimates and again and again we have been blocked-I will not say obstructed-we have been blocked by hon. gentlemen opposite, who in the exercise of their rights have brought forward motions, many of1 which, in our judgment, were entirely unnecessary, useless motions such as the one 293J
which has engaged the attention of the House this afternoon, an utterly uselss mo-' tion which could only have for its purpose to anticipate the action of the government in a matter which stands on the Order Paper, and we have had hon. gentlemen spend-the whole day in tactics of that character and now when we reach the hour when we want to do business, they say : Oh, we are tired and want to go home.


George Eulas Foster: The hon. gentleman has failed to represent properly my position with reference to the motion I brought on' to-day. He may have his opinion as to what the motion is worth, I am wiling to leave that to the country, I am willing to put the principle involved in the motion I moved this afternoon and the result that would flow from its adoption with reference to the best interests of this country alongside of his section No. 1 of a Bill with reference to the electoral law of Canada; a Bill which the government promised two years ago, which they referred to in their speech from the Throne at' one time, an election Bill which at long last they have placed on the Order Paper at what time ? Nearly five months after the session opened. And they have imported into that Bill a section of a highly contentious nature, a section which carries out what in 1904 some hon. gentleman on that side of the House wished to carry out but which they were prevented from carrying, which they had printed at the Government Bureau and would have put through until they were baulked by a Minister of Justice who had some energy and force.


Mr. DUNCAN ROSS.: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order, I would like to know what item we are on.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


George Eulas Foster: Now they have placed that on their programme and have let five months of the session pass before taking it up.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


George Eulas Foster: Now will not the Finance! Minister


Mr. DEPUTY  MINISTER@: I think I will have to call an item so that we will be in order.
Resolution No. 266, page 82, Customs,


George Eulas Foster: If the Finance Minister-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.
Mr. FOSTER, I would like to know in what I am out of order.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Does the hon. gentleman require an answer?


George Eulas Foster: I am not asking you.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: The resolution was not read.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER (reading):: Seven-eighths of $2,074,500 and contingent expenses of the several ports in the Dominion.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Mr. Chairman


Charles Marcil: Including pay for overtime of officers notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $1,705,000.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Carried.


Mr. TAYLOR.: No, it is not carried and if lion, gentlemen -will not keep quiet it will' not be carried in a good while.


George Eulas Foster: The Minister of Finance characterized the resolution of this afternoon as a silly and unnecessary resolution


William Stevens Fielding: I did not say silly.


George Eulas Foster: It is about tantamount to that.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not object to that.
Some hou. MEMBERS. Order, order.


George Eulas Foster: But that resolution was given notice of by me and was on the order paper the first day of the session.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: I rise to a point of order. Is the speech that the hon. member is now making pertinent to the resolution before the chair?


Charles Marcil: I understand that these are merely preliminary explanations.


George Eulas Foster: The Minister of Finance knows very well that those resolutions were, as I have stated, placed on the Order Paper at the very opening of the session. He knows also that it was expected that we would have the report of the Civil Service Commission by January 1, but that It was delayed, owing to the length of the excursion they took and the interesting objects they met in the course of that excursion, beyond the first of January. He knows that I gave as a reason; and it was a perfectly valid reason, that I was waiting for the report to be brought down before I discussed the resolution. He knows that the report was not brought down until probably two months after he had expected it and when that report was printed and placed before the House, we had reached a stage of the session where it was impossible for me to get at my resolution and he knows that I stated in the House that as it was impossible for me to reach it on that order I proposed to drop the order and would bring it up again at the first convenient opportunity when we were going into Supply. That I have done and I think that explanation Is quite sufficient to make it impossible for a fair-minded man to taunt me with keeping that resolution back in order to bring it up at this late day for the Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.
purpose of obstructing the work of the government. If the Finance Minister will look back over the history of this session he will find that the government has been the chief obstructor. This opposition has a duty to perform in this House, it is its duty to examine into the way in which the finances arte managed, it is its duty to examine into grievances and it has been doing that duty very effectively. There is not a single motion that the opposition has preferred before this House and has carried out in debate that has not been of great Importance with reference to the well being of this country and to the way in which its affairs have been managed. It has been our duty to do this as well as our right. What did the Finance Minister and the First Minister do? They have put forward their obstructive power to prevent us from getting the information we needed. Have hon. gentlemen opposite forgotten how long they withstood the demand for the production of the original documents, a demand which was as fair and reasonable as any demand ever put before the House.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


George Eulas Foster: They obstructed that and debated it for days and days.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


George Eulas Foster: Until at last they had to give way and we saw the original documents as we wished. So with reference to other parts of their legislation, especially with reference to this legislation; their Election Bill should have ben brought down in the early part of the session.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Mr. Chairman, I rise again


George Eulas Foster: At the very opening of this House and then this House


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Mr. Chairman, if I understood your decision a minute ago the hon. gentleman was supposed to make preliminary remarks, and he has been going on, wandering all over the country


Charles Marcil: I understood that certain explanations were being given on both sides of the House preliminary to the work going on. Of course the hon. gentleman will understand that these explanations must be limited.


George Eulas Foster: I propose to limit them, I am pretty close up to the limit now.
Mr. GALLIHER, I ask if the discussion since you have taken the chair has not all been out of order? You have read a resolution with regard to certain items and any controversy pertinent to those Items is in order, but I submit that this discussion since you have taken the chair is not in order and I ask your ruling.


Charles Marcil: My ruling is that we are in committee at present and

such latitude has always been allowed with the consent of both sides that it is difficult to apply the rule. Strictly speaking, the vote before the House is this matter of Customs and of course anything else is irrelevant.


George Eulas Foster: That is quite true and I submit that at this late hour we should not be called upon to pass this large item, $2,000,000 for the customs service all over the country. The plea I have been trying to make is that as the government has delayed its legislation we should not be made to bear the brunt of their fault by their attempting to carry their estimates at an unreasonable hour. There is other legislation equally as important as the estimates.


William Stevens Fielding: No.


George Eulas Foster: The Minister of Customs and the First Minister and the Minister of Finance have it within their power to expedite matters.


Wilfrid Laurier: How ?


George Eulas Foster: I will tell my hon. friend frankly: By letting us know what the government proposes to do with reference to their Election Bill.	.


Wilfrid Laurier: Then we are to understand that unless we take up the Election Bill and make it to suit my hon. friend there will be no estimates.


George Eulas Foster: Oh, we have discussed that.
-Sir WILFRID LAURIER. No this is the time to discuss it. The attitude of the hon. gentleman now is a very apposite commentary upon his whole conduct to-day and upon the attitude taken by the opposition. We have had speeches and resolutions to affirm that positions in no branch of the public service ought to be in the appointment of the government, but that all these appointments should be made by an independent body, and now that we have brought a Bill in which we offered as a compromise, that certain appointments made by the government should not be made by the government in future but should be made by judges ; in the face of that the hon. gentleman says: We will not give you supply unless you do what we want you to do. That is the object of the hon. gentleman; that is the attitude of the opposition, and the country will understand it.


Robert Laird Borden: May I be permitted to say that the statement just uttered by the Prime Minister is a complete misrepresentation.


Wilfrid Laurier: In what respect ?


Robert Laird Borden: In this respect, that the men who make the revision at the present time are the same judges that the Prime Minister says he proposes to appoint, and yet in the face of that he has stated to the House that the opposition are inconsistent in that they object to the appointment of men selected by judges. Either the Prime Minister must have forgotten his own proposal-his memory must be even shorter than usual-or else he was not frank with the House in his statement.
I confess I don't understand him.


William Paterson: What you want about your Bill, or what you don't want about your Bill does not interest me just now; I want this money. The explanation is that there is an increase of $80,000 to providte increases of salaries for the officers and to appoint any new officers that may be found necessary. Hitherto the House has had a good dteal of confidence-I must thank hon. gentlemen for it-in passing the Customs estimates. They have generally _ gone through in five or ten minutes and I do not think longer than that will be necessary to-night for the reason that they are based on what has been fully understood. The increase as hon. gentlemen stee is very moderate. Last year we went into a general increase and I have a list of all to whom increases wtere given, but it is very long and I suppose I need not read it. There will be some deserving cases this year and we would like to have tine money if it is decided we should grant them. There are continual demands on the Customs Department for new ports and officers are required at these ports. This is not all for the collection of revenue because we have had during the past year 15 or 20 men who do nothing in the way of collecting revenue but who are safeguarding the revenue. We have adopted a more stringent system of inspection and put on an additional staff at several points near the frontier.,, The only question to be considered is: Is $80,000 too much to grant for deserving additions to salaries and for providing for the extra work that will come upon the department.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the reason of the provision:
Salaries and contingent expenses of the several -ports including pay for overtime of officers, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act.


William Paterson: Office hours are from 8 to 6 and we have officers who meet trains coming in at night and have to be paid for their overtime. In old tirrues the transportation companies paid this charge, but some years ago parliament decided to pay it out of the public funds.


Robert Laird Borden: This is a matter which is very strongly criticised in the civil service neport and that criticism I entirely concur in. If your Civil Service Act at

present does not permit you to carry on the business of the country as it should be [DOT]carried on why not amend it ? It is not advisable to have a provision in item aftier item declaring that it is in contravention of the Civil Service Act.


William Paterson: This has been going on for years and years.


Robert Laird Borden: And unless it is stopped it will go on for ever.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: It has bieen going on more than ever for the last ten years.


William Paterson: Oh, no.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Would the Minister of Customs explain what is meant by this statement in the report of the Civil Service Commission:
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.


William Paterson: When vacancies occur you have to fill them. My desire always is to fill them with competent men, men of character and men of ability. That I try my best to do.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: What examinations?


William Paterson: Collectors of customs have not to pass the civil service examination.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The position of the Minister of Customs is that there is no use in Conservatives passing the examination because they would not get the appointment.


William Paterson: I did not say that.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Well, the commissioners say as much.


William Paterson: I do not know what the commissioners may say. I have the recommendations, but I do not know the parties personally, and I have to avail myself of the knowledge of those who do know them to assure myself that they are competent; and if a man is competent for the position, the fact that he is a Liberal is not a barrier to his appointment.


Mr. BARR.: Has there been a Conservative appointed since my hon. frieDd has been Minister of Customs ?


William Paterson: I think the officers have been largely drawn from the Liberal party.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I notice that the commissioners distinctly state that almost all the appraisers in the outside service of this department, have been appointed without undergoing the civil service examination ; and yet the minister gave us to Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
understand that they have undergone this examination.


William Paterson: I did not say that.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Does the hon. minister then not think it would be wise for them to undergo some examination and be properly fitted to fill these positions ?


William Paterson: Yes, I think it would.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The report distinctly says they do not.


William Paterson: Well, I do not agree with ail that the report says. An appraiser does not undergo the civil service examination, but he has-to undergo, under the authority of the Civil Service Act, a practical examination in the duties of his office. I do not care how literary a character a man may be, if he has not handled any dry goods, groceries, crockery, boots and shoes and other articles of merchandise, his knowledge, valuable as it would be in certain spheres, is not sufiicient for an appraiser of goods. We have men of education and intelligence and also with a practical knowledge which enables them to know what line of goods come under a certain rate of duty, what item applies to them, and the character and value of the goods. That kind of an examination they undergo.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I cannot help reading a few more lines of this report and asking the Minister of Customs what he intends to do regarding these statements made by the Commission.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Write him a letter.
Mi'. ARMSTRONG. I [DOT] am afraid the minister would not read it. I wish to impress this upon him :
The only suggestion the commissioners can make in regard to the outside service is to have the service absolutely divorced from political influence and have all the appointments put on a basis of merit.
These are strong assertions. I do not see how the Minister of Customs can get over them. He frankly admits that he only appoints Liberals.


Henry Robert Emmerson: They were mostly all Conservatives.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: My hon. friend would almost as lief appoint a Doukhobor on the railway as a Conservative, and perhaps rather. I think we are justified in asking the minister whether he intends to carry out the policy, in spite of the commissioners' report, that no men shall be appointed in the Customs Department, unless they are political partisans of his, and the commissioners distinctly state that the men are not fitted for the positions they are filling.


William Paterson: As I said before, I do not hold myself bound by all that the commissioners have said. They formed their opinions, and I think they did right to express them ; but I have my opinions . too, and I think perhaps I know as much about the service, having been connected with it for ten years, as a gentleman who called up one or two of my officers and examined them. If my hon. friend reads that report, I think he will find that the testimony given to the commissioners was that on the whole the customs staff was a valuable body of men discharging their duties well.


Mr. DANIEL.: Is the payment for overtime in addition to the ordinary pay of these officials, or is it deducted from their salaries ?


William Paterson: It supplements their regular statutory salary. Up to last year the rate was 25 cents an hour, but last year parliament gave me permission to raise it to 30 cents an hour. Where we require men to work overtime on Sundays, we pay them, and the amount is recouped to us by the transportation companies. Otherwise we pay them the extra amount.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Are many men affected by this regulation ?


William Paterson: Yes, a large number- in Montreal, in Halifax and in St. John.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: These men must work many hours overtime, judging by the amounts they redeive. A great many have advanced from $200 to $300. There is overtime like that to the extent of over $18,000. I cannot understand what overtime they do except on Sundays. Are the temporary employees, those who work on the wharfs in the summer-about $11,000 ? When are they employed and how long ?


William Paterson: There is overtime at the stations in winter but the most is in the summer.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I do not understand why a man under salary, when there is work to do, should not come back and do it. In commercial offices, if there is need for the clerks to go back after eight o'clock, they do so and are not paid overtime. This sort of expenditure used to be very much criticised by my hon. friend when in opposition but we have more of it now than ever.


George Eulas Foster: What is the total amount which goes for overtime ?


William Paterson: About $90,000.


George Eulas Foster: How is that distributed?


William Paterson: It is distributed at Montreal, Quebec and the various other ports according as the work is done


George Eulas Foster: How does the minister arrive at that $90,000 ?


William Paterson: The accountant makes up his estimates and he knows what was paid last year. He estimates whether the amount is likely to be increased. He cannot tell the exact amount. We may have occasion to appoint an extra officer during the year, which appointment could not be foreseen, and that might reduce a little the overtime at that particular port, but the estimate is fairly accurate.


George Eulas Foster: What number of hours do these men work in their regular service?


William Paterson: Ten hours per day.


George Eulas Foster: Who selects the men to do the overtime ?


William Paterson: The collectors at the different ports. Mr. White, collector at Montreal, apportions the men there. There is great desire among the men, who have small salaries, to share in the overtime, and Mr. White endeavours to divide it as fairly as he can. We have to trust to our collectors.


George Eulas Foster: What supervision has the department over this matter of overtime ? Mr. White may be a very trustworthy collector but all collectors may not be the same. Here you have $90,000 voted by parliament, and that can be practically expended exactly as the collectors wish. In the first place is the overtime work necessary ? What check has the minisfer ? If necessary, what is the method on which the men are assigned to the work ? How does the minister satisfy himself that this $90,000 has to be expended ? If due diligence were used and if proper work were done within the hours, it would not be necessary.


William Paterson: The collector has to certify to the extra time.


George Eulas Foster: But is the extra time necessary ? Is there any system of inspection or check ?


William Paterson: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: What is it ?


William Paterson: We have a tide surveyor on the wharf at all hours of the night, and we have the surveyor of the port who will be up at night at all hours very often, and these have to certify, before the money is paid, that the work has been done. And the men get two hours and not more, as a rule, because we think that if a man works twelve hours that is enough. So, we do not allow him to work more than two hours overtime.


George Eulas Foster: As I understand the collectors make a demand for a certain amount for their ports, which amount is placed in their hands. They have to choose the persons who should do the overtime. But that is limited by the two hours maximum. I suppose it is possible that favour-

itism may be shown. I am not saying that it is shown, but such a thing is possible. But what check has the minister to prove that the men have actually performed two hours overtime and have done their work faithfully ?


William Paterson: The only check we can possibly have-the certificates of the men who employ them.


Mr.   POSTER@: That is the collector, but he is not there at all hours.


William Paterson: He has his subordinate officers.


Mr.   POSTER@: But who certifies ?


William Paterson: The tide surveyor on the wharf, or the landing waiter at the railway.


Mr.   POSTER@: What work do the overtime men do ?


William Paterson: For instance, wait at the station until a train comes in to examine the baggage of people who want to go through that night instead of putting the baggage in bond. This is a convenience to the railways, so much so that in days gone by they paid for it themselves. Ships coming in also want facilities for quick unloading. And goods have to be watched at night. Of course, there are night watchmen, and I suppose that the man who is up at night is not up in the day time. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Poster) will think it over, he will see that it is difficult to suggest any other plan than the one we have. We cannot send a man from here to look after it. If we have officers upon whom we cannot rely, we might be lost, but we have confidence in them. Nothing of that kind could go wrong in the port without our hearirig it.


George Eulas Foster: Suppose that John Jones and John Smith are detailed for overtime work at a railway station. Their regular hours end at what time ?


William Paterson: Six o'clock.


Mr.   POSTER@: If a train is due at eleven o'clock, are these men detailed to go at that time and do two hours' work up to one o'clock ? Or do you arrange that every train and ship should come in at six o'clock.


William Paterson: No.


Mr.   POSTER@: Then how is it arranged ? Is a man detailed to go down at eleven o'clock and put in his two hours' work ?


William Paterson: Yes, if he did not start the two hours before.


Mr.   POSTER@: That is pretty hard on the service, is it not ? A man must be roused from his rest at eleven o'clock to go down Mr. FOSTER.
to do two hours' work. Or it may be that the train does not come in until one o'clock.


William Paterson: It is hard on them.


Mr.   POSTER@: But is it not hard on the service 3 When a man is engaged in extra work in this way, you can hardly expect him to be fresh for his regular ten hours' work next day. How does it work out in practice ?


William Paterson: It works out satisfactorily. The only other way would be to engage enough men to have a day staff and a night staff. Many of these men, if they had not overtime, would want their salaries increased, because they could not get on with the wages they have. So, not only would you have to pay the salaries of the larger staff, but you would have to pay these men more as well. Therefore, this is the most economical method. These men are not engaged in hard physical labour. They have to wait for an hour or two, perhaps, in order to do a half hour's work.


George Eulas Foster: If the man waits there and is not called upon to do any work, does he get his time just the same ?


William Paterson: He does the work by being there. This to help trade and commerce. That it is a help is shown by the fact that the railways were willing to pay for it, but, instead of letting them pay, we pay it ourselves.


Mr.   POSTER@: Suppose a man goes down at eight o'clock and the train does not come in until ten, and after it comes in he does two hours' work. Is he paid for four hours?


William Paterson: No. He would be relieved by another man or the goods would go into bond.


George Eulas Foster: But if he were not relieved he would get his pay?


William Paterson: Yes, but the goods would probably go into bond after 12 o'clock at night.


Mr.   POSTER@: Prom the minister's explanation it seems to be a very haphazard arrangement.	,


William Paterson: I do not see how it is more so than any other part of the system by which our $10,000,000 or $15,000,000 is collected.


Mr. R. E. BORDEN.: So far as attending the trains is concerned, I should think you might embrace that in the daily duty of some officer, letting him begin his work in the day at a later hour. Of course, I can understand how he should have overtime if the train is late. But when you expect a train every day in the year at a stated hour, it is a matter almost of necessity to have some one there in order to transact

the business of the customs. Now, why should we call that overtime?


William Paterson: We are working overtime now. They put in their ten hours and if they put in two hours more we pay them for it.


Robert Laird Borden: Suppose a train comes in at 8 o'clock at night or 6 o'clock in the morning, and you know it is expected at that hour every day in the year, why is it necessary to deal with it as something unusual when you know that in the ordinary course it will come in at those hours ?


William Paterson: The hon. gentleman would not advocate an officer having two hours of his time taken up without paying him?


Robert Laird Borden: I did not suggest anything of the kind.


William Paterson: A train arrives at 8 o'clock, we will suppose, in the morning at Winnipeg or Montreal. The cartage company start working at 7 o'clock in the morning; they want to get their goods, and we must have certain officers there. It is a piece of economy to pay certain officers overtime instead of having a regular staff for the purpose.


Robert Laird Borden: If you require the service of a man at 6 o"'clock in the morning let him leave at a corresponding earlier hour in the afternoon, or if there is another train at 8 o'clock or 10 o'clock in the evening, let the man who has to deal with that begin his work at a later hour in the day.
that the minister asks us to vote for salaries.


William Paterson: About $1,450,000.


George Eulas Foster: And about how much for contingent expenses?


William Paterson: About $150,000. As a matter of fact, the expenditure for nine months for salaries to the 31st of October amounted to $940,895.


George Eulas Foster: What was expended last year for salaries ?


William Paterson: Last year the expenditure was $1,601,000 for those three items.


George Eulas Foster: That is exactly the demerit of this vote. It is a concealed ^ote, and I would like to have it definitely on ' Hansard ' so that we may have something on which to bring the minister up.


William Paterson: For the nine months the salaries were $869,885.50 ; overtime, $60,636.35 ; and contingencies, $78,938.70.


George Eulas Foster: What is the anticipated increase in overtime ?


William Paterson: I cannot state definitely what portion of the $80,000 will be used but approximately it is estimated that we will require $50,000 for increased salaries and $30,000 for additional officers and increased expenditure on contingencies.


George Eulas Foster: How do you divide that ?


William Paterson: We do not divide them, we cannot tell that until it is expended.


William Paterson: What the hon. gentleman suggests can be done, but it can only be done by adding to the staff.


George Eulas Foster: As the minister has shown us where $90,000 of this vote is to be found, what is the gross amount that is estimated for salaries?


William Paterson: It would be the balance of that vote.


George Eulas Foster: No, there are other items. This brings out again the concealed nature of these votes and the impossibility of having any parliamentary control over them. You have here $1,750,000, and for anything that is contained in the direction of this vote you can spend a million of that on overtime, or half a million of it on contingent expenses, and you can call anything you like a contingent expense. Now, that kind of vote is the blindest, and that 'is the least responsible way of making up estimates. It gives the minister power that he ought not to have, because it puts the whole amount of money into his hands and he can appropriate just as much as he pleases to each of the three divisions. I would like to know what is the amount


George Eulas Foster: The Minister should have his estimate.


William Paterson: I do not think it is at all necessary. I am asking for the vote and it will be paid as it has been in the past.


George Eulas Foster: The lack of definite estimate in these votes does not lead to economy of expenditure or to the clearness the House wants before giving money to the minister.


William Paterson: If I should give a definite estimate, say $10,000, it may not be correct. New lines of steamers may run to this country or new lines of railway enter and in that way the information given now might be misleading.


Mr FOSTER.: You have estimated for over time, salaries, and contingencies on the general run of your business in the past. All we want is that the minister should cut up his $80,000 into what would be required for each of these three divisions.


Frederick William Borden: That is done in I the estimates of other departments.


William Paterson: In the old times it used to be done for each province but if you ran short of your estimate for one province and had more than sufficient for another province you would not be allowed to take the overplus and a supplementary estimate had to be brought down for the province with respect to which there was a deficiency. We are one Dominion and it is the same service, and it is a far better plan to take the vote for the whole Dominion.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not advocate any division by provinces. Why should not this huge item of nearly $3,000,000 be divided so that we might see how much goes for each service ? I am opposed to supplementary estimates and for my part I would be prepared to give the minister a liberal allowance so that he would not be obliged at the end of the year to resort to a supplementary estimate.


Mr.   POSTER@: The Minister of Customs must not go away with the idea that I want the old division by provinces. We are one Dominion and the vote is for the service of the Dominion, but there is no reason why it should not be divided so that we may see what goes for each service. Under the English system the estimates are submitted to the House with great minuteness of detail and explanations are even given in the estimates, which is much better than trying to get it by question and answer from an unwilling minister as appears to be at present the case. We have got so far that we are told that there is $50,000 for increases in salaries ; is that a guess of the minister ?


William Paterson: It is an estimate.


Mr.   POSTER@: It is not founded on making up your mind as to who ought have increases of salary.


William Paterson: That has not been considered yet. I have applications for, increases from various officers and I told them I had not money to pay their salaries to say nothing of giving them increases.


Mr.   POSTER@: Before the minister asks $50,000 to increase the salaries of officers should he not lay before the House the grounds upon which he considers these officers are entitled to increases ? Is parliament or is the minister to be the judge of that ? If increases are asked for under the civil government appropriation we are told what officers are to get increases.


William Paterson: The Act provides for that.


Mr.   POSTER@: The proper time to consider what officers you should increase is before you ask parliament for a vote for


Mr.   R.@: h. BORDEN.
that purpose. It must be assumed that parliament will ask what officers are going to get increases of salaries and the minister should have that information. Will the minister tell us what collectors are to get increases ?


William Paterson: I do not know.


Mr.   POSTER@: If the minister does not know he had better not ask for this appropriation.


William Paterson: If you don't give it to me all right.


Mr.   POSTER@: It is all very well for the minister to say that, but we should have the information before we vote the money. The time for the minister to make up his mind as to what officers shall get an increase in salary is before he asks parliament for the money. The hon. minister had better take the trouble of getting the information for the committee before he asks it to vote. Why does he want this $50,000 ? Whose salaries is he going to increase ? He does not know, but he wants to be the beneficent father and get the lump sum from parliament without giving the information as to wliat he wants it for, and then scatter it around as he pleases. It is parliament that should decide whether a man should have an increase or not.


William Paterson: How do you know whether a man should have an increase or not ?


Mr.   POSTER@: The government might as well come down at once and in a single line ask for $100,000,000 for the expenses of the government; that is the reductio ad absurdum of the hon. gentleman's position, the minister knows that that is not the proper way to put estimates before a committee. So I want to ask the minister again what he proposes to spend in extra overtime, what he proposes to expend in extra contingent expenses and what salaries he proposes to increase for this $25 increase with this $50,000, and what reasons he has giving any increases.


William Paterson: There was $150,000 odd voted last year for increases of salaries, and that was given without a word. The proper criticism would be, what did you do with the money voted last year ? I have the list of payments here. The hon. gentleman asks me how much I propose to spend in overtime next year. I am asking for $10,000 more, but I do not propose to spend a cent of it if I can help it; but I may be compelled under our rule of paying thirty cents an hour to spend the whole of it, or perhaps only $6,000 or perhaps only $5,000.


George Eulas Foster: The minister knows that he has to tell this committee what money he wants and the purpose for which he

wants it. After having been entrusted last year with money on these conditions, it is his duty to answer our questions as to what he did with the moneys entrusted to him last year, and then we will compare the results with his promises. But before he gets this vote, I want him to tell us what he proposes to do with the increase we are giving him this year. If he is going to increase salaries, let us know whose salaries he intends to increase.


William Paterson: Ask that next year.


George Eulas Foster: I want it this year, before he has expended the money. The minister is clearly up against it. Before he gets this vote, he has to tell this committee what he proposes to do with this money. Is the minister ready to tell us that?


William Paterson: I have told you what I have to say.


George Eulas Foster: But you have not told us what we want to know. The minister has no more information?


William Paterson: No.


George Eulas Foster: I will let that simmer for a while. What are the different grades of officers and how much money is devoted to the salaries of each grade ?


William Paterson: You will find the officers in the Civil Service List.


George Eulas Foster: What are your principal officers?


William Paterson: The principal officer in Montreal is Robert White. Under the Civil Service Act we have collectors, inspectors, surveyors, assistant surveyors, tide surveyors, chief landing waiters. Then there are technical officers. Then there are clerks in the customs office.


George Eulas Foster: You have collectors first ?


William Paterson: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: What amount of this money goes to pay the collectors ?


William Paterson: The amount they are paid now.


George Eulas Foster: How much is that ?


William Paterson: At the ports of Toronto, Montreal and I think Winnipeg they are paid $4,000 ; at Quebec and Halifax I think $3,200.


Mr. A. A. McLEAN (Queens, P.E.I.).: Is the minister going to take into consideration the services of the collector of customs at Charlottetown in a matter respecting the infringement of the Inland Revenue Act ? The charge was laid before him that a certain firm of tobacco manufacturers in Charlottetown had committed during 1907 infringements of the law with respect to the placing of stamps on the tobacco
manufactured by them. The matter was represented to the officers of the Inland Revenue Department but they did not see fit to discharge their duty. Probably they did not know what it was or they may have believed that no infringement had taken place. The complainants consequently were compelled to go to to the collector of customs at Charlottetown, Mr. W. B. Robinson, a very worthy gentleman and a good officer. Mr. Robinson informed the commissioner of customs of the complaint made. Previous to Mr. Robinson's information to the department, some communications took place between the officers of the Inland Revenue Department at Charlottetown and the deputy head in Ottawa. At the request of the parties who were aggrieved, I moved for the papers and an order was voted on March 16, in consequence of which the papers were laid on the table. The case may be one the minister may not have heard of, although I know it was before his deputy commissioner and he referred it to the Inland Revenue Department. It is now I consider, my duty to lay it before the Minister of Customs and the Minister of Inland Revenue in order that they may see that justice is done the parties aggrieved and the public. The first communication is as follows :
Inland Revenue Division No. 1, Charlottetown,
Prince Edward Island,
August 5, 1907.
W. J. Gerald, Esq.,
Deputy Minister of Inland Revenue, Ottawa.
Sir,-I have the honour to state that rumours of tobacco being sold ' out of packages ' have reached this office. Kings county seems to be the habitat. I have requested Inspector Burke to come over sooner than usual, although he is due some time this mouth when we might make some arrangements to make seizures. In the meantime I have sent officer Moore to one or two places to investigate and have also instructed him on his collecting tours to visit shops where tobacco is sold and seize in every case illicitly exposed tobacco. I have made requisition to-day for forms.
Question-Is it necessary to remove tobacco seized. I mean to take possession.
I am your obedient servant,
(Sgd.) SAMUEL C. NASH, Collector Inland Revenue.
This Is the answer :
Ottawa, August 8, 1907.
S. C. Nash, Esq.,
Collector of Inland Revenue, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island.
Sir,-I am in receipt of your communication of the 5th instant respecting the rumoured sale of unstamped tobacco within your division and requesting to be advised as to the necessity for taking possession of such tobacco in case of seizure.
In reply thereto I beg to state that if tobacco is so seized it becomes the property of the Crown and if the facts warrant its seizure

they certainly necessitate taking possession of the goods .seized.
In connection of the matter of seizure of tobacco, out of stamped packages, great care should be used by our officials to endeavour to ascertain if it is a case of fraud or of simple ignorance of the law. While it is true thiat the latter is no justification for the wrong-doing it is a factor that should have some weight with our officials. .
In any case whether tobacco is so found or not our officer should explain to dealers visited the provisions of the law respecting the sale of tobacco and, if these dealers have not been supplied with circular G.-155, a copy thereof should he delivered to each person visited and should be mailed to persons who are not so personally called upon.
I remain, sir,
Yonr obedient servant,
Deputy Minister.
The next communication came from the Hickey & Nicholson Tobacco Company, Charlottetown. It seems that although these reports were made to the officers of the Inland Revenue Department, no notice was taken of them with the exception of the letter I have just read. The parties aggrieved are the Hickey & Nicholson Tobacco Company, Limited, who were doing business In Charlottetown as manufacturers of tobacco. They were informed by their selling agent that tobacco was being sold throughout Prince Edward Island with only one-half stamp upon the packages.


Duncan Ross: Surely this discussion is not in order in connection with the salaries of customs officers.


Mr.   POSTER@: Absolutely in order.


Angus Alexander McLean: These tobaccos were sold at lower prices than the ordinary manufacturer could sell them. The Hickey & Nicholson .Manufacturing Company believed a fraud was committed, not only upon the public, but upon the government of Canada, and by reason of the fact that the company could not obtain the services of the Inland Revenue officials In order to ferret out the guilty parties they went to the collector of customs in Charlottetown.
But Mr. Nicholson thought he would not get justice at their hands and wrote this letter to Mr. Robertson.
Charlottetown, P.E.I.,
August 9, 1907.
W. B. Robertson, Esq.,
'Collector of Customs.
Sir,-Our Mr. Harnett has drawn my attention to gross violations of the Excise and Customs Act and I have reported the same to other officers some time ago hut up to the present no action has been taken or likely to. I therefore report same to you now and demand that you take immediate action and Mr. A. A. McLEAN.
our Mr. Harnett will accompany you to the identical goods.
Yours respectfully,
(Sgd.) HICKEY & NICHOLSON,
Tobacco Company, Ltd. '


D. NICHOLSON.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Robertson, in pursuance of the information which he had received, went to Lower Montague and discovered Irregularities with respect to some tobacco sold by the firm of T. B. & D. J. Riley, and that fraud had been committed against the people and government of this country. He reported it to the Commissioner of Customs.
Mr. TEMPLEMAN  .@: 1 renew the point of order that I have already raised. All this has nothing to do with the customs and therefore is irrelevant. My hon friend (Mr. A. A. McLean) is reading from a return which he moved for with respect to certain violations of the excise law in Prince Edward Island. It has no connection with the customs, except that complaint was made to the collector of customs at Charlottetown.


George Eulas Foster: Then there was a connection between the Inland Revenue and the Customs officer.


Mr. TEMPLEMAN.: Complaint was made to the customs officer-but he had nothing to do with it.


George William Fowler: Y<es, he had.


William Templeman: He wrote two letters. But that has no connection, with the item under discussion. It has to do with the Inland Revenue Department. And if, when my items are under discussion, the hon. gentleman desires explanations and cares to read the entire return in order to get it on ' Hansard ' there will be no objection. In this case, action was taken and a fine was imposed.


Angus Alexander McLean: No fine was imposed.


William Templeman: I submit that this has nothing to do with the Item under discussion.


George William Fowler: Speaking on the point
of order-


Duncan Ross: A point of order is not debatable in committee.


George William Fowler: I regret to see these evidences of jealousy between the Minister of Inland Revenue and the Minister of Customs. The' Minister of Inland Revenue seems jealous of the fact that the officer of his department had nothing to do with it, but it was strange that he should manifest that feeling so openly in the House. This, however, is merely preliminary, and I believe that preliminary remarks have been held by the chairman to be in order. As

to the point of order, I think that the Min-^ Inland Revenue has answered himself, for he stated that action was taken by an official of the Customs department.


William Templeman: I did not admit anything of the kind.
Mr. FOWLER, But the officer did act. Does the minister pretend to contradict a statement made in a tteport by this official9 Surely he will not have-to use an expression of one of these hon. gentlemen this afternoon-the audacity to quiestion the statement of the Mr. Robertson, the collector of customs, who is a reputable man, a man of irreproachable character.


William Templeman: My point is that it is not relevant.
Mr. FOWLER, But why not. The collector of customs was appealed to and acted.


Duncan Ross: A point of order cannot be discussed in committee.


George William Fowler: It must be discussed. How otherwise is the chairman going to know how to rule?
I am within my rights in discussing this matter. I think that the minister .should consider the smallness of his salary, and increase it. Here is the answer which Mr. Robertson returned after he 'had made his investigation :
Department of Customs, port of Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island.
August 10, 1907.
Sir,-I beg to report that acting on the inclosed letter from the Hickey & Nicholson Company, Limited, I drove to Lower Montague, and called on the firm of W. A. Poole & Company, and while they hare no tobacco on hand at the present moment irregularly stamped, I gleaned enough evidence from Mr. George Poole, a member of the firm, to satisfy me that things are not straight so far as the stamping of the tobacco sent out by the firm of T. B. & D. J. Riley, of this city, are concerned, and I am confident that the circumstances are such as would justify a searching investigation and trust that all may meet with your honourable approval.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd.) W. B. ROBERTSON, John MoDougald, Esq.,
'Commissioner of Customs, Ottawa, Ontario.


George Eulas Foster: The salary of this same officer is included in this itiem.


George William Fowler: Yes. Aud surely we have a right to discuss his salary. I appeal to the Postmaster General (Mr Lemieux) ou this point. I would not appeal to either the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) or the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Templeman) because they are interested and could hardly be expected to give a fair opinion. But I would like the Postmaster General to say whether, when the salary of this officer is under discussion, we have not the right to discuss what this officer did?


Angus Alexander McLean: There are two reasons why I asked for this to be discussed and why I consider I have the right to disr cuss it. The first reason is that Mr. Robertson, collector of customs, has done a great public service in exposing fraud in tike Inland Revenue. In the second place, the commissioner of customs authorized' Mr. Robertson to undertake this investigation, and I will read his letter:
[DOT]rn ,	August 7.
To the Collector of Customs.
Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island.
Sir,-I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 10th instant, respecting the irregular stamping of tobacco at your port. You may inquire into and report such irregularities as you find in the tobacco sent out by T. B. and D. J. Riley.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant.
Commissioner of Customs.
Now here is the direct authority of the commissioner to Mr. Robertson, and surely
Now Mr. Robertson went to the trouble of investigating this matter, and in order to impress upon the officials at Ottawa that his course was a proper one, he obtained declarations from the men who had knowledge of the irregularities complained of. The first declaration is marked ' A ' and is as follows :
I, Donald Nicholson, of Charlottetown, a member of the Hickey & Nicholson Tobacco Company, Limited, do hereby declare that during the early spring I called Officer Theop. Moore's attention to the fact that insufficiently stamped tobacco was sold throughout the country, and he promised me to keep a sharp lookout for it.
About the last of July, on his return from Souris, I inquired if he had discovered any such tobacco, and he replied that ' he saw more than he wanted to see.' Viz., 3 caddies of Riley tobacco at Messrs. Mathew & McLeans' and had ordered the clerk to lay them aside as he might require them. He then accompanied me to Mr. Nash and we fully discussed the matter and Mr. Nash agreed to send for the inspector.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I rise to a point of order. I do not think it is within the rules of this House that you can take up a return that has been laid upon the table of the House and have it transcribed in the * Hansard.' The hon. member is doing that now.


George Eulas Foster: What rule of the House forbids it?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think that is a rule of procedure.


Haughton Lennox: We will discuss the rule of order for a day or two.


Henry Robert Emmerson: For several weeks, if you like. I want the point of order determined, and I ask the chairman's ruling.


George William Fowler: I suggest that there is no such rule as the hon. gentleman refers to, this is a figment of the hon. gentleman's imagination.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is a well understood rule of parliament.


George William Fowler: That is a rule of the New Brunswick legislature. The hon. gentleman forgets that he is in the House of Commons and not in the New Brunswick legislature.


Angus Alexander McLean: On August 7 our salesman, Mr. Harnett, telephoned me from Georgetown that Messrs. W. A. Poole & Company, Lower Montague, had such tobacco on hand and suggested that I see the Inland Revenue officer at once, and I informed Mr. Moore of it on that date. Mr* Harnett returned home on the 8th, and on the 9th he and I called on Mr. Nash urging that they take immediate action and offering to drive the officer to where it was sold, but Mr. Moore being out of town and Mr. Nash, who treated the matter somewhat lightly, was too busy, so we called on the collector of customs and demanded that he take immediate action. On Mr. Harnett's agreeing to accompany him they left on the morning of the 10th for Lower Montague.	.	_ _
Inspector Burke arrived here on the lZth, and on the 11th sent for me, after a short interview we parted and he, I am told, left for home on the 15th, and so fur we have not heard if anything has been done.
(Sgd.) DONALD NICHOLSON, President of Company.
Signed and declared before me at Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, this 22nd day of August, A.D. 1907	E0BERTS0N,
Collector.
Mr. Burke who is referred to in this declaration is the inspector of Inland Revenue for the maritime provinces, I am told, and has jurisdiction over the officers in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Has he jurisdiction over customs?


Angus Alexander McLean: No, inland revenue. I want to show that if the Inland Revenue Department neglects their duty we have a good man in Mr. Robertson who did not fail in his duty and did this because he thought it was his duty as collector of customs, and he was instructed to do it by the customs inspector.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: I press the point of order which has been raised in connection with this item. It is somewhat mixed up between the Customs Department and the Inland Revenue Department, and so far we have heard nothing that would make us Mr. LENNOX.
believe that the Customs Department is interested in the question.


George William Fowler: Mr. Robertson, the collector of customs at Charlottetown, P.E.I., was acting under instructions from the commissioner of customs.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: He has nothing to do with the Customs Department.


George William Fowler: He was acting under written instructions from the commissioner at Ottawa.


Duncan Ross: As I understand the member for Prince Edward Island moved for a return in connection with some matters relating to the Department of Inland Revenue. He is spreading that return on 'Hansard.' There are really two points of order, first, whether the reading of this return is relevant to the discussion, and, second, whether the return can be put on * Hansard ' in that surreptitious way.


George Eulas Foster: Returns are asked and brought down in order to give an opportunity to a member of discussing the subject matter of the return. I do not think that point of order can be seriously raised.


William Templeman: The collector of customs was notified that there was a violation of the excise law and the customs law, but it was found there was no violation of the customs law whatever. The Collector of Customs at Charlottetown communicated with the Commissioner of Customs and some correspondence between them ensued. However, the question referred absolutely to the Inland Revenue and the Commissioner of Customs could not and did not give any instructions in respect to the Inland Revenue Department. When the matter got into the hands of the inland revenue officers Inspector Burke went to the island and investigated and one of the manufacturers of tobacco was fined I think $200 for a violation of the excise law and then the matter ended. It is entirely an inland revenue matter and I submit it is out of order to discuss it on a vote for the Customs Department. Apparently the discussion is going on now only for the purpose of killing time.


George William Fowler: The minister omitted to state the most important feature and that is that the Collector of Customs issued instructions in writing which I submit makes it relevant to this discussion.


Charles Marcil: I would like to deal with the point of order that has been raised.


Angus Alexander McLean: I want to discuss the point of order. The Minister of Inland Revenue will find that the officers of the customs have something to do with the inland revenue.


William Templeman: Not in this case.


Angus Alexander McLean: It was the duty of the Collector of Customs to collect the duty on Imported leaf and not to allow any infringement of the law.


William Templeman: The hon. gentleman is in error. The 10 cents a pound on the Imported leaf is paid to the Inland Revenue.


Angus Alexander McLean: Any child knows that that imported leaf has to be entered in the customs. Here is a declaration which was sent by the Collector of Customs at Charlottetown to the Commissioner of Customs and I have a right to read it.


William Paterson: Did the Collector of Customs ask you to bring this matter up ?


Angus Alexander McLean: He did not.


William Paterson: How is the hon. gentleman concerned in this matter?


Angus Alexander McLean: As a representative of the people the same as you are when you do your duty.


William Paterson: You brought this up on the pretense that you are trying to right a wrong that is being done to an officer when the fact is that the real object is to attempt to prevent the customs officers of his country getting their wages paid, and that attempt is made under the leadership of the member for North Toronto seconded by the member for Beauharnois and advocated by the member for Kings and Albert and the member for Queens, P.E.I. It is well to know just who is determined to keep these men from getting their wages paid.


Angus Alexander McLean: The minister is altogether astray. I came here in November last and from that day to this the government have never brought the customs estimates before the House. They have delayed the business of the country for some reason which nobody on this side of the House knows.


George Taylor: We are bringing it up, now and now is the accepted time.


Angus Alexander McLean: And I am bringing this matter up now.


William Templeman: I ask the ruling of the chair on the point of order.


Charles Marcil: The rule is that extracts may be read from any public document or newspapers or books but the reading of the whole document is not permitted. Of course it must be relevant.


Angus Alexander McLean: 
Duncan Ross: Now, Mr. chairman, I think we have heard enough of this affidavit to clearly convince the House that it is not relevant to the question.


Charles Marcil: What the hon. gentleman is reading, I think, relates to inland revenue and not to customs.


Angus Alexander McLean: called on Mr. Nash to discuss the matter, and as he treated it so lightly, I in company with Mr. Nicholson called on the collector of customs and I demanded that he give it immediate attention, and I volunteered to where it was exposed for sale. On the 10th the collector and I drove to Lower Montague and called on Messrs. W. A. Poole & Company and was told that George Riley, of Charlottetown, a brother to T. W. Riley and father to D. J. Raley, drove to their store on the 8th of August and of his own free will and without being requested by W. A. Poole took possession and carried away two caddies without stamps, promising to return fresh stock instead, and left one caddie with half stamps on partly used on the shelf.


Duncan Ross: Is this in order Mr. Chairmaan ?
iMr. DEPUTY SPEAKER. I did not hear the reading of the letter from the collector. I have some doubts whether this is relevant or not and I suppose the bon. gentleman should have the benefit of the doubt.


Angus Alexander McLean: On the 9th Mr. Moore who was out collecting samples of food called at Messrs. Poole's store and inquired if Mir. Riley bad been there lately, and when told he was there on the 8th he looked over the stock of tobacco on hand. One caddie with stamps and one with half stamps partly used on the shelf, which was opened in the end,.he, Mr. Moore, took the hat oil at and opened it on the side remarking that was the proper way to open it, and after the collector held a conversation with Mr. Poole, one of the firm, we returned to town.
On the evening of the 13th I, in oompany with Robert W. D. M. Rattery, foreman of one factory, called on Inspector Burke at the Queen's Hotel, and after discussing the matter Mr. Burke informed us that he bad no idea of the seriousness of the offence and promised to see Mr. Nicholson in the morning. Mr. Burke returned home on the morning of the 15th and so far as I am aware nothing has been done.
(Sgd.) EVELYN B. HARNETT.
Signed and declared before me at Charlottetown, in Prince Edwaird Island, this the 22nd day of August, A.D. 1907.
(Sgd.) W. B. ROBERTSON, Collector.
September 18, 1907.
R. R. Earrow, Esq.,
Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Ottawa.
Sir,-I beg to acknowledge receipt of your communication of the lOth instant transmitting for the perusal of this department, customs file No. 69548 respecting the alleged improper manner of stamping of packages of tobacco by a manufacturer in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island. I thank yon for bringing this matter under the notice of this department.
Copies have been made of the correspondence and the case will be referred to the proper officer for investigation. Your file is returned herewith.
I remain, sir.
Your obedient servant,
,,	Deputy Minister.


Angus Alexander McLean: 


William Templeman: You have already heard Mr. Chairman all the correspondence from the collector of customs at Charlottetown, the commissioner and assistant commissioner up to the time that correspondence was transferred to the Inland Revenue Department. The letter last read my hon. friend said was written by the Deputy Minister of Customs. He meant to say the Deputy Minister of Inland Revenue, written to the assistant commissioner of Customs. He is now proceeding to real a letter written by the Deputy Minister of Inland Revenue to Mr. Lawlor, of Montreal.


George Eulas Foster: This is part of the whole case.


William Templeman: The papers have been transferred to the Inland Revenue Department, where they should always have been. This Is not a matter which effects the Customs estimates. It will come up properly on the Inland Revenue estimates.


William Findlay Maclean: 
Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: I appeal to you again, Mr. Chairman, is this In order ?


Charles Marcil: The discussion of an infraction of the Inland Revenue law could not be allowed, as it would not be relevant. But any thing connected with the customs would probably be on a different footing.


Angus Alexander McLean: But the papers were sent to the Customs.


Charles Marcil: That would not make a discussion of an Infraction of



the Inland Revenue Act relevant in this discussion.


Angus Alexander McLean: But they sent Mr. Fitzpatrick over at the request of the Commissioner of Customs. Mr. Robertson was not enough, so the Inland Revenue Department sent over Mr. Caven. who went into the matter carefully, and he found out the report sent by Mr. Robertson to the Department of Customs was strictly correct. He did his duty.


Duncan Ross: This question has been gone over with sufficient latitude surely.


George Taylor: This man was sent by the customs officer and he was paid by the Customs.


Charles Marcil: This can be discussed under an Inland Revenue vote but not under a Customs vote.


Mr.  A. A. McCLEAN@: The next proceeding was a voluntary payment by D. J. Riley to the Department of Inland Revenue of the sum of $200, which this department evidently accepted in full satisfaction. The document signed by Mr. D. J. Riley reads as follows :
I hereby abandon the sum of $200 deposited with Mr. S. C. Nash, Collector of Inland Revenue, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island. i Jhl.s abandonment is made under Section lob oi tiie Inland Revenue Act.
(Sgd.) IJ. J. RILEY. Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, October 10, 1907.
Then Mr. Farrow, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, writes to Mr. Robertson on the 10th of January, 1908 :
, On September 18 last, we transmitted to the Deputy Minister of the Department of Inland Revenue here your latter of August 22 lasd mth declarations referred to therein, respecting the irregular stamping of tobacco by a manufacturer in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island.
The Deputy Minister of Inland Revenue sent to thus department on the 7th instant the inclosed cheque No. 1859 for the sum of $50 being share in distribution of penalties imposed for violation of the Inland Revenue Act under the information contained in your reference to this department.
He requests this department to he good enough to procure receipts for this payment and forward the same to him.
Will you therefore be good enough to send us a receipt for this payment at your early convenience in order that the same may be transmitted to the Deputy Minister of Inland Revenue.
I have the honour to be, sir, .
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd.) R. R. FARROW, Assistant Commissioner of Customs.
Inclosed cheque.


Duncan Ross: I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman is persistently Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER
refusing to obey the ruling of the chair, and he is deliberately putting everything in that return on the ' Hansard,' and if you permit him to go on he will have the remaining pages on the ' Hansard.'


Angus Alexander McLean: I do not think the chairman ever made such a ruling. When I read letters from the Assistant Commissioner of Customs to the collector of customs surely I am within my rights. Then on the 16th of January, Mr. Robertson answered that letter in this way :
Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, January 16, 1908.
Sir,-I have the honour to acknowledge yours of the 10th instant, under file 69518, with stated inolosure, which I return herewith for endorsement.
As it is not clear to me who is entitled to participate, and as you have the correspondence, kindly say what receipts are necessary.
I have the honour to he, sir,
Your obedient sevant,
(Sgd.) W. B. ROBERTSON, Collector.
R. R. Farrow, Esq.,
Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Ottawa, Ontario.
On the 21st of January, Mr. Robertson received this answer from the Assistant Commissioner of Customs :
Ottawa, January 21, 1908. W. B. Robertson, Esq.,
Collector of Customs, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island.
<Sir,-1 have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 16th instant returning cheque No. 1859 of the Department of Inland Revenue for the sum of $50, as you state it is not clear to you to whom this money should be paid. It appears to me from the correspondence in this case that the original information upon which the investigation was based respecting the irregular stamping of tobacco was given by Mr. Harnett, a traveller for the Hickey & Nicholson Tobacco Company, Limited. Such being the case I am of the opinion that the amount should he paid to Mr. Harnett, and if you concur in this you will be good enough tq so dispose of the money and forward Mr. Harnett's receipt for the same to this department for transmission to the Department of Inland Revenue.
I have the honour to. be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd.) R. R. FARROW, Assistant Commissioner of Customs.
Mr. Harnett was offered the sum of $50 mentioned in the correspondence and promptly refused to accept the same, as he believed the aceptance of the sum of $200 by the department was wrong and an inadequate punishment for the offence committed.
I bring this before the minister to show him that there is an officer in Charlottetown who knew how to do his duty and who taught the officers in the Inland Revenue Department how they should do their duty.


Alexander Johnston: Just to have it on record, let it be known that the hon. member (Mr. A. A. McLean) has wasted two hours in an effort to prevent the salary of this man being voted.


George Taylor: I want an explanation of this payment of $18,647 for overtime at Montreal. For the year that would be $24,000 for overtime. Would it not be better to hire more men and not have this overtime ? For instance, Mr. Y. Baltha-zard received $299 for overtime.


William Paterson: He must have put in the time.


George Taylor: The minister misled the House for if this man had worked 365 days at 30 cents an hour for two hours a day, it would only be $219.


William Paterson: I am informed that in summer time they are allowed to work five hours if necessary during the rush.


George Taylor: Then the minister's statement is not correct.


William Paterson: It is, two hours is the rule.


George Taylor: Then E. Bernard drew $235, J. B. Birks $253, L. Bryan $338 and there are a score of others.


William Paterson: We satisfied the Auditor General, it has passed him with the vouchers.


George Taylor: The people's money is being simply spilled out in payment of this overtime.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is a poor show for them this year.


George Taylor: It is not the fault of the opposition, why did you not bring down your estimates six months ago ?


Alexander Johnston: Why don't you vote them now ?


George Taylor: They will not go through now. Let the government withdraw clauses 1 and 17 of the Election Bill and they will get their estimates in a very few minutes.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


George Taylor: The Minister of Finance said the opposition had no rights in this House except such as the majority choose to give them. They have the right to remedy grievances on going into Supply.


William Stevens Fielding: They get that from the majority under the rules of the House which are made by the majority.


George Taylor: We showed them what we could do by holding them here from Thursday night until Saturday night.


William Stevens Fielding: You can hold us here but that does not alter the facts.
294*


George Taylor: After the negotiations and promises made in reference to the Election Bill, I am surprised at the government trying to force their estimates through when every one thought the difficulty was settled. If the government is going to go back on it then we will stay here, as our leader said, until we are thinner than a pipe stem before we let the Election Bill through.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman says the estimates will go through in two minutes if we do something else, which indicates that the estimates are all right in themselves and so any questions that are asked wehther they are pertinent or impertinent are asked to cause obstruction and to waste the time of the House.


George Taylor: The opposition have a right to withhold Supply until their grievance is remedied. The opposition are not going to let this government inflict an unsecret ballot on the people so that they can buy up the whole country. They will not be allowed to put that nefarious Bill through parliament.


Henry Robert Emmerson: What has that got to do with starving the civil servants?


George Taylor: Tell us you will withdraw that Bill and the civil servants will get their pay immediately.


William Paterson: But you say these estimates are all right.


George Taylor: They are all wrong. We will vote enoueh to pay the civil servants. We will give them a month's salary or two months' salary.
Mr! FIELDING. My hon. friend probably knows that we made an application some days ago, not in a public way but in a way that was well understood, for a grant of money to pay the civil servants and an intimation was given to us that hon. gentleman opposite would not facilitate that grant. When my hon. friend now says that the opposition will pay a month's salary I say they had a chance to do it some few days ago and they refused.


George Taylor: That is not correct; you don't know what took place or you would not make that statement.
Mr. FIELDING I know very well.


George Taylor: We were quite prepared to do that and we understood the bargain was practically closed.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Talk about the election Bill when you come to it.


George Taylor: We have come to it several times. Bring on the Bill now and we will discuss it.


William Paterson: In the meantime we want to pay the civil servants.


George Taylor: The opposition have rights and they will maintain them.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Have you a right to keep these people out of their money?


Mr.   POSTER@: The government is doing that.


George Taylor: Say you will drop clauses 1 and 17 and you will get your vote, or, dissolve the House and go to the country whichever you like. We are prepared to meet you any place.


William Stevens Fielding: The hun. gentleman has many times talked about dissolving the House and going to the country, and when we did go to the country and came back we found the hon. gentleman still doing business at the same old stand on the opposition side of the House. We have no reason to doubt that will be the result when the time comes again. Meantime let there be no misunderstanding. We are not discussing the election Bill ; we are discussing the question of giving these customs officers their money. The hon. gentleman says the opposition have rights ; yes, they have the right to obstruct and they are exercising that right but we want the country to know that. They are not 'content with criticising the government, they are not content with punishing the government if they like to call it that ; they want to punish the men throughout the length and breadth of Canada who need this money and hon. gentlemen opposite refuse to give it to them. The opposition are not punishing the government; they are punishing the custom officers who want their money and cannot get it because of the opposition, and we would like the country to understand that.


George Taylor: If my hon. friend were out in the country he would understand that the feeling is that clauses 1 and 17 of that Bill should not be allowed to pass. That is the feeling of both the Liberals and Conservatives in the country.


Mr. PUGSLEY.: Vote against the Bill when the time comes.


George Taylor: The Prime Minister said his only recourse would be dissolution and we welcome dissolution.


William Stevens Fielding: We may have to come to it.


George Taylor: Then we are ready for you.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend does not act as if he were ready.


George Taylor: In what way ?


George Taylor: 


William Stevens Fielding: Because for six months of this session hon. gentlemen opposite have been obstructing public business so that they might prevent an election during the current year.


George Taylor: Don't you think we are right in not letting you go to the country with loaded dice ?


William Stevens Fielding: Now you don't want us to go to the country.


George Taylor: We won't let you go to
the country with an unsecret ballot and power to enfranchise Doukhobors and Gal-licians.


Duncan Ross: That is good stuff in the Northwest.


George Taylor: Yes, the Northwest was here a few days ago.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Mr. Bob Rogers.


George Taylor: Ask the Prime Minister what he heard from the Northwest and the arrangement he made with the Northwest, and in view of that why are we here at 4 o'clock in the morning kept by the government with their large majority trying to force estimates through ?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: We will just have as big a majority after the dissolution and a bigger majority.


George Taylor: There is nothing so uncertain as a horse race and an election, and when the election is over my hon. friend will find he has come out second best.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Don't boast.


George Taylor: I am not boasting. I said we are ready for dissolution and so we are. I want an explanation of what these individual men did for this money.


William Paterson: That you will not get, because I cannot give it to you.


George Taylor: We have no right to give the minister the money he wants for next year unless we get an explanation of what he did last year.


William Paterson: You said the estimates were all right. Then pass them.


George Taylor: Withdraw clauses 1 and 17 and we will give you a Supply immediately.


William Stevens Fielding: Still harping on my daughter. We are not discussing that.
Mi-. PATERSON. The money is due now. These men have rendered the service and I am not going to be a party to keep them out of their money.
Mr. vTAYLOR. If there is any one to blame it is the government who have not

provided the money for them two or three months ago. You have trotted out other estimates and held back the estimates of the Minister of Customs. If the kon. gentleman had asked for pay for his staff he could have got it. The government held back the estimates of the Minister of Customs and are now raising the cry that the opposition are to blame.


William Stevens Fielding: You can take that cry away from us by voting them right away.
here, and that-and there is no secret about that part of it-negotiations took place between the leader of the government and Mr. Robiin, and I know too


Duncan Ross: Order, Mr. Chairman.


Haughton Lennox: I know too that a week ago Mr. Robiin went home on the understanding, as was announced in the public press, and not denied-


Haughton Lennox: I am a little surprised at the Minister of Finance announcing to the House a few minutes ago something not before stated in parliament, namely that there were some negotiations for a certain amount to be voted. I do not understand how he can justify that statement. I understood that any negotiations that took place between leaders were a matter of confidence.


William Stevens Fielding: There is no confidence in that.


Haughton Lennox: We had better understand where we are in that matter. I understand that there have been negotiations. Is the Minister of Finance going to take the position that part of these negotiations are to be confidential and part of them not confidential ?


Duncan Ross: Mr. Chairman, is the discussion of negotiations of this kind [DOT]pertinent to the question?


Haughton Lennox: Perfectly, because the Minister of Finance raised the question a few minutes ago.


Duncan Ross: I raise the point of order whether this discussion is pertinent to the subject-matter before the House.


Haughton Lennox: The Minister of Finance raised the question a few minutes ago and I propose to reply.


Charles Marcil: The hon. member knows what is before the Chair. It is the salaries of customs officers.


Haughton Lennox: But the Minister of Finance said that negotiations were going on for the purpose of getting a portion of the supplies, and that that was refused, and I am saying that no negotiations of a confidential character could possibly be carried on between the leaders of the parties, or between the Minister of Finance and the leader of the opposition, if the Minister of Finance is to be the judge of how much of that is to be divulged and how much kept back. I know as a matter of fact that negotiations have taken place between the leaders, and when some hon. gentlemen called out a few minutes ago that Mr. Robert Rogers was down here, I happened to know that Mr. Robiin was also down


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Charles Marcil: That is wandering away from the question of the salaries of customs officers.
Mr. LENNOX-that this objectionable Bill would be withdrawn. Now, if this objectionable Bill had been withdrawn


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


Charles Marcil: If the point of order is insisted on, I shall have to rule that the only question before the Chair is the salaries of customs officers.


Haughton Lennox: Very good. I was dealing a moment ago with the question of Supply. I propose now to deal still further with that question. The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) was calling attention to this question of overtime. I have very great respect for the Minister of Customs, and I am very sorry that the circumstances do not permit us, without more explanation, to grant him this Supply. I notice that he stated very definitely, and I have great faith in him when he makes a statement- that as a matter of policy the department thought it advisable to employ men and fiive them extra time rather than employ an additional staff; and the point was raised on this side of the House whether or not that was detrimental to the service, because it entailed more work on these men than thev could adequately perform, thus leaving them less efficient for the services they have to perform during the regular hours. The Minister of Customs, answering that, said ves, but we do not employ these people to that extent. We limit the extra service to two hours a day, so that that evil does not arise. What are we to understand if we go on the basis of the assurance of the minister that only two hours of extra service are permitted. and we find after hours of discussion that that statement is absolutely erroneous. that Instead of the service being confined to two hours it is actually unlimited, and instead of their performing a total of twelve hours at the most in the heat of summer, in the most exhausting time, fifteen hours of service is exacted from these men? The minister says these men may have worked all Sunday and every Sunday in the year besides two hours extra on every working day of ten hours.


William Paterson: What does the Auditor General give as the largest amount paid any one man?


Haughton Lennox: What I am concerned with is the minister just now. He allowed two hours per day and added ten hours per Sunday which would give twelve hours to each man.


William Paterson: That would come to $399. Have we paid any one that?


Haughton Lennox: We will see that presently. I find a number of men in the Montreal item who were paid very close to that. A man named Cooney was paid $398. Other men are paid $300 and $385. T. J. Cooney was paid $389.75 or within 25 cents of the amount the minister gave as an impossible amount.


William Paterson: He must have worked more than the two hours. All these parties have vouchers. There Is no man works every Sunday and holiday but in the summer when at the docks the men are allowed to exceed two hours at a time.


Haughton Lennox: The minister shifts his ground. He started off with the proposition that these men were allowed to work two hours daily overtime. Then he said they were allowed to work as much as five hours extra time. Then when he found he could not sustain that view, he shifted again and said they worked two extra hours for every working day and all day Sunday. . Am I right in saying that these are extra payments? But a large amount paid to these men for extra work is what is paid them for ordinary work. If the minister is right, the rule is that a man is allowed to work two hours extra but two only. Then, we should not expect, when we look at the items of pay for overwork to find that, as a rule, the payments are much more than one-fifth the ordinary wages. But, as a matter of fact, many of these men are earning in overtime one-half what they earn in ordinary wages. For instance, take Mr. Jackson, of Rainy River. Now, Rainy River is not a seaport is it?	'


William Paterson: I have not heard that the Atlantic has got that far yet.


Haughton Lennox: Mr. Jackson makes $244 overtime. If he were working the two hours extra every day, as explained by my hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor) he would make $219. As a matter of fact he earns $224 for extra time, almost half as much for extra time as he earns for salary, his salary being $525. Then we have Mr. McGregor, at Rainy River, with a salary of $438.35 and overtime of $208.50. We have Mr. Clark, of Point Edward,-which is not a seaport-with a salary of $525 and overtime of $249. At Abercorn, there is Mr. O'Brien with a salary of $375 and overtime
Mr. LENNOX
of $224. Does not the minister think it rather remarkable that a man will go idle on ordinary time and then work nights and Sundays to make up the extra $224.


George William Fowler: At two hours a dav overtime, and receive $224 ? That looks like a fraud.


Haughton Lennox: If it were any department but that of the Minister of Customs, I would think it might be a fraud, but, as it is the department of the Minister of Customs, it looks like a blunder.


William Paterson: But you won't let me have the money to pay the men even their regular wages.


Haughton Lennox: You shall have the money if you wait long enough. You should have begun sooner.


William Stevens Fielding: We did ; we got money on account.


Haughton Lennox: Yes, but you did not acknowledge our reasonable rights. You did not ask us to give you more.


William Stevens Fielding: We ask you now.


Haughton Lennox: But the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) is not here.


William Stevens Fielding: He is well represented.


Haughton Lennox: I really think we must go on with the discussion of this important matter until we finish it or reach some conclusion. I come to the case of Mr Sanders, of Athelstane. That is not a seaport ?


William Paterson: No, but it is a manifesting port where an American railway comes in.


Haughton Lennox: I hope the minister will not revise his argument. He said that this was confined to seaports.


Duncan Ross: No.


Haughton Lennox: I understood the minister to say, definitely, positively, absolutely and for the last time that only at the seaports did men work for more than two hours extra.


Duncan Ross: No, no, tut, tut!


Haughton Lennox: My hon. friend from Yale-Cariboo (Duncan Ross) may have been sleeping-


Duncan Ross: Tlnere are dozens of international ports where railways cross every Sunday and the customs officers have to work overtime. Everybody except the hon. member (Mr. Lennox) knows that.


Haughton Lennox: But if there were one hundred thousand such points that would not affect the question. The minister said that this was confined to the seaports.


William Paterson: I said that at the seaports they were allowed to get five hours In the summer time.


Haughton Lennox: I am ready to take the minister's explanation, if he will make it clear. I asked the minister as to this two hours overtime running into five hours. And he mentioned that that was confined to the seaports.


William Paterson: I understand that.


Haughton Lennox: Well, the member for Yale-Cariboo being answered, I will proceed with the case of Mr. Sanders, of Athel-stane. This gentleman has a salary of $525 and overtime of $360. There is no possibility at two hours a day, even if he worked every day in the year, of his earning $360.


William Paterson: Why not? This is an international border point where railroads are crossing that run on Sundays as well as other days and an officer has to be there.


Haughton Lennox: Wiil the minister say that he believes that any man can work such hours as to give him $360 overtime out of a possible $399 ?
men not being able to work 12 hours or 14 hours a day, it is to be remembered that they are not engaged in manual labour. A man who is waiting for a train may be lying down on the bench, he may be dozing.


Haughton Lennox: Surely the minister does not expect us to take it for granted that merely because an account appears in the Auditor General's Report it is therefore correct. If we adopted that system we might as well abandon our functions as an opposition.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I find that the department are employing a great many ladies as detectives.


William Paterson: We have two I think.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: There are more than two.


William Stevens Fielding: At an early hour in the evening when the Minister of Customs was going into his estimates I said that I doubted if he would be able to get many through, but he thought he could convince the opposition of the error of their ways. I think he has had a fair opportunity to do so, and I would suggest that he consider whether


Duncan Ross: Yes, lots of them.


Haughton Lennox: I am not asking the hon. gentleman.


Duncan Ross: I do not know any rule of the House which prevents me giving the hon. gentleman much needed information.


Haughton Lennox: The supporters of the government ought to have that confidence in the ministers of the Crown that they will asume they are capable of answering for themselves. I want to refer to another item. A landing waiter at Island Pond receives a salary of $450, and he is paid for overtime $269. That overtime seems to be suspiciously large item in proportion to the salary. Mr. Gendron receives a salary of $450, and $250 for overtime. Mr. Cauchon, preventive officer, receives a salary of $750 and $370 for overtime. These items appear to me to be very doubtful. I hope the minister will be able to give us more satisfactory explanations than he has done.


William Paterson: This overtime comes to us certified by our responsible^ officers, who send the vouchers to the Auditor General. They pass the Auditor General and appear in his books. To my mind the fact that they are in the Auditor General's books is proof positive that the services have been rendered. Whether the time may have exceeded two hours in some cases does not concern me much, because I know and am persuaded that the Auditor General and my officer would not pass accounts unless they were right. When you talk about these
t is worth while sitting any longer.


William Paterson: I did want to get this imount. We have been told by an hon. gen-deman opposite (Mr. Taylor) that there is nothing to criticise in them and that if we svould drop the election Bill they would pass them in two minutes. I view the whole process to-night and this afternoon as an organized effort to stop our getting the money. To-dav is the day on which we issue cheques for the outside service so that they mav reach the distant ports in time. Over 2,000 men who have earned their salaries, many of them receiving small wages, scattered all over the Dominion, about 100 in this city, will not be paid and I am anxious to get them their pay. There is nothing to be gained by the opposition in refusing this amount because there are many items not yet passed if they are determined they should not pass them. I do not think they themselves will feel very well satisfied with what they have done. I would not feel satisfied with myself if I had not made every reasonable effort to pay these men. It is now after four o'clock in the morning and I do not believe in these tests of physical strength, but I did want to make an honest effort to get it, in order that the men might know it was not my fault if they are not paid. I think perhaps I have satisfied them and that they would be unreasonable to ask me to do more than I have. I would like, however, to get it at this afternooi * session.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I want my hon. friend to understand that this is not a Personal attack on him or on his department. W e are

not choosing our time, as he understands, and we all regret that it happens in this way.


William Paterson: You need not have attacked me.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I am sorry for my hon. friend and I think I am speaking for the whole opposition in saying that it is very unfortunate this should fall on him, but we are not choosing which one we will attack or delay.
Progress reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


George Eulas Foster: What business will we take up when the session opens this afternoon ?


William Stevens Fielding: Supply.


George Eulas Foster: I wish to give notice that when we go into Supply I will take up the matter of cold storage.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


George Eulas Foster: It has been lying there for some time, it affects particularly the Minister of Militia and Defence.


William Stevens Fielding: If my hon. friend thinks that cold storage is more important than the payment of the public service, that is his right.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 4.25 a.m. Wednesday.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, May 27, 190S.
The SPEAKER took the Ghair at Two
o'clock.

Robert Franklin Sutherland: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received from Armand Lavergne, Esq., his resignation as member for the electoral district of Mont-magny, and that I have issued my warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to make out a new writ of election for the said electoral district.



QUESTIONS.


Mr. FOSTER asked :: 1.	From what companies is the commission purchasing rails for the eastern division of the Transcontinental Railway?


Mr. BERGERON.: 2.	How many rails have been so far purchased, and at what rates?
3.	IV hat orders for the eastern division, if any, in addition to completed purchases, have been placed, and with whom ?
4.	What is the total quantity of rails estimated necessary for the main line?
5.	What quantity of rails have been purchased by the Grand Trunk Pacific for use west of Winnipeg, and on the branch'from the lakes to the main line, and from what companies or 'firms have these been bought?


George Perry Graham: 1 and 2.
District ' A.'-Dominion Iron and Steel Company.
Delivery at	Tons.	Price.Moncton	
7,794:4	$35 85Edmundston	
8,548:4	37 6016,342:8	District ' B.'-Dominion	Iron and Steel Com-	pany. Delivery at	Tons.	Brice.Quebec	$34 00Levis	35 00Quebec	35 0050,657:4	District f D/-Algoma Steel Company.	Delivery at	Tons.	Price.Our junction with	T.	&	N. O. Railway ..	.. 21,371	$40 00District ' F.'-Algoma	Steel Company.	Delivery at	Tons.	Price.Port Arthur or	Fort	William	$34 00Dominion Iron and Steel Company.	Port Arthur or	Fort	William	$34 5042,000	Total (tons).. ..	..130,371	3.	None.4.	Length of main line, 1,803-55 miles. 1,803-55 x 125,714, 226,731-48 tons. Estimated yards and sidings, 41,109. Total rails, 267,840 tons.5.	Western division-'	Tons.
From United States Steel Products Export Company, of New York,
United States of America .. .. 50,000 From Algoma Steel Company, of Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario.. .. 50,000
	 100,000
Port William branch-
From Grand Trunk Railway Company, used rails lifted from the Grand Trunk Railway	 26,000
Note.-This 26,000 tons of rails lifted from the track of the Grand Trunk Railway were replaced by 26,000 tons of new rails purchased from the Dominion Iron and Steel Company, of Sydney, Cape Breton.


Robert Laird Borden: Referring to the return, sessional paper No. 39f, touching the estimated cost of the eastern division of the National Transcontinental Railway, which shows the total length, less the Quebec 'bridge, to be 1,803.55 miles, the average cost per mile to he $63,427, and the total estimated cost, not including the Quebec bridge, to be $114,393,765.85, does this estimate include the cost of station houses, terminals, engine houses, round houses turn tables water tanks and all other buildings and structures necessary or usual for the effective operation of the road? If not, what will be the additional cost for all such purposes?


George Perry Graham: The estimate referred to in this question, of the average cost per mile of the eastern division of the National Transcontinental Railway, of $63,427, includes the cost of terminal yards, station houses, engine houses, turntables, water tanks and all buildings and structures, necessary or usual for the effective operation of the road ; but does not include terminals at Winnipeg (in regard to which, an agreement between the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, the Canadian Northern Railway and the commission was ratified, by Act of parliament during the session of 1907-8) or shops east of Winnipeg, or terminals at Quebec or connection therewith, plans of which have not yet been made and of which accordingly, no estimate of cost can yet he furnished.


Mr. BARKER asked :: 1.	Has the eastern limit of the Mountain section and the western limit of the Prairie section of the National Transcontinental Railway been established pursuant to section 4 of the agreement of 29bh of July, 1903, scheduled in the Act 3 Edward VII., chapter 71?
2.	When, and by whom, was such limit established, and at what point on the said railway ?
3.	At what distance along the line of the railway is such point easterly of the foot of the mountains?


Hon. G. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	November 21, 1907. By Collingwood Scbreiber, government chief engineer of the western division of the National Transcontinental Railway, and B. B. Kelliher, chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company. The east bank of Wolfe creek.
3.	One hundred and twenty-nine miles east of the summit of the Yellowhead Pass and 119 miles west of Edmonton. Wolfe creek has an elevation of 665 feet greater than Edmonton, while the summit of Yellowhead Pass Is 840 feet higher than Wolfe creek.


Mr. CROCKET asked :: 1.	What portions of the line of the Transcontinental Railway between Grand Falls and Moncton are now under contract?
2.	Who are the contractors, what is the mileage, estimated money value, and date of completion under each contract?


Hon. G. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: 1.	All.
2.	Moncton to near Chipman, 50 miles, the Grand Trunk Pacific Company, $989,895.90. September 1. 1908.
Near Chipman easterly, S-55 miles, J. W. McManus & Co., Ltd., 289,190.62. August 1, 1908.
Near Chipman westerly, to Intercolonial Railway crossing, 39-05 miles, Grand Trunk Pacific Company, $767,434.95. September 1, 1910.
Intercolonial Railway crossing to Mile 164, 60'40 miles, Grand Trunk Pacific Company, $1,898,124.21. September 1, 1910.
Mile 164 to near Grand Falls, 31-80 miles, Willard Kitchen Company, $1,646,253.65. September 1, 1910.


MESSRS. CHILVERS.
Mr. CLEMENTS asked :: 1.	Is one Alonzo Chilvers, Louis Chilvers and Charles L. Chilvers, recently from Essex county, in the employ of the government?
2.	If so, in what capacity, what is the date of each appointment, and the amount of salary received by each?


Rt.   H@: Alonzo Chilvers last year had charge of a survey party. He is not now employed. Louis Chilvers was employed in the topographical survey. He is not now employed. Both are sons of Charles L. Chilvers. of Walkerville, in North Essex. The father never was employed by the government.


SIGNALLING APPARATUS AT BRIER ISLAND.
Mr. FOSTER asked :: 1.	What method of marine signalling was used at Brier Island, Nova Scotia, previous to the installation of the new plant a year or
80 a60? ..	, . ,, ,
2.	By what system was it replaced then, ana
at what total cost?
3.	By whom was this plant supplied, and what portions thereof and at what cost, were made outside of Canada ?
4.	Is it now proposed to replace this system by another ? If so, by what, at what cost, and for what reasons ?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: 1.	Steam whistle.

2.	Changed in 1905 to compressed air diaphone, cost of machinery $13,040. Changes in building and cost of installation, $3,800.
3.	The Canadian Fog Signal Company plant was purchased as a whole and the department has no knowledge what portiou (if any) was manufactured outside of Canada.
4.	The diaphone was placed at this station to meet the requirements of large navigation which passes at a considerable distance from the island and for which the instrument is well adapted. Complaints have, however, been received from the smaller navigation passing close in and behind the island to the effect that the sound is thrown too much in one direction, and that local requirements were better served by the old whistle.
The department intends making a practical test in this direction, utilizing stock material, and the cost will only be that of the small amount of labour for connecting a whistle for this purpose.
No decision as to the best course to pursue can be arrived at until the test has been made.


WHARF AT POINTE AUX TREMBLES.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MONK-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	What was the date fixed, in 1904, by the Department of Fublic Works for the reception of tenders for the construction of a wharf at Fointe-aux-Trembles, county of Fortneuf ?
2.	What is the date of the contract of Dus-seault & Fageau for the construction of that wharf ?
3.	In virtue of their contract what length of time was given them to construct that wharf?
4.	As Dusseault & Fageau were not able to construct the whart at Fointe-aux-Trembles on the date specified in the contract, what was the date fixed by the Department of Public Works for the completion of the construction of that wharf?
5.	On what date was the notice to that effect given to Dusseault & Pageau ?
6.	Were there any complaints against the contractors, Dusseault & Fageau, in regard to the construction of the wharf at Pointe-aux-Trembles? If so, by whom, what was the nature of such complaints, and were they written or verbal ?
7.	At what date did Dusseault & Fageau suspend their work ?
8.	What are the names, Christian names and residences of the engineer and inspector who had the superintendence of the construction of the wharf at Fointe-aux-Trembles ?
9.	Did the engineer make any report against the work done by Dusseault & Pageau?
10.	What is the estimated amount of the material that Dusseault & Pageau had upon the ground when they suspended work ?
11.	What is the amount estimated by the engineer for the work done by Dusseault & Fageau when they suspended work?
12.	What amount was paid on account of their contract to Dusseault & Pageau, and what is the date of each such payment ?
Mr.   BRODETJR@: 13.	Was anything paid to Dusseault & fageau, or to any other persons, in connection with the construction of the wharf at Pointe-aux-Trembles, since the suspending of the work? If so, to whom, at what dates and what amounts ?
14.	Was anything done in connection with the construction of the wharf at Pointe-aux-'l'rembles since Dusseault & Pageau suspended work ?
15.	Before receiving the contract for the wharf at Pointe-aux-Trembles, had Dusseault & Pageau performed any other contracts for the Department of Public Works? If so, what were those contracts ?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	May 10, 1904.
2.	June 28, 1904.
3.	12 months.
4.	First extension, 25th November, 1905 ; second extension, August 1, 1906.
5.	First, July 17, 1905 ; second, March 30,
1906.	.
6.	The resident engineer reported that he had condemned several thousand feet of timber as undersized and defective and also that contractors were not making progress. Mr. Delisle, M.P., also wrote protesting against the delay on part of contractors in carrying on the work.
7.	November 21, 1905
8.	Resident engineer, Thomas Breen, Quebec. Inspector, Raymond Plamondon,
Pointe aux Trembles.
9.	Answered by No. 6.
10.	$10,183.30.
11.	17,296.
12.
26th September, 1904	 $ 2,120 00
20tli December, 1904	 6,180 00
17tli October, 1905	 7,000 00

13.	(a) Yes.
(b) October 12, 1906, F. X. Le-febvre, measuring timber.. . . $ 12 75 October 12, 1906, L. Lame, measuring timber	
13	13June to December, 1906, R. Plamondon, inspector	
442	50February 15, 1907, T. Breen, disbursements taking soundings. .	7	54February 22, 1907, F. X. Saucier, translating specifications. ...	25	33May 8, 1907, King's Printer printing	
3	63
June 13, 1907, J. A. Picard, saving
timber from flood	 155	75
August 1, 1907, F. R. Morneault
& Company, timber	 4,949	S9
May 15, 1908, sundry newspapers,
advertising	
620	42May 15, 1908, King's Printer printing	
142	45May 15, 1908, J. A. Chasse, travelling expenses	
34	70



$6,390 09 MAT 27. 1908

[Stage Direction]
14.	Yes, tenders asked and contract awarded to O. Poliquin for $22,490.
15.	Yes ; Granby post office, 2nd November, 1901, $14,987 ; Quebec Iron Foundry, 24th June, 1902, $17,347.95 ; Thetford Mines post office, 8th August, 1903, $6,735.75.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BOYCE-by Mr. Taylor-asked:
1.	Are there any contracts between the Intercolonial Railway company or the National Transcontinental Railway Commission with the Aigoma Steel Company for the manufacture and delivery of steel rails, uncompleted? If so, what are they ?
2.	Is it the intention of the Minister of Railways and Canals, or of the National Transcontinental Railway Commission, to place immediately any further orders for steel rails with the Aigoma Steel Company, in order to insure the continuance of the operation of the steel rail plant at Sault Ste. Marie, which recently temporarily suspended its operations on account of reported want of orders for rails for immediate delivery ?
Hon. G. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	The only uncompleted contract for steel rails, which the commissioners have with the Aigoma Steel Company, is one, dated 25th November, 1907, for 21,371 tons of 80-pound steel rails, viz.: 10,686 gross tons to be delivered by November 1st, 1908, and 10,685 tons to be delivered April 1st, 1909.
2.	Strong representations have been made to the government concerning additional orders for steel rails, but until money is placed at the disposal of the government, or the commission by parliamentary appropriations, it is impossible to practically consider the matter.



PURCHASES OF RAILS FROM RAILWAY DEPARTMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GANONG-by Mr. Taylor-asked:
1.	How many tons of rails have been purchased from the railway department by either the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company or the government of New Brunswick in the years 1900, 1901, 1902, 1903, 1901, 1905, 1906 and 1907, respectively and what was the total amount of purchases in each of the several years?	.
2.	What amount is still due the railway department on account of said purchase or purchases of rails, including interest, if interest will be charged ?
Hon. G. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	For the years 1900-01-Nil.
1902	
377	720-2240	$ 7,923.751903	
1729	150-2240	36,310.361903	
10	frogs.	150.00



$44,3S4.11

[Stage Direction]
1903-Dec. 31, by cash

	4,925.00
2.	Balance due Intercolonial Railway at March 31, 1908,
for rails	$39,459.11
Interest at 4 per cent, March,
1908	 8,037.23

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GANONG-by Mr. Taylor-asked:
1.	Is there any balance due the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company on account of subsidy? If so, what amount is still due?
2.	Has any claim been presented by the said company for extra subsidy? If so, at what date and for what amount ?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to grant any further subsidy than the first granted to that company? If so, what additional amount per mile ?
Hon. G. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	It is so claimed on behalf of the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company, but no amount has been determined.
2.	Yes. On January 20th, 1904. Subsequently on June 18th, 1904, on behalf of the province of New Brunswick, by Mr. James Barnes, and Mr. George W. Allen, secretary of the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company; and again, on the 26th June, 1906, by Hon. L, J. Tweedie, then premier.
3.	The matter is receiving the consideration of the government.



SOUTH HURON BY-ELECTION.

Mr. ARMSTRONG asked :: 1.	What was the amount of the returning jfficer's account rendered to the government for the expenses in connection with the by-dection held in South Huron on the 22nd day if January, 1908?
2.	What is the date or dates when these accounts were paid to said officer ?
3.	If there are still any unsettled accounts, what do they consist of?


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) :: 1.	Amount of returning officer's accounts, $1,052.31.
2.	Payments to returning officer: February 26, 1908, $842.05 ; March 28, 1908, $176.89 -$1,018.94. Amount disallowed on audit
of accounts, $33.37.
a There are no unsettled accounts.



TUBERCULIN TESTS.

Mr. R. N. WALSH asked :: 1.	How many cattle have been tested by the Department of Agriculture from March .11, 1906, up to the present date, with tuberculin:
2.	What number have reacted.
3.	How many have been tested by private practitioners?
4.	What number have reacted r


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture) :: 1.	2.509.
2.	89.
3.	2,964 ; that is with tuberculin supplied by this department.
4.	455.


George Eulas Foster: What is the meaning of
having reacted ?


Mr. FISHER.: The reaction indicates the presence of the disease.



PORT SOUTH BAR, CAPE BRETON.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. STANFIELD-by Mr. Taylor-asked:
1.	How many vessels entered and cleared at the Port South Bar Sydney river, Cape Breton, during the years 1905-6-7?
2.	Who is the officer in charge of this service of the department and what is his salary?
Hon. WM. PATERSON (Minister of Customs) :: 1.	South Bar Sydney river is only a customs preventive station (by the name of Victoria pier) under the port of Sydney. No vessels have been cleared there during 1905, 1906. 1907.
2.	James Ratchford is the customs preventive officer on duty at that place. His salary is $300 a year.



LAND GRANTS TO RAILWAYS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. AMES-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
To what companies were land granted by way of railway subsidy during the year 1894, and what was the quantity of each such grant ?
George Perry Graham: Acres.
Rocky Mountain Railway and
Coal Company	 384,000
Canadian Pacific Railway Company	 204,800
Brandon & South Western Railway Company	 108,800
Saskatchewan & Western Railway Company	 96,000
Mr. AMES-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	Since July, 1896, what railway charters, carrying land grants, have been renewed or extended by the government?
2.	In each such case what amount of land was affected?
3.	What are the several statutes giving effect to these extensions?


George Perry Graham: The following charters have been extended by parliament:
1.	The Red Deer Valley Railway & Coal Company ; The Manitoba & South Western Railway Company ; The Winnipeg Great Northern Railway Company, now the Canadian Northern Railway Company.


Mr. WALSH.: 2.	The Red Deer Valley Railway & Coal Company, 384,000 acres ; The Manitoba South Eastern Railway Company, 680,320 acres ; The Winnipeg Great Northern Rail-day Company, now the Canadian Northern Railway Company, south of Saskatchewan river, 2,523,008 acres ; north of Saskatchewan river, 6,016,000 acres.
3.	The Red Deer Valley Railway Company, 60 and 61 Victoria, chapter 60, assented to June 29, 1897. Act extending time for construction and for other purposes. 62 and 63 Victoria chapter 86, assented to July 10, 1899, Act again extending time for construction. 63 and 64 Victoria, chapter 77, assented to July 18, 1900, Act again extending time for construction and for other purposes. Charter expired through failure to construct within time limit. The Manitoba & South Eastern Railway Corppany, now the Canadian Northern Railway Company, 60 and 61 Victoria, chapter 53, assented to June 29, 1897, Act extending time for construction and for other purposes. The Winnipeg Great Northern Railway Company, now The Canadian Northern Railway Company, 61 Victoria, chapter 10, assented to [DOT]Tune 13, 1898, extending time for construction and for other purposes, 62 and 63 Victoria, chapter 57, assented to July 10, 1899, extending time for construction and for other purposes. 3 Edward VII, chapter 97 assented to June 25, 1903, extending time for construction and for other purposes.



NEW BRUNSWICK COLD STORAGE PLANTS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. PORTER-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	Has the government assisted by bonus, or in any form, any cold storage plants in the province of New Brunswick? -If so, what plants, in what amounts, and to whom paid?
2.	Were such plants, -if any, built or established before or after -the massing of the Act respecting the granting of assistance by -this government ?
Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture) :: 1.	Yes. The government has undertaken to grant a bonus of $37,500 to the New Brunswick Cold Storage Company, under the Cold Storage Act. $15,000 of this sum has been paid to the company.
2.	After.



THE INSURANCE BILL.

Mr. A. C. MACDONELL asked :: Is it the intention of -the government to proceed with -the Insurance Bill this session? If so, when? If not, why not?


William Stevens Fielding: It is the expectation of the government to proceed with the Insurance Bill so soon as satisfactory progress shall have been made in the more urgent work of ob-



MAT 27. 1908

[Stage Direction]
taining the appropriations for the carrying on of the public service.

Mr. WORTHINGTON asked :: 1.	Will (the Eastern Townships Cavalry Brigade go to the Quebec celebration in July?
2.	If not, will it go into camp for annual training?
3.	At what point will this camp be held ?
i. Will any regiments from the Eastern Townships attend the Quebec celebration? If so, which regiments?
5.	Will a camp be held at Laprairie, Quebec, for the annual training of troops this summer ?
6.	Is there >a rifle range at this point ?
7.	Has any rifle practice been held at Laprairie during the last two or three camps held there?


Hon. Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia and Defence) :: 1.	tinder consideration.
2.	Yes.
3.	Laprairie.
4.	Under consideration.
5.	Yes.
C. The old range was washed away by a flood several years ago.	,
7. Yes, miniature jiractice one year since old range was destroyed by floods. A new rifle range will be constructed in time for this year's camp.



SHERBROOKE MILITIA CORPS.

Mr. WORTHINGTON asked :: Is it the intention of the Department of Militia and Defence to establish another regiment of infantry or other branch of the service in Sherbrooke? If so, what will be the branch of the service and strength?


The Hon.   S@: In General Orders of May 1, just issued, the transfer of the headquarters of No. 6 Cavalry Field Ambulance from Quebec to Sherbrooke is authorized. There is no present intention of establishing any additional unit at Sherbrooke.



MILITIA ALLOWANCES.

Mr. WORTHINGTON asked :: 1.	Is the government in arrears for allowances to any militia regiments? If so, to what regiments, to what amounts, and for what periods?
2.	What is the reason some regiments have not received allowances ?
3.	Is the government aware that officers of some regiments, including one Ottawa regiment, have been obliged to borrow money to meet requirements?
i. If so, will the government repay such officers the interest paid by them on such loans ?


Hon. Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia and Defence) :: 1.	No, all such claims are paid or are being paid as fast as they are submitted.
2.	Deficiencies of arms, clothing, &c., discovered on inspection.
3.	The government is not aware of the fact.
4.	No.



WHARFS AT PORT MULGRAVE, NOVA SCOTIA.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. STANFIELD-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	Are the wharfs at Port Mulgrave, Nova Scotia, government property? If so, who is the officer in charge of said wharfs?
2.	Has said officer ordered boats away from these wharfs, thereby preventing them from discharging their cargoes?
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: 1.	The railway owns wharfs at Mulgrave, the terminus of the railway on the Strait of Canso, but not at Port Mulgrave. Captain J. W. Reynolds is in charge of the railway wharfs at Mulgrave.
2.	There have been no vessels, steamers or other crafts ordered away from these wharfs thereby preventing them from discharging their cargoes.



WESTPORT ALARM STATION, NOVA SCOTIA.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. STANFIELD-by Mr. Taylorasked :
1.	When was a steam whistle installed at Westport, Nova Scotia, for alarm station, and what was the total cost of same?
2.	When was the new diapbones alarm installed at the same place, by whom, and what was the total cost of same?
3.	Are the steam engines, foreign make? If so, who were the builders, and what was the cc.st of such engines?
Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: 1.	1873. Cost $7,500.
2.	In 1905 by department's erectors. $18,040.
3.	The diaphone plant, including engines, was purchased complete from the Canadian Fog Signal Company. The department does not know the manufacturers of the component parts nor the cost.



MONTREAL POSTAL SERVICE.

Mr. ARMSTRONG asked :: 1.	What action, if any, has the government taken to remedy the reported irregularities in the postal service of Montreal, as complained of by thirty members of the hoard of trade of the city of' Montreal?
2.	Is the government aware that many farms and citizens of the city of Montreal are said to be greatly inconvenienced, and business rnat-terially interfered with, owing to careless handling of mails, delay in delivery of letters,

irregular delivery, carelessness in delivering and handling of papers and packages, and general irregularities said to exist in the postal service of that city? If so, what means have been employed to remedy said grievances?
3 What action, if any, has been taken against the postmaster at Heaslip, Ontario, for reported irregularities and carelessness?
4.	Has there been a new assistant appointed in the Shawville, Quebec, post office? If so, what is his name and salary?


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General) :: 1.	The complaints to which reference is made were not received from individual members of the board of trade, Montreal, but Mr. Geo. Hadrill, secretary of the board of trade, submitted in December, 1906, 28 cases of alleged delay in transmission of mail matter. In 19 of these cases the complaints were not substantiated by evidence or the sender was at fault or the delay was due to causes beyond the control of the department. In dealing with the balance the department pursued its well defined policy of following up the searching inquiry made in each case with prompt measures to make the Montreal postal service in every respect satisfactory. The complaints dealt entirely with the routine of work performed by postal employees and the usual steps were promptly taken to effect the desired improvements for which the machinery of the department was ample and sufficient.
2.	No. Not only is the department not aware that such is the state of affairs, but is positively aware that no such condition exists. The department has had most gratifying evidence from the business men of Montreal in regard to the efficiency of the postal service of that city. It goes without saying that clerical errors will occur and mistakes will be made in a service as large as that of Montreal, but the department ventures to say that there is no city post office on the continent that is giving a better and more faithful service than the post office in the city of Montreal.
As a tribute to the present efficiency of the Montreal postal service the following letter addressed bv Mr. Geo. Hadrill, secretary of the board of Trade, Montreal, to the assistant postmaster, Montreal, under date of the 23rd instant, may be quoted :
Montreal Board of Trade, Montreal, May 23, 1908, to L. J. Gaboury, Esq., assistant postmaster, Montreal.
Sir,-In reply to your inquiry as to whether any complaints have recently been made to this office by members of the board regarding the postal service, I beg to say that with the exception of a letter of recent date pointing out the need of an outside letter box in the post office, no complaints regarding the postal service have been addressed to this office since 1906.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
(Sgd.) GEO. HADRILL, Secretary.
3.	A complaint was made by Mr. J. H. Field that a registered letter addressed to him at Heaslip was unduly detained at that office. On investigation it was found that the letter in question had been accidentally mislaid by the postmaster of Heaslip, having fallen down behind some pigeon holes in the office, and the postmaster was admonished severely as to his carelessness in the matter. It being the only offence the postmaster was not fined. No other complaints concerning this office have reached the department.
4.	The Post Office Department has nothing to do with the appointment of assistants in post offices like Shawville. The department holds the postmaster responsible for the office being properly carried on and all persons employed in the office are employees, not of the Post Office Department, but of the postmaster at Shawville, who is entirely responsible. When trouble arose a short time ago the postmaster at Shawville was written to that he must provide suitable assistance and he replied that he would employ a suitable assistant at once. Since then no complaints have been made by the public and the department is of the opinion that there is no further ground for complaint.



DREDGING IN ONTARIO AND QUEBEC.

Mr. BERGERON asked :: 1.	Were tenders called for by the Publio Works Department for dredging in Ontario and Quebec? If so, were tenders received?
2.	What were the prices at the different
places ?
3.	What were the names of the dredges mentioned in tenders?


William Pugsley: My hon. friend has not mentioned the year and I do not know to what year he refers. If he will state the year, I shall be happy to furnsh the information.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I mean this year.


William Pugsley: I shall be very glad to furnish the information.
Question allowed to stand.



WHARFAGE DUES-SOULANGES COUNTY.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MONK-by Mr. Bergeron-asked :
1.	Why are wharfage dues exacted at each of the wharfs of St. Zotique, Coteau Lauding, Coteau du Lac and Les Cedres, in the county of Soulanges?
2.	What amount has been received from that source from 1908 to the present time?
3.	IIow much for each one of the wharfs?
4.	Are the government wharfs constructed in other places subject to a like impost?
5.	Is there a tariff in force?
6.	Has anybody asked for the suppression of those dues?
7.	Does the government purpose continuing that system in the county of Soulanges?
Joseph Elijah Armstrong: 


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: 1.	These wharfs are under the provisions of chapter 112 of Revised Statutes of Canada, and the regulations made under this chapter and the dues are exacted because it is required by the law.
2.	$67.17.
3.	For the fiscal years 1906-7 and 1907-8, the receipts have been as follows :-St. Zotique, $21.78 ; Coteau Landing, $24.62 ; Coteau du Lac, $20.77 ; Les Cedres, nil.
4.	Yes. All wharfs under the control of by the Department of Marine and Fisheries, are subject to the collection of wharfage dues.
5.	Yes.
6.	Occasional requests have been received by the Department of Marine and Fisheries.
7.	Yes.



MAIL SERVICE-COTEAU LANDING.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Monk-by Mr. Bergeron-asked :
1.	Why do not the steamboats carrying the mails from Montreal to Kingston stop at Coteau Landing to land mails and passengers there?
2.	Has anybody asked the government to re-establish the former service?
3.	If so, who?
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General):: 1.	Mails are not carried by steamer between Montreal and Kingston and have not been for very many years.
2.	No request has been made in so far as the Post Office Department is aware to establish or re-establish such a service.
3.	Answered by No. 2.



COTEAU LANDING WHARF.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MONK-by Mr. Bergeron-asked :
1.	Have repair® to the wharf at Coteau Landing and the construction of a shelter for the passengers been asked for? If so, by whom and when ?
2.	Will the government make them ? If so, what amount will be appropriated?
Hon. WM. PTJGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 1. and 2. No. If such request should be made, it would have careful consideration.



MAIL SERVICE, SOULANGES' COUINTY.

[Stage Direction]
(Mr. MONK-by 'Mr. Bergeron-asked :
1.	Is there any reason why all the letters and mail packages between the different parishes of the county of Soulanges should pass .through Montreal in order to reach their destination ?
2.	How long is it since the carrying of the mails in vehicles has been abolished?
3.	Has the government received any complaints in that regard, either from the member for the county or otherwise?
4.	Is it the government's intention to remedy that state of things? If so, when? If not, why not?
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General) :: 1.	Letters and mail packages between the different post offices In the county of Soulanges have not to pass through Montreal in order to reach their destination. Out of 17 post offices In this county, 14 are served direct from the railways and the other three offices by stage.
2.	Conveyance of mails by vehicles has not been abolished where such mode is necessary.
3.	No complaints have been received in this regard either through the member for the county or otherwise.
4.	Answered by previous question.
CHARGES AGAINST ALFRED SAUVE. Mr. MONK-by Mr. Bergeron-asked :
1.	Is the report of the investigation, held by Louis Boyer, advocate, into the accusations brought against Alfred Sauve, the superintendent of the Soulanges canal, filed in the department?
2.	Has the government come to any decision in regard thereto?
3.	Was the man Alfred Sauve suspended during the investigation, and is he still under suspension ?
4.	Does he still draw his salary ?
5.	How much has he received on that account, and for other treasons, during the three months last past?
6.	How much has the Commissioner Boyer received np to date?
7.	What amount per day was allowed or agreed to he allowed to Commissioner Boyer as salary and for expenses, respectively?


Hon. G. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: 1.	Yes,
2.	No.
3.	Relieved of duty, pending investigation.
4.	Yes.
5.	$350.38.
6.	Nothing paid to date.
7.	$25 per day and reasonable travelling and living expenses.



COAL LANDS, ALBERTA AND SASKATCHEWAN.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. AMES-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
1.	What .total area of coal lands have been sold in Alberta and in Saskattchewan, respectively, since July 1, 1896?
2.	What total area has been leased?
3.	In .respect of what area has the government returns shown that coal has been or is being mined?
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the
Interior) :	„	. . ,
1. In Alberta, 250,812-24 acres, of which area 56.640 49 acres include the surface as well as the coal mining rights.
In Saskatchewan, 5,636-83 acres, of which area 60 acres include the surface as well as the coal mining rights.
[Stage Direction]
2. In Alberta 53,281-58 acres.
* In Saskatchewan, 2,040-53 acres.
. 3. 9,640-96 acres.

Mr. ARMSTRONG asked :: 1.	What did the compensation on money-order and postal note business, and commission on box and drawer -rents amount to in the calendar year 1907?
2.	Is the contract for -the -making and repairing of -mail -bags -let by tender? If not, why not, and w-hat firm has -the contract -at present?
3.	W-hat -was -the total expense for -maintenance of -postal service in the Yukon and Atlin districts for -the calendar year 1907?
4.	W-hat was the total -net revenue -to the Post Office Department from the Yukon and AAl-in districts -for -the calendar year 1907 ?
5.	How m-any accounting officers are -there in the Yukon -and Atlin districts, and how many non-accounting post offices?
6.	What is the total amount paid in salaries to postmasters in the Yukon -and Atlin districts ?
7.	What -is the total number of registered letters containing money or valuables reported to -the Post Office -Department, and the total alleged contents -in the calendar year 1907?
8.	Wh-at -is the total number of unregistered letters containing money or valuables reported to the Post Office Department, -and the total alleged contents in the calendar year 1907?
iHon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General) :
1.	-Commission on money orders, $109,166.32.
Commission on postal notes, $19,G19.05.
Box and drawer rents, $29,135.
2.	All ordinary letter bags for the domestic service are supplied under contract, the present contractors being -Messrs. -S. & H. Borbridge, Rideau Street, Ottawa.
The manufacture of registered sacks and British mail sacks is in the hands of S. S. Stratton, Sparks street, Ottawa, who formerly had a contract with this department, and the work was continued with him after the expiry of his contract (at a slight increase in the cost of the last mentioned sacks only) on account of the very favourable rates thus obtained.
Newspaper sacks are no longer manufactured under contract, experience having shown that no single contractor was in a position to manufacture these sacks with sufficient rapidity upon demand to meet the needs of the service at periods such as Christmas, etc., when there is an enormous increase in the amount of mail matter requiring to be handled. The department adopted the system of purchasing the material under contract and supplying it to different persons employed in the repairing of mail bags, who manufactured new sacks for the department at a uniform price of eleven cents per sack.


Frank Oliver: The repairing of mail bags and sacks has never been performed under contract, such method being considered impracticable owing to the varying nature of the repairs required, the different prices paid, and the uncertainty as to numbers.
3.	$125,021.28.
4.	$15,406.41.
5.	Nine accounting offices; 13 non-accounting.
6.	$30,145.84.
7 and 8. From the wording of the questions 7 and 8 it is not understood what information is desired. If the inquiry has reference to the returns of undelivered ordinary and registered mail matter regularly made by postmasters to the Dead Letter Branch, statistics for the calendar year of 1907 will be compiled and submitted at an early date.



HOG CHOLERA IN ESSEX

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CLEMENT-by Mr. Taylor-asked:
1.	How many hogs -have been ordered destroyed in the county of Essex in the calendar years ending January, 1, 1906 and 1907, respectively ?
2.	Were these hogs destroyed owing to cholera, or what was the reason for such order?
Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. 1906	 183 hogs
1907	 37 "
2.	They were all affected with, or had been in contact with animals affected with hog cholera.



SASKATCHEWAN VALLEY LAND COMPANY.

Robert Laird Borden: I desire to ask the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) for information on the subject which I mentioned yesterday-the Saskatchewan Valley Land Company. He said he would look up ' Hansard ' and give me an answer to-day. But perhaps the hon. gentleman has overlooked it.


Frank Oliver: I regret to say that I have overlooked it. I will promise faithfully to attend to it by Friday.



THE GOVERNMENT STEAMER ' CHAMPLAIN.'

Robert Laird Borden: Would the Prime Minister be good enough to give an answer to the matter concerning which I asked -him yesterday-the steamer ' Champlain '?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: The ' -Champlain ' is running between Riviere Ouelle and Murray bay. On the north side she generally goes also to two other places, St. Irence and Cap a l'Aigle. I was asked if she could be sent from Murray bay also to Baie St. Paul. As the hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden)

knows, there is no railway connection between these two places. It is decided that the ' Champlain ' could go there. We required that those who asked it should put up a deposit, as is generally required by the railway and steamship companies. Also, instructions were given to the agent that so much per mile should be charged those who took passage by the boat. I see it stated that some persons were refused admission to the boat. I telephoned to the agent at Quebec and the information we have is that the statement is not correct. The agent says he never heard of it, and that the boat has been open to the public.



PURCHASE OF FIRE EXTINGUISHERS.

George Eulas Foster: I desire to ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) if he has yet decided to lay on the table the file with reference to the celebrated fire extinguishers?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I certainly have no objection, as I have already done, to lay on the table the documents or the file bearing on the questions that I discussed here.


George Eulas Foster: Can the hon. gentleman have it here this afternoon? To-morrow is a holiday, and we could take advantage of it to get business ready for the House.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I have a copy of it in my room.
Mr. FOSTER, That will do in the meantime.



REPORTED LOSS OF MAILS.

Mr. R. S. LAKE (Qu'Appelle).: I desire to ask the Postmaster General (Mr. Le-mieux) if he has had information with regard to a reported loss of mail by accident on the Canadian Pacific Railway on this side of Ken ora?


Rodolphe Lemieux: When was that ?


Richard Stuart Lake: Within a few days-on Monday last, I think.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If the hon. member (Mr. Lake) will remember his question a little later, I may be able to give him information. There may be a report in the department. I will inquire about the matter.



SUPPLY-AMENDMENTS TO THE CRIMINAL CODE.

["' With which he is connected.' Surely that' would imply something more than a mere interest which a public man takes in anything that is going to advance the trade of the country. If the construction of the Minister of Agriculture be correct, that it was merely the interest which he as a public man was taking in all matters relating to trade, then it would apply to every member of this House, because we are all supposed to take an interest, I think most of us do take an interest in anything which pertains to the welfare of the country.\n-and I have viewed his application very favourably.\nSo I think that even on the correspondence and on the statement of the Minister of Militia himself, we must conclude that the interest which he had in this particular transaction was much more intimate and much more individual than the interest which he took as a public man in that which pertained to the well being of the country. Now it may be said that there was no particular objection to that, it may be said that no particular advantage was obtained by the Minister of Militia on account of his position in relation to the Minister of Agriculture as a colleague, the Minister of Agriculture having the granting of this subsidy. We had two rival applicants. We had an application by a man named Williams, of St. John, a man who was in the meat and produce business, a man of high standing in St. John, doing a large business, an influential Liberal, too, a man of the same political stripe as the Minister of Militia and the Minister of Agriculture. He had therefore, from a business standpoint, quite as good a standing as had the Minister of Militia and the friends by whom he was surrounded. From a party standpoint, one would think that he would have pretty nearly as good standing. He would have not quite so good opportunities of getting the ear of the Minister of Agriculture, perhaps, as the Minister of Militia would have. Naturally there would be things that the\nMinister of Agriculture would want in the Department of Militia, and the Minister of Militia could very well say to the Minister of Agriculture, If you want certain things done-we will say with reference to that regiment down in the eastern townships for which the Minister of Agriculture stands as godfather, the 13th Dragoons, I think it is, the Dundonald regiment-it might very well be that certain privileges, certain advantages that this particular regiment belonging to the Minister of Agriculture would require, might be more easily got provided the Minister of Agriculture was willing to make concessions to the Minister of Militia for things which he required. So from the necessities of the Minister of Agriculture; and remembering the opportunity that the Minister of Militia had for taking advantage of these necessities, poor Mr. Williams, of St. John, deserving Liberal though he might be, is naturally turned down, and the concession is granted to the company in which the Minister of Militia, and a very close relative of his, are the moving spirits.\nI beg to move the adjournment of the debate."]
The Hon.   S@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.


Mr. E. N. LEWIS (West Huron).: Bofore you leave, the chair. Mr. Speaker, I desire to again bring to the notice of the government some Bills which I have had before the House for some months and in refer-295
ence to which I have been in consultation with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ayles-worth), the Solicitor General (Mr. Bureau) and the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) and to present reasons why these Bills should be taken over by the government and embodied in the measure which, I understand, the government is about to bring down in amendment to the Criminal Code. The first Bill has reference to the subject of immigration. It authorizes the officers of the Emigration Branch of the Department of the Interior to search immigrants and take from them knives, revolvers and other offensive weapons and uxrecting them to inform such immigrants that weapons of this kind must not be carried in Canada. To show that there is great need for such a law, to show that this is a vital and pressing question, I wish to bring to your attention articles in the daily press written since this Bill was placed before the House. The first item is from the Toronto ' Globe.
It is headed ' Fool and Revolver form dau-gerous combination.'


Duncan Ross: I rise to a point of order. Has the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lewis) a right to discuss on motion for Supply a matter already on the order paper?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The rule is that matter on the Order Paper cannot be anticipated by discussion.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lewis) is suggesting to the House that the Bill should be placed upon government orders. It is perfectly proper to do that.


Edward Norman Lewis: This is from the Toronto 'Globe'; and by arrangement with the Solicitor General


Robert Franklin Sutherland: If the hon. gentleman-


Edward Norman Lewis: This is by arrangement.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: If the hon. gentleman is discussing whether th's matter should be taken up. that may be permitted, but discussion of the merits of a question upon the order paper would not be in order.


Edward Norman Lewis: I do not desire to discuss the merits, but only to place before the House and the government, reasons, vita) reasons which have arisen since this Bill was laid before the House, why the government should take action and should take over this Bill.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: That would be practically discussing the question, and I think would be out of order.	[DOT]


Edward Norman Lewis: May I refer the' government to the pages in which these articles are to be found?	_


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Any discussion which would anticipate the merits of the Bill would be out of order.


Robert Laird Borden: I submit, Mr. Speaker, that for the purpose of showing the necessity of placing the Bill upon government orders, it is necessary for the hon. gentleman to refer in some measure to the1 subject matter. To that extent-but to thatl extent only-I think the hon. gentleman would be within his rights.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: The hon. member (Mr, Lewis) has not put it that way to the House.


Wilfrid Laurier: I would suggest to the hon. member (Mr. Lewis) that it would be useless to place these Bills on the Order Paper for action by the government, if the government cannot get Supply even.


Edward Norman Lewis: I would suggest to make it a government measure and introduce it as an amendment to the Criminal Code, and an Immigration Act be prepared by the government.


Wilfrid Laurier: Order. The
hon. gentleman cannot discuss the general principle of the Bill.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: That would be out of order.


Edward Norman Lewis: I merely wanted to read the title. Bill (No. 63) to amend the Immigration Act ; Bill (No. 78) to amend the provisions of the Criminal Code respecting offensive weapons ; Bill (No. 79) to amend the provisions of the Criminal Code respecting assaults on women and childrep ; Bill (No. 93) to amend the Criminal Code to punish homicide while hunting ; Bill (No. 140) to amend the Criminal Code respecting injuries to persons due to motor vehicles. I had no desire to infringe the rules of the House ; I merely desired to say that since these Bills were brought before this House occurrences have taken place within Canada which would make it more necessary for such legislation to be passed.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Order.



George Eulas Foster: 
Mr.  F. E.@: Williams,
92 to 96 Princess street, St. John, New Brunswick.
Dear Sir,-I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 8th. I may say that we have not yet made any grant for a cold storage warehouse in St. John. Sir Frederick Borden has made application, on behalf of a company with which he is connected, and I have viewed his application very favourably. None of the applications, however, are in a position to be passed upon absolutely.
I cannot make any promises without definite plans and specifications and full information as to what the people applying for may be prepared to do.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) SYDNEY FISHER.
Then, the next correspondence that takes place is dated June 2, as detailed here. Mr. Williams writes from St. John on the 3rd of June as follows :
The Hon. Sydney Fisher,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear .Sir,-I received blanks for application for cold storage warehouses. In your letter of April 11 you gave me to understand that nothing could- be done unless plans and specifications were submitted and you also stated that you looked favourably upon giving this grant"m St. John to Sir Frederick Borden. I have already spent considerable of my money in going to Ottawa and endeavouring to obtain a grant for the cold storage warehouse in St. John and do not feel like spending any more money in getting up plans and specifia-tions if the preference is to be given to Sir Frederick Borden. I have written very strongly against your government giving a grant to a cabinet minister, and leaving out the business men who should be the proper parties to take up this proposition.
I would again kindly request that you inform me plainly if it would, be worth while my proceeding to get plans and specifications ready to submit to you.
Yours trulv,
(Sgd.) F. E. WILLIAMS.
In answer to that, the minister being absent, the deputy minister says :
Dear Sir,-In the absence of the minister, I have the honour to acknowledge receipt Of your letter of the 3rd instant in reference to cold storage warehouses.
If you will submit your application it will receive due consideration.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd.) GEO. F. O'HALLQRAN, Deputy Minister.
F. E. Williams Company,
St. Johu. New Brunswick.
Now, it is incontestable that Mr. Williams made his application, backed by his friends in the city of St. John-and they were numerous-for government aid in the year 1905, and that as long as there was only that kind of legislation on the statute-book he directed his efforts to the Department of Marine and Fisheries. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries refused his applica-


George Eulas Foster: tion on that basis, and turned him over to the minister who was taking up the matter on a larger basis. Mr. 'Williams had gone to the only minister to whom he could apply, he spent a year and more of his time and effort trying to advance his scheme with the minister, and at the end of that time he was told that he would have to go to the Minister of Agriculture, who had a more ambitious form of legislation which he was just putting on the statute-book. He then transferred his claim for aid for his project to the Minister of Agriculture, and put in a formal application. He not only did that, but he came in person and with his friends, and through the Minister of Railways and Canals, and interviewed the ministers here; and in the course of that interview he found that there was another applicant besides himself, that applicant being Sir Frederick Borden, the Minister of Militia and Defence.


Frederick William Borden: I never was an applicant.


George Eulas Foster: I am simply giving the information which I have, and which will all come out in the letters before I get through with what I have to say. He found out that Sir Frederick Borden was an applicant on behalf of a company in which he was interested. He found It out, both from his interviews with the ministers and later from a letter written to him by the Minister of Agriculture. If I am wrong in that, surely it is not my fault, because I find In a letter of April 11, 1907, which was written by the Minister of Agriculture, and the colleague of the Minister of Militia and Defence, these words:
April 11, 1907.


Mr.  F. E.@: Williams,
St. John, New Brunswick.
I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of April 8. I may say that we have not yet made any grant for a cold storage warehouse in St. John. Sir Frederick Borden has made application on behalf of a company with which he is connected, and I have viewed his application very favourably. None of the applications, however, are in a position to be passed upon absolutely.
If Mr. Williams needs any further reference or support in his contention that he had to meet the opposition of a cabinet minister making an application, and an interested application, for the very subsidy which he was after, he gets that support from the letter, positive and distinct, of the Minister of Agriculture himself. Having found out from his interviews and from the letter which he had received from the minister, In which he said explicitly that he had received an application from Sir Frederick Borden on behalf of a company with which he was connected, and that he viewed this application very favourably,
9289 MAY 27. 1908 9290	
what was the conclusion to which Mr. Williams came ? After having for a year and a half spent his time and money and the energy and influence of his friends, he finds out that a cabinet minister is ahead of him and has forestalled him in the favourable opinion of the Minister of Agriculture in whose department the matter is ; and he comes naturally and properly to the conclusion that there is no use of his going to the further expenditure of preparing his plans and putting them in unless the minister tells him that he has a chance and that his claim will receive fair and just consideration. With this preference and this great influence against him, he did not file his plans, although he had put in his application at a very early period. On the 3rd of June he writes from St. John to the Hon. Sydney Fisher, Ottawa, Ont.: Dear Sir, I received blanks for application for cold storage warehouse. In your letter of April 11 you gave me to understand that nothing could be done unless plans and specifications were submitted, and you also stated that you looked favourably upon giving this grant in St. John to Sir Frederick Borden. I have already spent considerable of my money going to Ottawa and endeavouring to obtain a grant for the cold storage warehouse in St. John, and I do not feel like spending any more money in getting up plans and specifications if the preference is to be given to Sir Frederick Borden. I have written very strongly on this matter. I would again kindly request that you inform me plainly if it would be worth while proceeding to get plans and specifications ready to submit to you. The answer he got to that, which was his final appeal, was from the deputy minister, saying that if he would submit his application it would receive due consideration. Consequently, although his application was in, he did not file his plans and specifications, which would cost quite a large amount of money, and he had already spent, as he thought, sufficient in the matter. . Now, Sir, this correspondence has divulged the name of Sir Frederick Borden and the company with which he was connected as an applicant for the government subsidy. I propose to trace what had been going on. What had been going on ? Sir Frederick Borden was a member of the cabinet; Hon. Sydney Fisher was a member of the cabinet. Hon. Sydney Fisher and Hon. Sir Frederick Borden and other members of the cabinet sat around the council board and hatched a scheme for government subsidies for cold storage. The very moment they were hatching and bringing out that scheme, Sir Frederick Borden, according to his own letters, was busy getting up a million dollar company In which he had an interest for the very purpose of applying for these government subsidies, which he as a member of the government around the council	board was endeavouring to bring in and having intimate and first knowledge that they would be brought in. I think I shall be able to show that in the meantime the minister was working to get In his application. The first intimation we have of this matter comes from the following letter : L. S. Macoun, General Broker Ottawa, December 5, 1906. To be fair and frank in the matter I think L. S. Macoun is a son-in-law of the Minister of Militia and Defence. If that is not denied I will take it for granted and go on with the reading of the letter. It reads: The Hon. Sydney Fisher, Minister of Agriculture, Ottawa. Dear Sir,-Understanding that it is the intention, He knew, he had the knowledge,- -of the Dominion government through the Department of Agriculture, to encourage by financial assistance, the establishment of cold storage warehouses for the preservation of perishable food products, I beg leave on behalf of the ' Canada Lands, Produce and Cold Storage, Limited/ to apply for, when available, the fullest information on the subject, and covering the conditions to be complied with to obtain what financial assistance or aid the government may decide to grant. This company, which has received a charter from the Dominion government, was recently incorporated by letters patent, and has a capital stock of $1,000,000. It has secured under option, a suitable site on the deep water front at Halifax, Nova Scotia, which property is intersected by the tracks of the Intercolonial Railway. A site has been secured in St. John, New Brunswick, also on the harbour front and situated at the Canadian Pacific Railway's terminal, whose tracks also intersect the property. On each of the sites it is the intention of the company to erect next spring, a cold storage of adequate capacity and up to date in every particular. They have also in view the possibility of erecting one in Prince Edward Island and m several other locations not now equipped with com * storage	 Trusting that this application will receive your kind consideration. I- have the honour to be sir, Yours faithfully, (Sgd.) L. S. MACOUN, Secretary. That is secretary of the same company I presume. That is all perfectly right. Let us go on to the reply. On December 13, 1906, the following letter is written : L. S. Macoun, Esq., General Broker, Ottawa, Ontario. Dear Mr. Macoun,-I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of December 5 with reference to the Bill I am introducing to provide better cold storage facilities for perish* able products.

Mind you at the request of Sir Frederick Borden.
-when I reached Ottawa Thursday night I learned from Mr. Macoun that you had advised him that everything had been arranged in connection with this matter and therefore it would be unnecessary for me to bother you any further in reference to the matter in question. This will explain why I did not interview you in regard to the matter and if any further application or information is required please advise.
and if any further application or information is required please advise
Yours truly,


R. J. GRAHAM.
[Stage Direction]
We have three names thus far of men busying themselves about the very same proposition, Mr. Macoun, general broker, a son-in-law of the Hon. Sir Frederick Borden, Minister of Militia and Defence, Sir Frederick Borden who applied on behalf of the company with which he is connected and Mr. Graham who is requested by Sir Frederick Borden to go up to Ottawa and interview the minister of the department and make things right. He finds when he gets here after his hurried passage, that Mr. Macoun has been ahead of him and that everything is arranged so that he does not need to bother the minister. Then we have this letter of April 16, 1907 :
Mr.  R. J.@: Graham,
Belleville, Ontario.
Dear Sir,-I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of April 13, and note what you state in regard to your visit to Ottawa last Thursday. This is quite satisfactory.
Yours very truly, SYDNEY FISHER.
And there the matter rests for the present. The next occurrence is on June 11, 1907, when this letter is written :


Professor J.   A.@: 
R. J GRAHAM.
[Stage Direction]
That letter is dated April 13. These dates you will remember are the very dates along which Mr. Williams is having his struggle to get an application in, and any chance for a fair consideration of that application :
When I reached Ottawa Thursday night, 1 learned from Mr. L. S. Macoun that you had advised him that everything had been arranged in connection with this matter and therefore it would be unnecessary for me to bother you any further in reference to the matter in question. This will explain why I did not interview you in regard to the matter Mr. FOSTER.
With this are certain plans that are spoken of in the letter. On June 13, 1907, this is acknowledged by Mr. J. A. Ruddick. Then on August 7, 1907, the following letter is written :
L. S. Macoun, General Broker, Central Chamber's, Ottawa, August 7y 1907.
G. F. O'Halloran, Esq.,
Deputy Minister of Agriculture, Ottawa.
Re cold storage warehouse, St. John, N.B. Dear Sir,-I beg leave on behalf of Mr. R. J. Graham, of Belleville, Ont., to return herewith the original set you loaned me, and of

which I have made a duplicate set which is also inclosed.
A few days before Mr. O'Halloran had, in answer to a request from Mr. Macoun* lent him apparently three sets of papers which Mr. Macoun now restores to him :
Should everything not be entirely clear, you would please take up the matter with Mr. Graham, at Belleville, as I may he absent from Ottawa until August.
Believe me,
Yours faithfully,

[Stage Direction]
The connection is not at all broken between Mr. Graham and Mr. Macoun. If Mr. Macoun had remained in Ottawa, these communications would go to him, but while he is absent they are to go to Mr, Graham :
August 17, 1907. Hon. Sydney Fisher, Ottawa,
Dear Sir,-As I have arranged with the New Brunswick Cold Storage Company to amalgamate my interests with theirs, re cold storage at the city of St. John, you will be good enough to substitute the name of the New Brunswick Cold Storage Company in the agreement instead of my own name, which I trust will be satisfactory to your department.
Yours truly,

[Stage Direction]
The substitution was accepted at once, and so the said II. J. Graham and presumably the said two other gentlemen who are connected with him in these applications became amalgamated with the Cold Storage Company in the city of St. John.
I might state that R. J. Graham, under instructions, went to St. John and Halifax and procured the sites that were spoken of in the first letter by Mr. Macoun and afterwards referred to by Mr. Graham. The site he got in the city of St. John was on the west side of the harbour, but the Intercolonial Railway objected that that would not inure to its benefit. A certain amount of work took place and what happened ? The Intercolonial Railway, having acquired n piece of land in St. John for which it paid $8,415, leased that land for a period from 1907 to 1970 to the New Brunswick Cold Storage Company-no, to Mr. Graham -for $250 per year with exemption from taxation during that time, and put an amount of extra work on it to the sum of some $4,000 or $5,000 in addition. That lease was given-carrying with it exemption from taxation from 1907 to 1970-at the small rental of $250 per year, giving the company possibly the most eligible site in the city of St. John for its establishment. In the end an amalgamation took place. The New Brunswick Cold Storage Company amalgamated its interests with these others, and that property went through various transformation until at last Mr. Graham, who first became possessed of the lease, assigned it to the New Brunswick Cold Storage Company, and that amalgamated company made it over to the government of New Brunswick. And then the government of New Brunswick leased it to the Cold Storage Company. There was some significance, I suppose, in that. Possibly it was to give the New Brunswick government some lien for the financial aid which they had given. And so, the assignment having been properly made, we go a little further :
New Brunswick Cold Storage Company, Ltd.,
Now full fledged.
Office of the secretary treasurer, Central Chambers, Ottawa, September 16, 1907.
G. F. O'Halloran, Esq.,	
Deputy Minister Dept, of Agriculture, Dear Sir, We beg to return herewith the rough copy of agreement which we have submitted to our directors, and 'which met with their acceptance, as you will note from copy of the resolution herewith inclosed.
Believe us yours faithfully,
The New Brunswick Cold Storage Coy., Ltd., L. S. MACOUN, Secretary Treasurer.
On the next page we have the resolution of the directors in the city of St. John on the 12th September :
Moved by Mr. Geo. McAvity, seconded by Judge Trueman, that the president and secretary treasurer, shall execute on behalf of this company an agreement with His Majesty s Minister of Agriculture for Canada, whereby to the fulfilment thereof, this company shall receive the subsidy provided m the Cold Storage Act. ^ j GRAHAM, President,
GEO. McAVITY, Vice. Pres.
L S. MACOUN, Secy. Treas. ARTHUR J, TRUEMAN, Director. H. R. ROSS, Director.
So the matter stood, in its completed form, in that position. Now trouble began. Mr. Williams was not satisfied with the way he had been treated and he determined it possible to ascertain whether that sort of thing should go on. The order in council was passed on a memo, dated the 2nd August, 1907, from the Minister of Agncultuie submitting :
That an application has been received from the New Brunswick Cold Storage Company, Limited, of St. John, for a subsidy under the Cold Storage Act for having agreed to build a cold storage warehouse m the province of New Brunswick.
The minister goes on to state that the plans specifications, &c., are all satisfactory, and the order in council authorizes a contract to tie entered into between this company and the government, by which the government, when certain conditions are fulfilled, agree to give a subsidy of $30,000. Section 8 of the agreement provides :
That the minister shall be a
centi<of the amS^SxpSnded and approved of in the construction and equipment of the
[Stage Direction]
said warehouse, payable in installments as follows.
It is not necessary to follow out the installments. The main point I wish to bring out is this-that a contract is authorized by order in council and that by section 8, the minister is to pay a subsidy, not exceeding in the whole 30 per cent of the amount expended and approved of in the construction and equipment of the said warehouse.
Now, this was to cost a certain amount. But since that the plea has been put forward-and, I believe, substantiated-that it is to cost a great deal more. In that case, a subsidy of 30 per cent would mean a subsidy of a much larger amount. I have seen it stated that the cost will be at least $150,000. Of course, I am saying nothing against the plant; I believe it is a very complete and excellent one and starts with fine business prospects. But, if it cost $150,000, a subsidy of 30 per cent would represent $45,000. And, of course, that is only part of the aid given. The New Brunswick government, I understand, has had legislation passed to guarantee the principal and interest of a certain proportion of the bonds, running up, I understand, to $60,000. I am not sure that that is the exact figure. My hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) will
William Pugsley: It is secured by first mortgage.


George Eulas Foster: Certainly. What I am pointing out is that, on the basis of cost I have given, the subsidy would be $45,000, and they have also the guarantee of the provincial government of both principal and interest to the amount of $60,000 more, making $105,000 in all. Of course the local government protects itself by a first lien upon the whole property.
Now, as I have said, Mr. Williams took the ground that he, a business man, ought not to have met with the competition of a cabinet minister in seeking a subsidy which was the benefaction, so to speak, of the government of which the cabinet minister was a member. He, therefore, commenced to make the pen warm. He wrote, as he had promised he would, to the Prime Minister. And I think I cannot do better than read that letter :
St. John, N.B., August 15, 1907.
Sir Wilfrid Laucrier,
Ottawa, Ont.
Bear Sir,-The writer, P. E. Williams, made application to your government early in 1900 for a bonus for a bait freezer in St. John, similar to those erected in Canso and Halifax. The bonus given to Canso and Halifax bait freezers was 50 per cent of the first cost, tbe game not to exceed $60,000, and $2,000 a year for three years, making a totaal bonus of $33,000 on a cost of $60,00. The proprietors of these freezers agreed to keep frozen bait on hand


George Eulas Foster: to supply the fishermen during the warm weather when fresh bait was not obtainable.
the conditions that apply to the Canso and Halifax would apply to St. John for the benefit of the fisheries in tbe Bay of Fundy, St. John being the headquarters "for bait supply.
After discussing the matter with Hon. Mr. Emmerson and Hon. Mr. Brodeur both by personal interviews and letters during 1906, I received the inclosed letter (No. 1) from Hon. Mr. Emmerson. Mr. Trueman mentioned in this letter is my solicitor who accompanied me to Ottawa interviewing the ministers. The last of Becember, 1906, Hon. Mr. Emmerson, being in St. John assured me that there would be sufficient money in the estimate to cover the bait freezer in St. John, and that he would soon send me a telegram to go to Ottawa for the purpose of closing the contract with the government. I received the telegram about the 9th of January, 1907, and at once proceeded to Ottawa. I was met by Sir Fiederick Borden and his son-in-law, Mr. Macoun. They informed me that they had a scheme of building a cold storage and that Hon. Mr. Fisher promised them a grant, which would b^ forthcoming when the Cold Storage Act was passed, and wanted me to abandon my scheme and come in with them. Sir Frederick Borden made a proposition to me, which I thought was very unfair coming from a minister of the Crown. He also said to me in the parliament buildings that he would have influence enough to have my proposition sidetracked and that Hon. Mr. Fisher would give him the grant for his cold storage scheme. While in Ottawa I urged Hon. Mr. Emmerson to endeavour to close a contract, hut I could see thait matters were being delayed, and he advised me to return to St. John, promising that he would not allow this scheme of Sir Frederick Borden to interfere with my proposition.
Sir Frederick Borden formed a company about October, 1908, called ' The Lands. Produce and Cold Storage Company/ It looks very much as if he formed this company about the time Hon. Mr. Fisher's Cold Storage Act was talked over in council and that this company was formed for the purpose of getting these grants, which the government would make.
Sir Frederick Borden visited St. John the last of Becember, 1906, and I inclose you a newspaper clipping

That is $60,000 and $30,000, you see.

-out of the government and make a construction profit besides owning the freezer. I wrote Hon. Mr. Emmerson and Hon. Mr, Fisher very strongly, and I inclose you copies of the letters I sent them. They are now erecting this cold storage warehouse in this city. I cannot think that you are aware of the facts in connection with this transaction, or that you can approve of a minister of the Crown deriving aid from the government for the furtherance of the interests of a company in which he is so largely interested. I appeal to you to frustrate the scheme and to put me dn a position to make application for a grant for a firigerator that cannot be criticised in the way Sir Frederick Borden's can be.
Yours respectfully,
(Sgd.) F. E. WILLIAMS.
And here is the letter he incloses.
Ottawa, November 19, 1906.
Dear Mr. Williams,-Your letter of October 17, was acknowledged merely. Since then I have been working on the matter. I gather from your present letter that you have doubts as to my giving you support in this matter. In this you do me an injustice. There are ways and ways of doing things and it is not desirable to have to secure concessions from my colleagues at the point of the bayonet. Failure is likely to accompany such procedure. My methods have been more successful than those you suggest. It does not do to be too impatient as to bringing about results. Let me say that there is likely to be placed in the estimates a provision for bait freezers to cover your proposals. Mr. Brodeuir has given me great encouragement, and I hope before session closes to be able to invite you to Ottawa to enter into a contract which I trust will be mutually satisfactory. There is no present necessity for either you or Mr. Trueman coming to Ottawa.
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd.) H. R. EMMERSON.
F. E. Williams, Esq.,
St. John, N.B.


Haughton Lennox: Is that the Trueman who figured after as Judge Trueman?


George Eulas Foster: I do not know whether this is the judge or the solicitor. Judge Trueman has since died.


John Waterhouse Daniel: This is the judge, and a member of the firm of Pugsley & Trueman. Fie was in the cold storage company.


George William Fowler: His name appears there for another man.
Mr. FOSTER, And here is another letter
Ottawa, January 7, 1907.
Dear Sir,-I have your letter of the 5th instant. I had received some information which is set forth in the clipping yon inclose. I have been in communication, and am now,
with Mr. Brodeur on the subject. I consider the two propositions quite distinct.
Yours faithfully (Sgd.) H. R. EMMERSON.
F. E. Williams, Esq.,
St. John, N.B.
Now, when that letter to the premier came the fat was in the fire and there began to be some little stir. Two letters' were written, which I think must be put on the pages of 'Hansard,' one of which I find at page 74 of this return.


George William Fowler: Was there any answer to that letter of Mr. Williams to the Prime Minister ?
Mr. FOSTER, Yes, and I will read it now. That letter was written to-Sir Wilfrid on the 15th of August, 1907, when he was in the old country, and it was answered when he came back, on the 5th of October, 1907.
Dear Sir,-Adverting to your letter of the 15th of August last in reference to the grant of a subsidy to aid the establishment of a cold storage warehouse at St John, New Brunswick, I have gone fully into the matter, and find that on the 8th of April last you were advised to the Minister of Agriculture in reply to your inquiry as to whether your application for this purpose would be granted, that he could not make any promises without definite plans and specifications, and full information as to what the people applying were prepared to do, none of which had you furnished.
Yet at that very time the letter of Mr. Fisher, very pronounced with reference to Sir Frederick Borden's application, and his very favourable view of it, is on record.


George William Fowler: And he refused to tell this man when he asked the question if the thing was still open ?


George Eulas Foster: Exactly.
On the 7th of June last, during the absence of the minister yon were advised by his deputy in reply to your inquiry of the 3rd of the same month, that if you would submit^ your application it would receive due consideration.
That was the letter that contained the answer, the final request and appeal of Mr. Williams, who wanted to know, if he went to the expense of putting in plans and specifications, would his application get fair consideration.
It appears that in the meantime you had been supplied with forms for making the ap-lication in accordance with the regulations made under the Cold Storage Act.
Which was true.
It was -the intention of the Minister of Agriculture, should your application bo filed, to consider it in connection with that of the New Brunswick Cold Storage Company, the one on whose behalf Sir Frederick Borden had I interested himself



There again the Prime Minister declares that Sir Frederick Borden was interested in this company.
and recommend the granting of the subsidy to the applicant whose scheme seemed the more in the public interest.
But the Minister of Agriculture had already indicated his preference, he was very favourably disposed to Sir Frederick Borden. The minister, Sir Frederick Borden, was here. In fact, if we are to believe the letter which was written and which I have read, when Mr. Graham came up from Brockville and interviewed the minister, he had been preceded by Mr. Macoun who had been told that everything had been made all right, that there was no need of bothering himself any more about it. The scant comfort which would come from this reply of the minister would be quite apparent.
In order that you might have ample opportunity to file your application no action was taken on that of the New Brunswick Cold Storage Company until late in August, on the favourable report of the expert officer of the Department of Agriculture, made after careful consideration and examination of the plans, specifications and proposed operation of the establishment, and there being no other application before the department from St. John, it was decided to give a subsidy to that company.
Making it absolutely impossible for a man to compete, and therefore to put in bis plans and the like of that, and then telling him that there was no other, and that therefore it was given to the one that was there. I
I need .hardly add .that the application was dealt with by the Department of Agriculture without regard to the personal of the applicants or those associated with them, nor that your application would have received the same consideration as w.as given to that of the successful applicants if you had seen fit to file it.
Yours very sincerely,


WILFRID LAURIER.
[Stage Direction]
Now on page 74 and following pages, I find two distinct apologies. 74 is the apology of Mr. Macoun. This matter had come before the minister, it was growing a little warm, it was known that Sir Wilfrid Laurier was on his way back and would soon be here; and so Mr. L. iS. Macoun, general broker, Central Chambers, Ottawa, on September 16, 1907, wi'ote Mr. Fisher :
Dear Mr. Fisher,-I inclose herewith a clip-pmg from the St. John r Globe J of August 26, signed by An Onlooker/ I have no doubt in my mind, judging from the letter, that it was written or inspired by Mr. Frank Williams of that city.
All I know about Mr. Williams is that he came to Ottawa to interview .the Marine Department i.n the hopes of securing aid towards erecting a ihait freezer along the lines of the aid granted the Halifax Cold Storage Company by the above department. Whether the
George Eulas Foster: fact leaked out that he was more interested in a pork packing establishment which he owns, than in bait for fishermen, I cannot say. All I know is that he was not successful in his quest. It was on this occasion that I met him for the first and last time. I must confess that I was not in any way prepossessed in h.iis favour, in fact quite the reverse.
What a set back for Mr. Williams.
I told him on this occasion that I was interested in a company which had applied to your department for aid in erecting a cold storage .warehouse which would be -a public utility, and that to some extent our interests were the same. At first lie was inclined to entirely ignore our right to intrude upon what he considered was his own territory. However, later on, he decided to make a proposition that he should be the president and managing director of our company .and have full control of the building operations, and have full' say in its future management. To this, of course, we could not agree, as Mr. Williams knows nothing whatever about the management of cold storage warehouses, and in addition we had already engaged the services of a very practical man, viz., Mt. R. J. Graham, of Belleville, Ontario.
So Mr. Macoun now reduced the active promoters down to two, himself and the Minister of Militia, and they hired Mr. Graham as a practical man to come in and do the business.
Since then I have had no further correspondence with Mr. Williams. I understand, however, that this man took serious umbrage on learing we could not entertain his proposition, and has done his best to thwart us on all occasions. Our first unpleasantness with [DOT]him was when we applied to the city council of St. John, New Brunswick, for certain privileges which they had .already granted others who once, some years ago, had like objects in view. He went to the council meeting and there used the most offensive and abusive language conceivable, stating that .it was a most questionable .and undesirable undertaking, and that those interested, including Sir Frederick Borden and others

Admitting again that Sir Frederick Borden is one of those that were interested.
-were only interested in promoting the company and securing promotion expenses, government grants, and contractors'' profits. In fact, he behaved in such an abominable manner as to warrant an action to libel. His statements, needless to say, are of course, without any foundation, hut they had for the moment the effect of prejudicing the St. John city council against the undertaking. They, however, informed Mr. Williams that if he had any proposition to make they would be pleased to receive it in writing. He had stated at the meeting that he neither .required or expected any exemption from taxation, or a free site, that he was prepared with his own .money to build and operate a cold storage building, and did not seek civic, government or other aid. The council, however, waited in vain for any written proposition from Mr. Williams

What written proposition could they get from Mr. Williams when he had no look in

for the government subsidy, and therefore could not be expected to carry it on at his own costs and charges. 'Bear in mind that the company had got the subsidy* from this government, they had got also a guarantee from the New Brunswick government, and they had got also a valuable site upon which to establish cold storage plant. Therefore, they had everything; iMr. Williams was simply out in. the cold.
The council, however, waited in vain for any written proposition from Mr. Williams, so granted ns ten years exemption from taxation, and offered us a very valuable site at $250 a year. We heard nothing further of Mr. Williams until August 28th, when I received a letter from Mr. Geo. McAvity, who is the vice-president of our company, forwarding me the inclosed clipping with the remark that he was * not aware that any cabinet minister or any expremier was financially interested in our undertaking/ The minister referred to is Sir Frederick Borden, and the ex-premier, the Hon. Dr. Pugsley, neither of whom have purchased or been given or even subscribed for stock in our company.
I can, to some extent, understand Mr. Williams* annoyance in the matter, knowing how he has failed to provide for his own private pork packing establishment, a cold storage plant largely at the expense of the Dominion government, but I cannot understand why he should seek by every unfair means in his power, to cast slurs upon our undertaking, and make the base insinuations he has in private and in public from time to time made.
I trust you will forgive the liberty I am taking in bringing this matter to your attention. I think in doing so, it is only fair to your department and to ourselves.
Believe me,
Yours faithfullv,


L. S. MACOUN.
The Hon.   S@: Fisher, M.P.,
Minister of Agriculture, Ottawa.
Then follows, with reference to the cold storage episode, a clipping from the St. John ' Globe ' which carries out the matter just about as I have stated it. On September 2G, there is the following letter :
L. S. Macoun, Esq., General Broker,
Central Chambers, Ottawa.
Dear Mr. Macoun,-I have yours of September 16th, informing me about Mr. Williams. 1 have seen some letters of his, addressed to my department, and others through which he has been trying to balk your company's contract with the department. There is nothing in anything he has said which in any way justify refusing to enter into a contract with your company.
Mr. Williams was told by Mr. O'Halloran himself, that if he had any proposition to make it would be fairly and properly considered. He has made none. We, therefore, cannot recognize him at all. I think I understand the situation fully.
Your sincerely,


SYDNEY FISHEE.
[Stage Direction]
Now, the other letter I wish to read is displayed on page 105 of this return and we will see what confirmation is given by that letter.
Ottawa, January 22, 1908.
Dear Fisher,-My attention has just been called for the first time to certain letters of one F. E. Williams of St. John, N.B., addressed to the Prime Minister, yourself and Mr. Emmerson, respectively, with reference to cold storage construction at St. John, N.B.
I am glad you have given me the opportunity of seeing these letters so that I may prepare a brief answer.	[DOT]
First let me say that the letters are full of untruths and misrepresentations. I saw Mr. Williams here some time last winter and he was introduced to me by Mr. Emmerson. I had then, as you know, been engaged for four or five months in endeavouring to establish a company with a million dollars capital, to take up cold storage and other important matters connected therewith.
It is the minister himself who says that.
Frederick William Borden: W'hy, certainly.


George Eulas Foster: I understood Mr. Williams was in pursuit of a grant for a bait freezer similar to the one already established at Halifax. In company with Mr. Brodeur, Mr. Emmerson and yourself, I heard Mr. Williams present his case in that behalf. I never understood that he intended to take up the question of cold storage in a general way.
Than which nothing could have been more patent from the letters of Mr. Williams himself which I have just read and which are on file.
His doing so must have been an afterthought.
The very first letter that he wrote, in October, 1905, to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries shows that his scheme was to do a commercial cold storage business and a bait freezing cold storage business and he never wavered in that plan from that time.
His doing so much have been an afterthought. I never made a proposal to him of any kind or description and never had the slightest intention of becoming associated with him in any respect whatever. In the summer of 1906, Mr. R. J. Graham, of Belleville, Ont., and others, including myself, pro-curred a Dominion charter with authorized capital of a million dollars for a company called the Canada Lands Produce and Cold Storage, Limited, above referred to.
There is a complete vindication of the statement made by Mr. Macoun, of the statement made by Mr. Graham, and of the statements made by Mr. "Williams.
This charter was taken by some people in England who expected to be able to float it and advance certain sums of money to be paid over during the spring and summer of 1907.
On several occasions in 1906 I discussed the

question of cold, storage establishments at Halifax and St. John with you as well _ as with the provincial authorities both at Halifax and St. John. Mr. E. J. Graham, with whom you are acquainted, was here on most of those occasions and discussed the question fully with you after having visited both Halifax and St. John during 1906. Mr. Graham, as you know, is an expert in cold storage and has been familiar with the business for the last ten or fifteen years. He was appointed manager of the Canada Lands, Produce and Cold Storage Ltd., and the initial steps taken at St. John and Halifax in respect of cold storage were in the interest of that company.
Now, X think nothing could be plainer than that.
I left for England to attend the Colonial Conference about the 5th of April, and had nothing to do with the cold storage matter until after my return in June, when I found that Mr. Graham-
Who had been hired by this company, according to Mr. Macoun.
-had begun operations in St. John in the expectation that funds would be forthcoming from England in connection with the Canada Lands, Produce and Cold Storage Ltd.
That, I may say, is a complete sustainment of the position which has been taken by Mr. Williams and which was disclosed in the first part of this correspondence.


Sir   FREDERICK@: BORDEN. Perhaps
you had better read the rest of the letter.
Mr. FOSTER, Yes, I will read the rest of the letter.
About this time Mr. Graham concluded an arrangement with the New Brunswick Cold Storage Company, a company which had been chartered many years before by the New Brunswick legislature. I need not trouble you with any further details as you are quite familiar with all that has taken place since that time. I am not a member of the New Brunswick Cold Storage Company and have no connection with it whatever except that I have done all I could to assist the company in carrying on its work largely because I am greatly interested in the business of fruit growing in the Annapolis and Cornwallis valley and because I feel sure that a cold storage establishment at St. John will be of immense advantage in exporting fruit from that valley.
I will be glad to have this letter included in the return which you are bringing down.


F. W. BORDEN,
[Stage Direction]
As far as reading from the documents is concerned that ends the presentation of it.
Mr. HAGGART.: Whose letter is that ?


George Eulas Foster: That letter is signed by F. W. Borden and is addressed to the Hon. Sydney Fisher, Minister of Agriculture, and is acknowledged on the 24th January, 1908, by Mr. Sydney Fisher himself, Minister of Agriculture.


William Pugsley: I was not present during the reading of the correspondence, but Mr. FOSTER.
as I came in I heard my name mentioned in some way in connection with the company. Is there any statement to the effect that' I was interested in the New Brunswick Cold Storage Company, in any way?


George Eulas Foster: No, I do not think there is any statement connecting the hon. gentleman's name in the whole correspondence, except the letter written by Mr. Macoun who refers both to Sir Frederick Borden and the hon. gentleman.


William Pugsley: As being interested in the incorporation as it is stated?


Frederick William Borden: He refers to Williams' letters.


William Pugsley: I rather inferred from Mr. Macoun's letter that somebody had written to the effect that I was interested, that while I, as a member of the provincial government, for a great many years took a deep interest in endeavouring to have a cold storage warehouse erected at New Brunswick and also at other points in New Brunswick, I never had any interest, direct or indirect, in the New Brunswick Cold Storage Company, or in any other.


George Eulas Foster: In so far as the correspondence goes I do not think it says so. The strongest interpretation that could be put on Macoun's letter is that it had been stated that the hon. minister (Mr. Pugsley) was interested.


Frederick William Borden: He was quoting a statement published in a paper in St. John, I think.


George Eulas Foster: I set myself to find out when this company was incorporated and who incorporated it. As I had the statement of the Minister of Militia that he and Graham and others were interested in getting up this one million dollar company, I searched the files of the ' Canada Gazette ' faithfully, hut 1 could not find it. The only thing I did find was that on October 13, 1906, that is, in the fall of 1906, about the time that this legislation was being perfected ready for the House and about the time the minister says he was for four or five months trying to get up a company, a company called the Canada Lands and Farm Produce Company was incorporated, the incorporators being L. J. Miller, Heze-kiah McKeown Mosher, John Hainy Hearn, Willard Hill Fulton, Joseph Burke Kenny. That is the nearest approach I could make to the facts and I do not find the name of one of these gentlemen. It may be that these were the names of clerks used for the purpose of getting incorporation and that when the incorporation had been secured the company was made over to the gentlemen themselves. I suppose that was probably it. Any way it shows about the

only modest step in the whole proceedings taken hy the Minister of Militia and Defence, that he did not want to put his own name outright as being the incorporator of a company which was asking a subsidy for himself and a company of which he was a member.


Frederick William Borden: That is not the reason. I cannot for the moment think of the name of lawyers in Halifax who procured the charter, but this firm, as usual, took the names of their own clerks in the office.


George Eulas Foster: That is very often done, and then the company was organized.


Frederick William Borden: Organized after that.


George Eulas Foster: Now what seems to be the dominant features in this transaction? I shall summarize very briefly. We - find that in 1906 a minister of the Crown interests himself in the formation of a million dollar company for the purpose of carrying on cold storage on a commercial basis, that he gets that company formed, that on October 13, a charter is taken out and it is incorporated. During the very same time he is sitting at the council board maturing a scheme for government subsidies to cold storage plants, and he himself states, and it is also stated with reference to him, that his company is an applicant from the very first time that an application could be put in for that subsidy. The minister at the end says: There is nothing left now but the New Brunswick Cold Storage Company and I own no stock in that. But what was the intention and purpose of the minister? That million dollar company was formed, it was proposed to float it in England. What circumstance would help to float it in England? Do you mean to tell me that anybody would attempt to float that in England unless he made all use possible of the elements that would secure confidence ? And what would be the prime elements ? The promoter would say the government of the Dominion have passed an Act or they have settled upon an Act and are going to pass it, by which they will give 30 per cent of the total cost of construction and equipment as a subsidy to a cold storage company. This is the cold storage company that I am promoting in London, and I want to tell you further that one of the prime persons interested in that company is Sir Frederick Borden, a member of this very government which is responsible for this subsidy and which will therefore carry out this legislation. Put those two elements together and you have the elements which, under favourable conditions, would have floated that company. Take this into account and Mr. Macoun for this company, Mr. Graham an employee of this company, Sir Frederick Borden himself as testified to by the Minister of Agriculture as one prominently interested in that company, have all made application to the government for a subsidy for their cold storage plant. Sir, it is a thing which would be unheard of in the annals of the British government for any cabinet minister to engage in anything like that. Why, Sir, I remember a few years ago when Mr. Mundella, a man against whose honour there was not a single stain of any kind, being indirectly connected with a company which had made some sales to the British government, felt that he could not excuse himself and he immediately resigned from the government rather than place the government in a wrong position by that indirect connection. But here is a minister who openly, in the light of day, works to bring about a scheme, helps to carry the scheme in parliament and all the time that he is doing that is working up a million dollar company in order that he may get a subsidy from the government of which he is a member, and under whose auspices this is brought forth, and it was only by the accident that the money was not raised in Great Britain to float that company that when he came back and found iMr. Graham busily at work all summer buying lots, getting ready to build, getting material under the assumption that the money would be got in Great Britain that he joined with Mr. McAvity and they amalgamated their interests in the cold storage company. But the animus, if I may so speak, the intent certainly is shown in the open, full, unqualified way in which the minister went to work first to make legislation and secondly to incorporate a company in which he himself was largely interested in order to get a subsidy and therefore to partake of the benefit. I say that is not the thing for a cabinet minister to do. I care not whether the cabinet minister is as innocent as the babe unborn, or whether there are other charges against him with reference to other transactions in the public domain which are debatable to say the least. But that is the state of things with reference to this minister, and I think it would be a graceful act in the minister himself, even at this late day, to cease to compromise his colleagues any longer, and to resign from the government on account of that transaction.


Frederick William Borden: Mr. Speaker, so the hon. gentleman demands my resignation.


George Eulas Foster: Well, I suggest it.


Frederick William Borden: I doubt very much, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman is himself qualified to pose or act as censor of public morals in this House or in this country. The hon. gentleman has spent three hours, or two hours and a half, this afternoon, in endeavouring to bring

forward correspondence, to draw inferences, and to make statements prejudical to my character and reputation. The hon. gentleman is very fertile in seeing wrong-doing in others. The hon. gentleman seems to live in a sort of hallucination that there is nothing but evil in the people surrounding him. He has doubts even about some of the people in his own party. He certainly had a few years ago, when his former leader designated him as the chief of a nest of traitors.


Mr. BENNETT.: But they resigned.


Frederick William Borden: The hon. gentleman seems to be very suspicious. But, Mr. Speaker, assuming that every word that he has said to-day is true-and scarcely a word of it is true in its application-I would like this House to consider whether at its worst it is to be compared for one moment with the position of a man who succeeds in placing himself in a position of trust in a company and then succeeds in placing himself in another position connected with another company, and then engages in the delightful occupation of buying for the company of which he is manager, and taking a commission which comes out of the hard savings and earnings of the ' people of this country, in connection with one of the large insurance companies, and putting that commission into his own pocket.


George Eulas Foster: All of which is


Frederick William Borden: All of which is absolutely true.
Mr. FOSTER-is absolutely untrue.


Frederick William Borden: And was proved by the record of this House.


George Eulas Foster: It was never proved and never can be proved from any record.


Frederick William Borden: Now, Mr. Speaker,


Some hon. MEMBERS: Drove it.


Frederick William Borden: The book is open. The hon. gentleman knows perfectly well that the Minister of Justice in his place in this House proved it absolutely, and he knows that he failed to answer it.


George Eulas Foster: If my hon. friend will allow me, he says what I know. I think I know what I know myself. I know nothing of the kind that he says I do. The Minister of Justice never proved the assertion the Minister of Militia and Defence has now made, and what is more, he cannot prove it. I challenged him to meet me before my own people in the city of Toronto and assert what he asserted in this House.
I make the same challenge to my hon. friend now, if he will take it up.


Frederick William Borden: He does not need to take it up. because it is done. It Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.
is an accomplished fact, and everybody in this House and out of it knows that it is an accomplished fact. The hon. gentleman is very bold. The hon. gentleman has two peculiarities at least. One is that he cannot see any good in anybody but himself, and he is incapable of seeing any harm in himself. He is mentally crooked, as well as morally crooked.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


George Eulas Foster: Not that I care, Mr. Speaker,


Frederick William Borden: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. I withdraw that word.
Mr. FOSTER-what this gentleman says of me, but I am bound to respect my position as a member, and I ask that that be retracted.


Frederick William Borden: I say that the hon. gentleman is neither mentally nor morally crooked, in a parliamentary sense- how is that ? But possibly in a Pickwickian sense he might be.


George Eulas Foster: Well, there is not .a great deal of point in that.


Frederick William Borden: Now, Mr. Speaker, however true the statement made by tlie Minister of Justice in this House a year ago may be-and I believe it is absolutely true-that the hon. gentleman abused his position-or utilized his position, perhaps would be more parliamentary-in order to act in two or three different capacities to his own pecuniary advantage, it has nothing to do with the case before the House. I grant that, and the fact that he may not be all that he professes to be, and all that we would wish he might be, the case having been brought here, it is necessary for me to make a few observations with reference to it, and I propose to do so.
Now, I think the hon. gentleman has gone very much out of his way to endeavour to bring a charge against a fellow member of this House. I would think that he ought rather to assume that the thing which he professes to believe here to-day is not true rather than to have rushed-
Mr. FOSTER, As the hon. gentleman did in the case of Colonel Worthington.


Frederick William Borden: What is that ? I do not remember.


George Eulas Foster: If you had taken that advice, you would not have made the vitrolie personal attack that you made.


Arthur Norreys Worthington: That is what I might expect from an eighteenth century knight.


Frederick William Borden: I suppose the hon. gentleman makes some reference to the Nineteenth Century, does he? If he does, I do not suppose he can take any par-

ticular credit for that. The Nineteenth Century saw fit to make a charge against me and has withdrawn it and apologized. If that is what the hon. gentleman refers to, if he sees fit to do the same, I will endeavour to treat him in the same way. Now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman says In effect that I have, in my position as a minister of the Crown and a member of the cabinet, procured the passing of a law by which a special grant or subsidy was to be given for cold storage to the extent of 30 per cent of the cost of the cold storage building, to be spread over a considerable number of years. Well, the hon. gentleman does me an injustice on the one hand, and does me altogether too great credit on the other hand. I am not so all-powerful even from selffish motives, as the hon. gentleman would think.


George Eulas Foster: I take it back.


Frederick William Borden: tleman been able to show that I have in any way participated in anything that could by any possibility be a benefit to me ? The hon. gentleman has rung the changes upon the fact that my son-in-law, Mr. L. S. Ma-coun, happens to be connected with the New Brunswick Cold Storage Company and with another company which was incorporated and in which I had an interest, although I had no interest, and never expect to have any, in the Cold Storage Company. Is my son-in-law to be prevented from engaging in legitimate business because he happens to be my sou-in-iaw ? He was in similar business before he came to my house, and I know of no reason why he should be punished and deprived of the means of getting a livelihood because he happens to be connected with my family.
I have observed questions on the paper and notices in the Public Accounts Committee this session which would indicate that certain gentlemen think that because Mr. Ma-coun is my son-in-law and happens to get an occasional contract from the public service -if he has got one-there must be something improper in it. I am quite willing that the fullest investigation should be made. But surely I am not to be asked to deprive my son-in-law of the means of earning an honest livelihood because he happens to have married into my family. So much for the son-in-law argument.
I observe that the hon. gentleman made some reference to a company for which, he says, I procured a charter in 1906, and with great diligence he has hunted up the names. And he saw something very mysterious and terrible in the fact that the names were not very well known. X tell him that the names were those of the clerks in the law firm which procured this incorporation. The Arm was that of Drysdale and McGinnis. Mr. McGinnis is one of the most prominent Conservatives in Nova Scotia, a man of the highest honour and one to whose business capacity and business methods the hon. member (Mr. Foster) will not take exception. While X was in England in 1906 application was made under instructions given by me and Mr. Graham jointly for the Incorporation of a company. It was intended, I may say at once and frankly, that my properties in Ivings county, orchards and farms should be made a part of this company, and Mr. Graham, of Belleville, I believe, a prominent Conservative, a great fruit dealer and well up in cold storage and all matters pertaining to agriculture, was to have taken an interest and to put his properties into. the company in the same way as mine were to be put in, and we were to accept bonds and a certain amount of stock for these properties. It was expected that money would be raised in England to carry on the business, and it was expected also that a portion of the money would undoubtedly be invested in the es-' Sir FREDERICK BORDEN
tablishmeut of cold storage plants in different parts of Canada. Was there anything wrong in that? Was there anything highly improper in that? This was all arranged before it was expected that any policy such as that afterwards decided upon would be brought down by the government. When the Minister of Agriculture saw fit to adopt the policy of aiding, somewhat largely, cold storage. I felt that, so far as I was concerned, it would be undesirable for me to' own stock in any company which was receiving from the government a subsidy, although, under the law, I do not know that it would have been. I would not have been going beyond my right in doing so. Then it was that I told Mr. Graham that some other means must be taken to carry on the cold storage project in the city of St. John and elsewhere. Mr. Graham made arrangements with a company already established, or, if not established, at least incorporated, known as the New Brunswick Cold Storage Company. He made arrangements with the government to secure for that company the necessary bonus which any cold storage company complying with the requirements of the law would be entitled to. Mr. Williams thinks he did not receive fair treatment. Mr. Williams never made a serious application. He never filed plans in accordance with the requirements of the Department of Agriculture. My own opinion-without wishing to reflect upon Mr. Williams-is that he never intended seriously to construct anything like the kind of cold storage establishment which is now in existence to which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) himself is not able to take exception, and with which he finds no fault. My own opinion is that Mr. Williams never intended seriously to do more than provide something which he Could put up under his own roof and control in connection with his business. What is this cold storage plant established'at St. John? I am told that it is one of the most creditable, if not absolutely the most up-to-date establishment of its kind on this continent; that it has cost $160,000 or $170,000: that it is already doing a considerable business, and that it is being utilized for the business of transatlantic export. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) says that I am interested. Well, Sir, I am interested; anfl I want to appeal to you and to this House as to whether there was anything underhand in the matter. The hon. gentleman says that this is done openly. Certainly, it is done openly; there has been no desire or intention to conceal anything-there has been nothing to conceal. I have said I am interested. What was my interest? My interest was to endeavour to provide the .means at St. John

as I hope may be provided also at Halifax later on-by which the fruit that is yearly grown in the valley of which I am a citizen the great Annapolis and Cornwallis valleys,

can be cared lor and held in cold storage safely, so that the people who grow that fruit may get the benefit of the best prices in the English market. Consider what happened last year. Thousands and tens of thousands-yes, hundreds of thousands -of barrels of the best fruit were sacrificed because of arrival in England at a moment when the market was unfavourable. The fruit had to be shipped early ; it could not be held, there being no means of keeping it. I have reason to know now that scores of people who were compelled last year to ship their fruit in this way- not only from my own province but from the west-will take advantage of this means of keeping the fruit and so tempering the market and shipping as the demand may exist for the goods in England. Mr. Speaker, the shipment of fruit from Ontario is a most important industry. In the winter months, the great port of Montreal, to which a great deal of the fruit is shipped up to December is closed. The fruit must go to the United States in order to be shipped, and, in transit from Ontario to Portland or Boston the fruit is frequently frozen. Two years ago this involved an enormous loss to the growers and dealers of Ontario. Under the present arrangement, I am told, tens of thousands of barrels will be taken to St. John in November or the early part of December, before the frosts become serious, and there stored to be shipped during the winter months. This is the interest and the only interest that I have in this cold storage establishment. I do not own one dollar of stock; I have never received one dollar of benefit. I never expect or intend to hold one dollar of stock; I never expect to receive one single dollar of benefit. I have done this in my position as a public man and a minister because I thought I was doing right, and I do not fear the closest examination into what I have done. It remained for the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) with his suspicious mind trained -trained, Mr. Speaker-as there has been ample proof, in directions not always the most open and frank; it remained for this gentleman to see this spectre of malfeasance and of failure to perform my duty in connection with my position. I can do no more, I suppose, than contradict the statement and deny it. I do not expect to satisfy the hon. member-he is not built upon those lines. I do expect, however, to be able to satisfy a large part of those who sit with him, and I do not doubt that my statement here in this House will be accepted with far more credence than any statement the hon. gentleman could make.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I am sure we have all listened with a great deal of interest to the speech which has just been delivered by the hon. the Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Frederick Borden). I congratulate him at all events on 296
the plucky manner in which he made his defence. Not satisfied with assuming a defensive attitude he, as becomes the soldier, and head of the war department that he is, carried the war into the enemy's country, and made an attack on the opposition party. Unfortunately the line of defence which he seems to have adopted reminds us of the rule which seems to prevail among the legal fraternity, that when you have a bad case you are expected to abuse your opponent. That I think is the great weakness of the defence which the Minister of Militia has made this afternoon. He started out to abuse the hon. member for North Toronto who had brought this subject before the House. In my opinion if there is any subject which, more than another, ought to be ventilated before this House and this country, it is acts which reflect on the character of our public men, acts which contradict^the high ideals which we all desire,. I hope, to see set before the young men of this country and carried out by them. The people of this country naturally look up to their public men' for examples, and especially do they look to members of the cabinet for examples of high character which can be safely followed by the public at large.. The hon. minister made some personal reference to the hon. member for North Toronto, and rather accused him of taking commissions and things of that kind when he was manager of the Union Trust Company. These statements were absolutely denied by the hon. member for North Toronto himself, and I challenge the Minister of Militia to place his finger on anything in the printed evidence which will bear out any statement or insinuation of that kind, namely, that, the hon. member for North Toronto, while he was being paid as manager of the Union Trust Company, accepted commissions for business which he obtained for that.company and out of which that company made a profit. If the Minister of Militia is able to do that, he has an opportunity. The minister even went further, and he pointed, so to speak, the finger of scorn at the hon. member for North Toronto.


Alexander Johnston: The hon. member referred to the evidence relating to the action of the hon. member for North Toronto. If he wants information


John Waterhouse Daniel: I have the floor. If the Minister of Militia has anything to say, I will permit him to say it.


Alexander Johnston: I merely wish to direct the hon. gentleman's attention to page 6334 of the ' Hansard ' of 1906-7.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Having directed my attention to that, I hope the hon. member is satisfied. But the Minister of Militia, not content with making these references to my hon. friend for North Toronto, also passed a sneer on the morality of that gentleman,



and the futility of a gentleman like my hon. friend preaching morality and high ideals. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you and I would ask any member of this House if the Minister of Militia and Defence is a gentleman whom we could look to as a preacher of morality. I will say nothing more in regard to that.


Frederick William Borden: You had better not.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I would ask the hon. members of this House if they think the Minister of Militia is a gentleman whom we would call upon to preach morality in this country.


Frederick William Borden: Perhaps you are not either.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Well it is one of those cases where you pay your money and you take your choice. Now to come down to the matter which is before the House it was initiated by an application from a Mr. Williams, a merchant in the city of St. John N.B., for aid to a bait freezer. When the Minister of Militia referred to this, he said that Mr. Williams not only made application for a cold storage plant on which he would get a* subsidy of thirty per cent, but he also asked for such a bait freezer as would carry with it a subsidy of fifty per cent. Now the application he made was for a bait freezer on exactly the same terms as had been granted to the bait freezers at Canso and Halifax. His letter to Mr. Emmerson reads as follows :
We have been giving a cold storage plant some attention of late, and 'having been in communication with the Marine and Fisheries Department, who will grant a bonus for a cold storage plant for freezing fish in order that fishermen will be supplied with bait at the time they require it. We are prepared'to go ahead and build one such as they are building in Canso and Halifax, providing we get the assistance of the government, such as has been given in the above places.
Just the same subsidy and the same assistance as were given to these other places.
In the meantime we thought it would be better to let you know that we are -in the field, and just as soon as we get a little further along with our negotiations and plans, we will send our representative to Ottawa and interview you and the Marine and Fisheries Department personally.
Another statement that the minister made was that this application was for a cold storage plant for fish alone, and not for any other purpose, or any commercial purpose. Here is a letter signed by the F. E. Williams Company, Limited, and addressed to the Hon. Mr. Prfifontaine, and although it has been read once this afternoon, I will take the trouble to read it again on account of the minister's statement that the application of the Williams Company was only for a storage plant, and none other.


John Waterhouse Daniel: 


Frederick William Borden: I did not say that it was for no other purpose. I said that it was to carry on his own private business in addition to the freezing of bait.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I understood the minister to say that it was not for commercial purposes.


Frederick William Borden: No.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I will read it and it will speak for itself:
St. John, New Brunswick, October 4, 1905. Hon. R. Prefontaine, Ottawa.
We take the liberty of addressing you with reference to a cold storage plant for the purpose of freezing fish for bait, also other kinds of fish at St John, New Brunswick. We understand the government is willing to give a bonus for a plant put up for this purpose, with space or rooms to hire to dealers or farmers who may require cold storage space. We would also agree to freeze and keep in stock sufficient quantity of bait for the needs of fishermen. We are anxious to put up a large plant that will give service to both the fish and farming industries and would be pleased to hear from you giving us some particulars of what you require and what bonus the government are willing to give. The Hon. Mr. McKeown will probably write you on this same subject.
An early reply is particularly requested.
Yours truly,
F. E WILLIAMS COMPANY, Limited,
F. E. Williams, President.
That was the original application and there is no doubt that in his mind he had largely the idea of dealing with the bait freezing question. Mr. Williams is a man who is in the provision business. He has a very large business. He is an able, experienced and successful merchant, and he is in a position to carry on any undertaking, such as he proposed to carry on, to the extent of $100,000 or more. The minister rather insinuated that Sir. Williams, in writing these letters to Sir. Emmerson, to Sir Wilfrid Laurier, to the Slinister of Agriculture and to the Slinister of Marine and Fisheries, was seeking to convey the impression that the Minister of Slilitia only supported the cold storage scheme of the government for the purpose of obtaining the cold storage subsidy for this plant down in the maritime provinces. The minister had no reason for making any such statement because there is nothing in the whole correspondence that has been given to us this afternoon which justifies it. What I understood Mr. Williams did say was that the minister, naturally being in the secrets of the government and knowing what was going on, aware of the legislation that was proposed, was willing to take advantage of that knowledge and put himself in a position, through the influence which he would naturally have as a minister of the Crown.

931S
to obtain for himself, or any company in which he was interested, the subsidies which would be offered by the government. There is only one important point to bring before this House and that is as to whether the Minister of Militia, in his position as a cabinet minister, did take advantage of his position to obtain for himself a subsidy, which, perhaps, might otherwise have gone elsewhere. Then again there is the question as to the propriety of a member of the cabinet putting himself in competition with the ordinary business men of the country. Mr. Williams had put in his application as far back as October, 1905. He put in the application which I have just read and he had quite a correspondence with the (Minister of Marine and Fisheries. After a good deal of correspondence, and with the assistance of Hon. Mr. Emmerson, he had obtained a certain promise that a sum of money would be placed in the estimates by the Department of Marine and Fisheries for the assistance of a cold storage company. But, after awhile, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries went back on that largely and told Mr. Williams that the Minister of Agriculture was bringing in a cold storage Bill and that this Bill would include fish cold storage as well as other kinds of cold storage. On the 7th December, 1906, Mr. F. E. Williams makes a formal application to the Minister of Agriculture for a subsidy under the proposed Act. On the 5th of that month, two days before, Mr. L. S. Macoun had applied, not in a formal way for a subsidy, but for the fullest information that the minister or the department could give him, and in the correspondence that has been brought down I can find no record of any actual formal application put in by Mr. L. S. Macoun at any time for a cold storage subsidy. After a good deal of correspondence between the then Minister of Railways and Canals and Mr. Williams, also, on behalf of Mr. Williams, by Mr. W. H. Trueman, his solicitor, and also, I believe, after a letter from the Hon. Mr. McKeown in connection with the matter, about the 20th February, Mr. George McAvity appears on the scene. This is his first connection with the matter. The fact of Mr. George McAvity appearing on the scene brings in the New Brunswick Cold Storage Company, for at that time Mr. George McAvity was the New Brunswick Cold Storage Company. What did that mean? That meant the bringing in of a company with a $60,000 guarantee with interest at 3 or 34 per celit which was afterwards raised to 4 per cent. It was a great advantage to have Mr. McAvity taken into this company. There is then still further correspondence and Mr. Williams writes to Mr. Emmerson a letter in which he says that he is afraid he is out of it, and he complains in that letter of
members of the cabinet getting contracts incompetition with business men. That letter is dated the 9th March, 1907, and addressed to the Hon. H. R. Emmerson. Ottawa:
Dear Sir, You will see from the inclosed clipping from the Globe ' newspaper that Sir 1 rederick Borden is getting along very nicely It certainly looks, unless you can assure me to the contrary, as though I was out of it and that my application .to Hon. Mr. Fisher has been turned down. I cannot understand lion. Mr. Fisher making a grant to a company m which Sir Frederick Borden has been the promoting and is the moving spirit, and which he puts forward merely as a blind to screen his own name. It is most unfair to the public to have to_ compete with ministers in matters of this kind. In the present case it was hopeless to do so. It seems to me it is contrary to law, and I do not feel like stand-mg for it. I believe if the matter were called to the attention of Sir Wilfrid Laurier he would see that Sir Frederick was overruled in this .matter, and that the matter was put upon a defensible basis. Where Sir Frederick Borden is acting with such a supreme disregard of my rights and the rights of my Liberal friends in St. John I am inclined to strike back, and I will be justified in doing so. I am willing to deal fairly with the government, but I expect a like treatment in return. If I am to be turned down, please let me know it, when I will at once place Sir Frederick Borden's conduct before Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
8one hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


John Waterhouse Daniel: That was afterwards done in the letter which was read this afternoon. Similar correspondence went on which has been- read. Now we come to what, in my opinion, is certainly a most important letter, one of the most important in.-the whole correspondence. I refer to the letter from the hon. the Minister of Agriculture, jn which he states that :	'v
Sir Frederick Borden .has made application on behalf of a company with whichAie-ie~ connected and I have viewed his- application very favourably.
There is absolutely a statement of fact made by the Minister of Agriculture, that the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) had applied on behalf of a company with which he is connected and that his colleague viewed the application very favourably. As I understood the Minister of Militia this afternoon, he said he made no application to this government for a subsidy. But there is the statement of the Minister of Agriculture, and I set the one against the other.
Then there is another statement, the statement made by Mr. R. J. Graham when he wrote to the Minister of Agriculture on the 13th April :
9319

Belleville, Ontario, April 13, 1907. The Hon. Sydney Fisher, Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-Sir Frederick Borden requested me to interview you in reference to aid for our cold storage propositions at St. John and Halifax.
To whom does the expression ' our,' refer to ? Does it refer to any one else than Sir Frederick Borden and Mr. Graham who have already been connected together in advancing schemes of this kind.
It is our intention to complete the one in St. John this season. When I reached Ottawa Thursday night I learned from Mr. L. S. Macoun that you had advised him that everything had been arranged in connection with this matter and therefore it would be unnecessary for me to bother you any further in reference to the matter in question. This will explain why I did not interview you in regard to the matter, and if any further application of information is required, please advise.
Tours truly,


R. J. GRAHAM.
[Stage Direction]
There are the two statements. One from the Minister of Agriculture and the other from Mr. Graham. The one is a positive statement and the other is a statement by Implication. The latter is one which might fairly be taken to convey the idea that the Minister of Militia was interested in this application made by Mr. Graham to the Minister of Agriculture.
Without going into all the details, for they have been pretty thoroughly gone into already, I may say that the scheme, as it eventually turned out, certainly was very favourable indeed for the contractors. They have, in the first place, a mortgage of $60,000 from the New Brunswick government, and only a week before the prorogation of the New Brunswick legislature, there was an order 4a- council passed providing that an additional guarantee of $30,000 should be given-tor the New Brunswick Cold Storage Company when the House reassembles. In other words,, the New Brunswick government of that day pledged itself to introduce and ernTy'-such legislation. That means an amount of $90,000 which was guaranteed, principal and interest, in favour of the New Brunswick Cold Storage Company. In addition there was an application to the Minister of Agriculture for a Dominion subsidy of 30 per cent on the proved cost. The application in that case was for 30 per cent; on an expenditure of $125,000, making an amount equal to $37,500. So that if this plant cost, as stated in the application to the Minister of Agriculture, $125,000, this company actually obtained in guarantees of principal and interest on its bonds and in subsidy an amount equal to $127,500, or $2,500 more than was spent in obtaining the plant and putting it where it is. There is a letter in connection with that matter. That agreement between the government and the New Brunswick Cold Storage Coon-Mr. DANIEL.
pany was made on the 30th October, 1907, and the amount of subsidy granted was $37,500, being 30 per cent on the stated expenditure of $125,000. But on the 13th November, or barely a fortnight afterwards, Mr. Macoun writes the secretary of the Minister of Agriculture saying that their plant would cost more than the $125,000 and that it would cost completed $150,000. In that-case I presume there was another application for an additional subsidy; and perhaps the Minister of Agriculture will say whether there was another application for an additional subsidy based on a cost of $150,000 or $160,000.
Sydney Arthur Fisher: I shall speak of that in a few minutes.


John Waterhouse Daniel: You have not the information handy just now ?


George William Fowler: He is keeping it in cold
storage.


Mr DANIEL.: We have to take the figures as they are put in the official correspondence, and the claim for the 30 per cent subsidy was on an expenditure of $125,000. If that statement is correct this fortunate company obtains in guarantees and subsidies from the Nova Scotia and Dominion governments $127,500 for building a plant which cost $125,000 or $2,500 more than it cost. Now, Sir, as I have said, the important thing in this matter is not so much the subsidies that are granted to a company for providing cold storage facilities, even if the assistance was considered to be more generous than it ought to have been. I put that on one side entirely, and I say that the point here is simply and almost wholly the fact of a cabinet minister acting in competition with an ordinary private citizen, and in that sense using his influence to obtain assistance of that kind more easily than an ordinary citizen would be able to do ; and I think the connection with these cold storage plants, which has been acknowledged to some extent by Sir Frederick Borden himself, in the letter which was read by the hon. member for North Toronto, the letter of the Minister of Agriculture, and
M. ^ 1	/-v-P TVTi* I)	"**	*
ister of Agriculture, leave it very difficult for any one to form any other conclusion than that the minister had made use of his position, or at all events while a cabinet minister had acquired subsidies for an enterprise with which he was closely connected. The people generally are disposed to look to public men in prominent positions to set a good example in matters of that kind, and I think it would be a great misfortune for the people of this country if any laxity which is found to arise in that connection were not brought before the public in order that it should be frowned down upon and not encouraged in any way. The Independ-

ence of Parliament Act has been referred to, and if the minister has been guilty of what the ordinary reader going over this correspondence would naturally think he was guilty of, section 10 of that Act reads as follows :
No person, directly or indirectly, alone or with any other, by himself or by the interposition of any trustee or third party, holding or enjoying, undertaking or executing any contract or agreement, expressed or implied, with or for the government of Canada on behalf of the Crown, or with or for any of the officers of the government of Canada, for which any public money of Canada is (to be paid, shall be eligible as a member of the House of Commons or shall sit or vote in the said House.
So that this is a matter of very serious moment, and I think no apology need be offered for bringing it up in this House, and I would certainly be very glad indeed if the Minister of Agriculture could explain away the letter which he wrote, in which he stated that the Minister of Militia had made personal application for a subsidy for a concern in which he was interested. If he can put any other face on that letter than the words would naturally bear, I for one will be very glad indeed. I think it is a misfortune for a minister of the Crown to be even suspected of making use of bis cabinet position to assist any enterprise in which he may be interested. It is just the same as if a member of the cabinet, on an occasion when the government were contemplating changes in the tariff, should make use of the knowledge which his position in the cabinet would give him of such proposed changes for his own advantage in a commercial sense in the open market. What sort of opinion would the people of this country have of such a minister? I am sure that the mere mention of such a thing shows how impossible it is for this country for a moment to allow anything of that kind to he done, or to be suspected of being done, without its being frowned down upon, so that a certain and immediate stop shall be put to it for all time to come.
Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture.) Mr. Speaker, my bon. friend who has just sat down has expressed the hope that I can explain matters a little in connection with this transaction. I think, Sir, if my hon. friend and those who seem to agree with him would exercise a little common sense in their interpretation of things, and not allow themselves to be carried awTay by the desire to cause political injury to my hon. friend the Minister of Militia, they would be able to find an explanation for themselves. My hon. friend has spoken of the honour and integrity of members of the government and of members of parliament. He must be well aware that even supposing the Minister of Militia were a shareholder in a company doing business
with the government of Canada, he would be legally entitled to be so. My hon. friend does not remember, perhaps, but I do well, when the Hon. Thos. White, who was a minister of the Crown in Sir John Macdonald's government, was a shareholder of the Gazette Printing Company in Montreal for years and years while he sat in this' House, and yet he did not violate the Independence of Parliament Act.


George Taylor: He is dead : let him alone.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: He is dead, and he was an honourable man who would not have done anything contrary to the Independence of Parliament Act; and yet he was a shareholder in the Gazette Company at the time he was Minister of the Interior, and when the Gazette Company had a contract with the government.


George Taylor: Let his ashes rest in peace.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Let his ashes rest in peace. He did perfectly right, and my hon. friend from Leeds and the hon. gentlemen around him are the men who are casting aspersions on the memory of Mr. Thos. White. Hon. gentlemen opposite think a great deal of the Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, who was a member of the imperial- government; and yet it is well known that at the time he was a member of the government he was a shareholder in a company in Birmingham which constantly had contracts with the government of which he was a member. The hon. member for St. John (Mr. Daniel) has just alluded to the position of a member advocating changes in the tariff. The Hon. Joseph Chamberlain was a member of a company which was interested in the manufacture of screws and other things at the very time he was carrying on a propaganda for the purpose of giving protection to the industries in which he was engaged.


Haughton Lennox: He was not a member of the cabinet.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am making no accusation against Mr. Chamberlain, or questioning the perfect integrity of what he was doing; but I am pointing out that it does not lie on the lips of hon. gentlemen opposite, who approve of the actions of the gentlemen to whom I have referred, to come here and endeavour to cast aspersions on the Minister of Militia, who was not and has never been a member of a company carrying on business with or receiving subventions from the government of which he is a member.	,
Sir, a great deal of stress has been laid bv my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) on a letter which I wrote to Mr. Williams. I did that perhaps in rather loose language, since my hon. friend's ingenuity has been able to draw from it prac-

tically the basis of his whole accusation against the Minister of Militia. The Minister of Militia had been talking with me and probably a great many other people, of the importance of developing the fruit industry and other agricultural operations in the province of Nova Scotia. The Minister of Militia is a land owner in the province of Nova Scotia and has properties there which he thought were not giving that great return which they ought to be giving and might be made to give if properly managed from an agricultural point of view. He discussed these things with me on many an occasion. He talked to me about the proposition he has here described of establishing a company which I think was called the ' Canada Lands Produce and Cold Storage Company, Limited,' a large undertaking intended to be capitalized at a million dollars with which to develop large fruit growing and other agricultural industries in the county he has the honour to represent. I cannot see for a moment that in this my hon. friend was doing anything improper. On the contrary, he was doing what was in the very best interests of the people whom he represented, the people of the province of Nova Scotia at large and the people of the Dominion of Canada at large. When that question of cold storage came up my hon. friend the Minister of Militia, like myself and the other members of the government, believe that the Act which was being placed upon the statute-book for the encouragement of cold storage would be a good one. Supposing even for a moment that he was interested in a company which might get a bonus under that Act, supposing even for a moment that that was the case

he has denied that this is the case and as far as I am personally aware of the matters, I know that it is not the case and 'that he was not interested in any company that got the bonus or was expecting to get It-but supposing that he was, would it be proper and right for him as a minister of the Crown to block a proposition of the government to be laid before parliament which was in the interests of the people of Canada at large ? If a cold storage proposition-


George Eulas Foster: Oh, oh.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend smiles.


George Eulas Foster: I am smiling at the trend of the argument.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, I suppose my hon. friend can hardly realize it.


George Eulas Foster: No, I suppose not.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I hardly expected he would. I would like to know whether he would go so far as to say-


George Eulas Foster: Dear knows whether he would or not.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not know how far he would go because it would be far beyond my ken.
Mr. FISHER


George Eulas Foster: I dare say; your ken does not go very far.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We will let that drop.


George Eulas Foster: Now go on with your argument.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It would not be proper that my hon. friend who is a member of the government should block either in council or in parliament a proposition to enact a law which is in the interest of the people of Canada. The law in regard to cold storage companies was discussed in this House, it was adopted without opposition and with perfect unanimity in this House. I* supposed therefore that hon. gentlemen opposite were in full concurrence with the spirit and scope of that fact. That Act was to encourage people of Canada to enter into the enterprise of establishing cold storage, a thing which my hon. friend the Alinister of Militia was desirous to encourage just like the rest of us. He was himself advocating that a company should be formed for that purpose. I contend that he was perfectly justified and called upon as the representative of the county which he represents in Nova Scotia, as a representative of the province of Nova Scotia, to aid and help on any such scheme which would be in the interests of the fruit growers and other agriculturists of Nova Scotia as well as the rest of Canada.
Now to come down more particularly to the details of this transaction. As far as Mr. Williams' application to the Department of Marine and Fisheries are concerned, I know nothing, I knew nothing at the time.
I am reminded that Air. Williams came to me and spoke about the cold storage question and that he was told that the cold storage question was going to assume a new phase because the government were preparing a new law in regard to bonuses for cold storage. I remember meeting Mr. Williams and having a talk of that kind. Mr. Williams thereafter made no personal or straight application to me whatever until the letter which has been quoted by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster). I received that letter asking for information.
I gave him the information and I wrote identically the same letter to Mr. Williams and to Mr. 'Macoun on the very same date, each of them having written to me asking for information. I sent each of them exactly the same information, being copies of the ' Hansard ' containing the debates in this House on the Cold Storage Bill. They were therefore in exactly the same position as far as I was concerned, treated exactly as I would treat anybody else who would make application to me for information in regard to a matter in my department or with which I was concerned. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) read the letter addressed to Air. Williams but did not read identically the same letter written
9325 MAY 27. 1908 9326	
the same day by my secretary and signed by me and addressed to Mr. Macoun. I treated them both in exactly the same way. Mr. Williams some time afterwards wrote me a letter on the 8th of April. The first letter was on the 13th December, 1900. On April 8, 1907, Mr. Williams wrote me a letter in which he gave me a lot of information which I confess I did not value very much because it seemed to me to be tinged with the imputation that he was being badly treated and I confess that I did not know of anything to justify any such implication and I did not feel prepared to treat him any way ^differently from anybody else. That letter was replied to on April 11. In my reply I acknowledged his letter and said : We have not yet made any grant for cold storage warehouses in St. John. Sir Frederick has made application on behalf of a company with which he is connected, and I have viewed hiis application very favourably. None of the applications, however, are in a .position to be passed upon absolutely. I cannot make any promises without definite plans and specifications, and full information as to what the people applying for may be prepared to do. In other words, I gave Mr. Williams the full statement and information on that occasion that no consideration could be given to him unless he gave full plans and specifications. He got just the same information as anybody else. In the meantime I referred to the conversations I had had with Sir Frederick Borden, my colleague, in which he had been talking about the larger scheme and had said that he hoped a company would be formed for the purpose of taking up his cold storage scheme in St. John, Halifax and other places. I confess I used the words rather loosely in saying that he was connected with the company. I meant ' by that a company in which he was interested as a public man and ought to be interested. I say it without hesitation and I say it absolutely sincerely and with truth. At the same time I was prepared to treat Williams fairly and squarely just like anybody else. As the correspondence has been quoted I need not go over it completely. Mr. Graham wrote and spoke about an interview with Williams on the 3rd of June. Mr. Williams wrote me a letter complaining of his treatment and casting aspersions and imputations on me and the government for our treatment of him in comparison with our treatment of Sir Frederick Borden. In that letter he wanted to know whether it would be worth his while to get plans and specifications ready to submit to me. I was away in England when that letter was received and my deputy answered him : In the absence of the minister, I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 3rd instant in reference to cold storage	warehouses. If you will submit your application it will receive due consideration. That letter was dated 7th June, 1907. An application was received with full specifications and in full and proper form from Mr. Graham, dated 11th June, 1907. That application was held in my department until September. The contract with him was not signed until November and when I came back from England I asked my deputy minister whether he had received any further communication from Mr. Williams. I waited from June until November-five months 	for Mr. Williams to take further steps in accordance with the information I had given him of what would be necessary for him to do exactly the same information that I had given to Mr. Macoun and Mr. Graham as to what was necessary for them to do. It was not until after five months, when, having no further communication of any kind from Mr. Williams, 1 eventually signed a contract with Mr. Graham for a cold storage warehouse in St. John. I knew Mr. Graham as a man thoroughly well informed on cold storage questions and as one likely to make a cold' storage plant and building and business a success. I learned that he had transferred his interest to a company called the New Brunswick Cold Storage I-imited, and that he was president of that company. I also learned that Mr. George McAvity, of St. John, the well known and enterprising merchant, was vice-president, that Mr. Macoun was secretary-treasurer, that Mr. Richard Trueman was a director and so was Mr., H. R. Ross, a gentleman well known in business circles in St. John, men upon whom I could depend, if I made a contract with them, to carry out that contract. The directors sent forward a pesolution stating that they took over and accepted the responsibilities Mr. Graham had assumed in making his application. When the Bill was passed in this House to encourage cold storage equipment, it was well understood that a cold storage plant was dependent on business to be obtained from those producing what we call perishable food products, and that it was very important that these plants should be placed so ns to get the business in fruit, meat, eggs, butter, cheese or fish, and that there would be no use in a cold storage equipment unless it had connections or surroundings that would give it business. That is one great reason why St. John was looked upon as a place particularly suitable for a cold storage plant, and it was one reason why I had no hesitation in giving the bonus to a company undertaking to put a cold storage plant there. St. John is situated very favourably not only for the business of the Nova Scotia fruit exporters hut also for the business of the Ontario and Quebec fruit exporters who send a large quantity of their fruit down to the seaboard in the fall so as to allow

it to be exported! in the winter when the prices are better and they can gain greater profits than they would if they were compelled to place their fruit on the market in the fall of the year. The people who undertook to provide the cold storage equipment at St. John were in a position to carry on the work, having the necessary connections and being men of substantial means and the highest character. Therefore, I had no hesitation in granting them the subsidy.
The contract was signed and the building was put up. My cold storage commissioner examined the plant carefully and reported to me favourably on the construction and equipment. Over and above his official report, he stated to me that those who own the building got good value for their money and that he was surprised that they were able to put up such a building and equip it so well for the amount of the contract.; on which they were getting the bonus. My hon. friend from fit John (Mr. Daniel) asked if the company got an additional bonus or made an additional contract. They did not; the original contract was the only one.
I have been told by Mr. Macoun that they were going to make application for an additional amount because the building and equipment had cost more than the sum on which the bonus was given, but I received no official communication concerning it and no additional contract has been made. If an application comes in, it will be dealt with in the ordinary way of business; if the company shows cause for the additional demand I shall feel justified in conceding it; if they cannot show cause, if they cannot show that they have expended the money and that the expenditure was necessary for the equipment and the building in order to carry on the business in St. John, there will not be an additional contract or additional subvention. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) said that a greater contract was given than had been usual in the Department of Marine and Fisheiies. I do not know in what sense he meant that. Under the old system of the Department of Marine and Fisheries the contractors get half the cost of their building and a bonus of $2,000 a year for three years. Under the present contract and under the present Act. the New Brunswick Cold Storage Company receive only thirty per cent of the cost of their building and no yeaily bonus. I think it is a very much better contract for the country therefore, and I am glad of it and proud of it. I want to add just one word. I do not know, nor does it matter from my point of view as administrator of the Cold Storage Act, whether this company is getting a bonus from the city of St. John or the provincial government of New Brunswick or not. The Act does not say who shall supply the money or contemplate any investigation into how the people who build and equip


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 
George William Fowler: I propose to address a few remarks to the House.


Haughton Lennox: The hon. gentleman could talk until six o'clock, and then move the adjournment of the debate.
that1'	1 have no objection to


George William Fowler: I understood the Minister of Agriculture to say that the only way in which the Minister of Militia and Defence was interested in this matter was from his public position, he was interested as a public man in anything that would make for the general welfare of the trade of the country. Is that correct ?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I said that so far as the Minister of Militia had undertaken to start a large company, the name of which I mentioned, in Nova Scotia, a company that was in the public interest, and that would incidentally require cold storage accommodation, the Minister of Militia was in that way interested in the cold storage accommodation.


George William Fowler: I propose to call the attention of the minister to the particular letter which he wrote, the contents of which he must have forgotten, or he would not have said what he did with respect to the interest of the Minister of Militia. This letter of his is dated the 11th of April, 1907, and is addressed to Mr. Williams, who was a rival applicant with the Minister of Militia for the subsidy to the cold storage plant in St. John. He says :
I may say that we have not yet made any grant for a cold storage warehouse in St. John. Sir Frederick Borden has made an application on behalf of a company which he is connected-


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I read that-not in which he is interested.


George William Fowler: ' With which he is connected.' Surely that' would imply something more than a mere interest which a public man takes in anything that is going to advance the trade of the country. If the construction of the Minister of Agriculture be correct, that it was merely the interest which he as a public man was taking in all matters relating to trade, then it would apply to every member of this House, because we are all supposed to take an interest, I think most of us do take an interest in anything which pertains to the welfare of the country.
-and I have viewed his application very favourably.
So I think that even on the correspondence and on the statement of the Minister of Militia himself, we must conclude that the interest which he had in this particular transaction was much more intimate and much more individual than the interest which he took as a public man in that which pertained to the well being of the country. Now it may be said that there was no particular objection to that, it may be said that no particular advantage was obtained by the Minister of Militia on account of his position in relation to the Minister of Agriculture as a colleague, the Minister of Agriculture having the granting of this subsidy. We had two rival applicants. We had an application by a man named Williams, of St. John, a man who was in the meat and produce business, a man of high standing in St. John, doing a large business, an influential Liberal, too, a man of the same political stripe as the Minister of Militia and the Minister of Agriculture. He had therefore, from a business standpoint, quite as good a standing as had the Minister of Militia and the friends by whom he was surrounded. From a party standpoint, one would think that he would have pretty nearly as good standing. He would have not quite so good opportunities of getting the ear of the Minister of Agriculture, perhaps, as the Minister of Militia would have. Naturally there would be things that the
Minister of Agriculture would want in the Department of Militia, and the Minister of Militia could very well say to the Minister of Agriculture, If you want certain things done-we will say with reference to that regiment down in the eastern townships for which the Minister of Agriculture stands as godfather, the 13th Dragoons, I think it is, the Dundonald regiment-it might very well be that certain privileges, certain advantages that this particular regiment belonging to the Minister of Agriculture would require, might be more easily got provided the Minister of Agriculture was willing to make concessions to the Minister of Militia for things which he required. So from the necessities of the Minister of Agriculture; and remembering the opportunity that the Minister of Militia had for taking advantage of these necessities, poor Mr. Williams, of St. John, deserving Liberal though he might be, is naturally turned down, and the concession is granted to the company in which the Minister of Militia, and a very close relative of his, are the moving spirits.
I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at six o'clock.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 29, 1908.