Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce a Rill (No. 159) respecting a certain issue of Dominion notes. He said : This is a Bill to legalize and confirm the proceedings which were taken, and were fully explained in the Budget Speech, in connection with advances for moving western grain. The matter was fully stated in the Budget Speech. This Bill only legalizes and confirms the arrangement so made.


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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved leave to introduce a Bill (No. 160) to amend the Bank Act. He said : This Bill I may say, is also for the purpose of carrying out an arrangement which was explained in the Budget Speech. It is proposed that the banks, during a certain period of the year, may issue additional circulation limited to fifteen per cent of their combined paid up capital and rest or reserve. The only new feature in the Bill is that special provision is made as respects the Bank of British North America, because there is a special provision for that in the Bank Act, differing somewhat in a matter of detail from the other banks, and corresponding provisions are inserted in this Bill.
Mr. FOSTER.: I would ask the minister if there is any correspondence on which the introduction of this Bill is based, and if there is, will he be kind enough to bring it down before he goes on ?


Mr. FIELDING.: There is no correspondence. The Bill is the result of consideration in the department and of discussion with distinguished bankers ; but there is no correspondence on the subject.


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

Mr.  A. M.@: BEAUPARLANT (St. Hya-cinthe) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 161) to amend the Criminal Code. He said :
(Translation). Mr. Speaker, I beg to submit the following amendment to the Criminal Code, chap. 146, revised statutes, 1906, section 322.


William Stevens Fielding: liberty, and that, in the midst of a society as fully organized as possible to protect what deserves to be protected.
We must not allow this beneficent state of things which is the result of long and ardous work, political and legislative, to be marred by arbitrary acts and abuses of authority creeping by stealth in our legislative and judiciary proceedings.
The tendency of powers is always to grow stronger, even to exceed the necessary limits for their efficacy which should be their sole justification. Experience shows, and it is in the human nature, that if a cast is allowed to take privileges, it will take more than its share. But a people, taking care of its legitimate liberties, must, through its representatives, not allow that this should be lost sight of, that is to say, that the judiciary or other institutions, paid and well paid by the people, do exist only for the needs of the people and not for the satisfaction of what might be called everywhere else individual caprices, a thing which is opposed to all public interest.
The House has undoubtedly noticed that the doctrine sanctioned by the precedents I have quoted, applies as well to the verbal comments of a legislative assembly, on the hustings and even in the ordinary conversation, as to the comments of newspapers, so that In presence of this jurisprudence, which no late legislation has yet changed, I contend that a judge may, proprio motu, order the arrestation of a mayor or alderman or a member of a board of trade, or a warden of a county and principally of a newspaper publisher or any other .citizen, by whom he would justly or wrongly claim to have been insulted outside of court, and put him into jail by his authority.
I assert here that, previously to the late incidents which have occurred at Quebec and Halifax, 99 per 100 of the population of Canada did not realize that our laws still contained enactments authorizing such things. If my interpretation of this jurisprudence is right, and I would be glad to hear that I am mistaken. I hope that my proposal of applying a remedy will be favourably considered by a Liberal government.
I am not afraid of the answer which will be made, that is to say, that the courts being the guardians of the individual rights should have all the possible latitude, or other arguments of the same kind. First, besides the extraordinary powers, which I say they do not possess, the courts have all the necessary liberty of attaining their legitimate end, and we must not forget that an absolue and arbitrary power is always claimed to have the greatest solicitude for public liberties in order to more surely substitute itself to the laws, to constitutional and democratic authority, to
Mr. BEAUPAKLANT
which the people who loves at the same time order and liberty, will Only bow.
It is more by the article itself than by the label that it is possible to judge of its real value. The authority which imprisons cannot at the first sight, be looked upon as protecting liberty, and it is only after we have been able to test the ordinary elements and guarantees of justice that we can come to this conclusion, I therefore ask that the party who comments a judicial decision should not be in a worse position than the one who criticizes any action of the government or parliament. Arbitrary power has no more right to be in the midst than at the head of society. The autocracy of a person who, by his talents or through circumstances, becomes a constituted authority, is not any more tolerable than the hereditary autocracy.
The head of a constitutional government administers practically the country under the most direct and vigilant control of the press, and I do not see why the magistrate would not perform, under the same conditions, the judiciary functions which are assigned to him.
There were judges before any printing establishments ever existed. I know that the press is younger than the bench and older than parliaments, but nevertheless we see parliaments controlling now, if not in reality, at least in theory, the courts of which they have come to be the creators and masters. For these matters as for others, the supremacy must be decided more by the nature of their functions than by their age, and the press which has opened the ways to democratic governments now the creators and masters of the courts, should be at least on equal footing with the courts.
I therefore ask for the journalist, who may have his wrongs and may make errors -and I know something about it, but we have all the necessary laws to repress that [DOT]-for the journalist, I repeat, who fulfils an undisputable, useful and courageous mission, the same privilege that is given in this very old law, to an accused party, of being tried by a jury of his fellowmen.'
When an unknown individual, who has however equal rights with other citizens, an immigrant or a vagrant isaecused of a crime, the law orders, and it is a just and prudent law, to try him only with a jury of twelve citizens unprejudiced and having no interest or relation whatever with him. 'Then why should we leave the right of rendering judgment to a man who has been, or claims to have been insulted by another, a journalist, for instance, who is obliged by clauses 2924 and the following ones of the Quebec statutes and of corresponding legislation in other provinces to give his address to the courts and in some way keep them acquainted with his busi-

ness and profession ? I say it is an anomaly which, after the incidents that have occurred in Quebec and Halifax, will not fail to call the attention of the democratic governor whom we have at the head of the country, and whose desire is not only to have in his programme the words ' justice and liberty ' which sound well to the ears of the people, but something that will represent really the treatment of the people.
The liberty of the press is the exact thermometer of the liberty of the nation. It is by the book, by the pamphlet, by printed matter, and finally by the press that the absolutism of the past has been destroyed, and that constitutional and democratic governments have been established in this modern society, and it is also by the press that they will be maintained there. It is not only a question of gratefulness and justice towards the press, but a question of safeguard for these popular institutions which modern nations do not seem to depart from. A former Minister of Public Works, (Mr. Tarte), who had a great knowledge of our Canadian constitution, and has applied it at times in a happy manner, never feared to say that the press was just as solid an institution as the bench.
By his broad views, by his examples of tolerance and equal justice to all, the government of the day seemed to have inspired the same sentiments to our magistrates, who, up to the last conflicts at Quebec and Halifax, have shown themselves more tolerant than arbitrary, but it seems as though it were not to be always so. Those of our colleagues who have kept the memory of the incidents of 1892, and they are numerous, will do me the justice of saying that X am right.
The prime minister of a province had just been dismissed by an authority-not the authority of the people-but an authority acting in connection with a libellous campaign, the parallel of which has never been met with in this country. Those who have maintained against him their undaunted hostility, have persisted in denying to him the credit that he had deserved; but the public opinion, having returned to a sober sense of the circumstances, has emphatically admitted his great administrative capacity, his intense care for substantial and moral progress of the people, his great patriotic motives, his disinterestedness, his high citizenship, and his unrivalled generosity. Nothing was proved against him. He suffered the punishment of the vanquished, and bore the rancors of the winning party. The leader who seems to have survived this coup d'etat, only to remain a living example of frailty of poiities, had destroyed a public man; the ministers he had chosen, and who, shortly after, incurred the same fate, undertook to ruin this man in his private life, he was dragged before the courts and accused of malfesance in office. A judge in whose impartiality the public opinion, in its state
of temporarily excitement, did not even place full confidence, was called to preside at the trial, and nobody could expect but a complete dishonour for the fallen statesman.
His opponents held the majority in the Senate, where the movement had originated. They also were the majority in the House of Commons, in the legislative council, in the legislative assembly, amongst the magistrates, and also amongst the public officials who, through sympathy or tactics, had joined the accusers, and this man who previously was endowed with an unlimited power, found himself surrounded by a mere handful of individual sympathizers, unable to put himself in touch with the people otherwise than by the medium of the public press.
In spite of the doubtful protection afforded by the existing legislation, the press manfully fulfilled its duty. The aforesaid judge rose from the bench; another one against whose public feeling was not aroused to the same extent, took up his place, and, notwithstanding the existing agitation, a unanimous verdict of acquittal was rendered. It behooves the liberal party to restore in behalf of the accused, whatsoever may be his social standing, or his political condition, the liberty of the press, as a guarantee of justice, in public as well as in private matters.
If good treatment received can repay for some slight injure, I have nothing, so far as the press or the courts are concerned, to thank or to grudge for.
The press has sometimes acted too generously towards me; sometimes also too unjustly. I have good friends among the newspaper men, and also more enemies than on the bench. Outside of the judicial decisions, which are not now under discussion, I have faced kind judges, and also some others not acting with an equal kindness. Those who would not be disposed to agree with me on this point, will readily admit that in this contest my personal interest would rather prompt me to side with the bench, which can reach me as a politician and as a lawyer, than with the press whose influence is purely political.
From my seat here I could easily and safely denounce the miserable individual who in a certain newspaper, acting as the mere tool of another individual well known for long to be my personal enemy. That stand I refuse to take.
I will also give the judges the credit that they have a very difficult task to perform, and also, that as a whole, they are generally men of talent, learning and good will, but I am not speaking at present for my own concern. I am a Liberal, I have been elected as a Liberal. I believe the said legislation to be based on Liberal and public motives. Such were the grounds upon which I introduced this Bill, which. I am afraid, will not reach an issue during

the present session, on account of the advanced stage already attained in our work, but, I confidently believe it to be my duty, to call the attention of Parliament and government, on the state of affairs arising from the recent incidents in Ottawa and in Quebec, for the citizens of the province of Quebec and of Canada as a whole. Mr. Speaker, I beg to move the first reading of this Bill.
Mr. AEMAND	LAVE RONE	(Montmagny.) (Translation). Mr. Speaker, it is not customary to discuss a Bill on its first reading, but, as the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe (Mr. Beauparlant) has just stated it, the session is now so far advanced that it is not probable that such question could be threshed before the end of our work. Such being the case, I consider it my duty to say a few words now.
I was very happy to hear my hon. friend discuss that question of relations between the press and the bench. I imagined for a time that I was listening to the attenuated echo of the voices from the old Liberals of St. Hyacinthe. unheard for so long a time.
The Bill introduced by the hon. member appears to me, to effectively inscribe in our code the old custom granting the unlucky pleader twenty-four hours to curse his judge. This Bill seems to me to be admittedly inspired by recent events. It leads to prevent a judge from calling before the court a journalist having taken upon himself to criticize the court incidents, or the decisions of the judge.
In principle, i agree with him, but, a special clause of the criminal code, and of the revised statutes, allows the newspapers to impartially report the proceedings before the courts, to give what is called a fair comment. Such newspaper articles of comment are privileged, and the writers and publishers of the same are not amenable, and the judge cannot assign them before the court.
But, if the Bill goes further, and permits during the trial to comment on what is passing on, I disagree. The existing law tends to protect not only the judge, but also the accused. For instance, not very long ago, a newspaper man had been dragged before the jury, and on this occasion, we have seen a certain press through fiery writings, try to raise public opinion during the trial, so as to influence the jury before rendering its verdict. At the time of the famous suit Prevost-Asselin, we have seen le " Soleil " inflaming the public opinion against the accused. Asselin.
If the Bill introduced to-day tends to permit the publication in a newspaper of such articles, apt to injure the defence of the accused, and to stir up the public opinion against him, I cannot support it.
As the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe has said, this Bill was suggested by recent events. Have we not seen, among other Mr. BEAUPARLANT.
newspapers, the ' Soleil,' which is to-day complaining of Judge Lemieux-because it is assigned for contempt of court-comment disparagingly on the speech of this same judge, which, judicially acting, had pressed the bar of Quebec to insist on the nomination of a prothonotary to the seat vacant for the last twelve months ? If it is right to have the public respected, it is equally right to defend the bench against such attacks.
Moreover, I believe that it should be allowed to comment the judgments rendered, provided public opinion is interested in the same and the writer is a disinterested person.	But my opinion is
that in such cases, the writer should shoulder the responsibility of his opinion. For my part, I have commented in the newspaper some judgments, for instance in the case of Judge Ci-raon, whom I have accused of having condemned a newspaper man, without having heard the evidence of the defence. In so doing, I know the whole import of my act, and I was ready then, as I am to-day, to assume the whole responsibility' incurred. According to my mind, the Bill introduced by the member for St. Hyacinthe, should be amended in such a way as to prevent a newspaper man to make any comments during the course of a trial, on the outcome of the case, before the same is adjudged. I consider that we should maintain in our laws, the right granted to the judge, to call before the court, any newspaper man violating this provision. But, after the trial, he should not be called before the court, except according to the ordinary course of law. On general principle, I agree with the present Bill, and I hope that some day it will become law.


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

Rt.   H@: Mr. Speaker, I renew the motion which I made yesterday and I renew it with the amendment suggested by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden). The amendment is quite proper as it introduces and refers to the committee the letters themselves of Major Hodgins and not extracts only of those letters. Therefore I move :
That the memorandum of the chairman of the Transcontinental Railway Commissioners to the Prime Minister, of date the 23rd April, and laid on the table of this House on the 21th instant, and the papers accompanying the same together with the letter of Major Hodgins to the public press, therein referred to, be referred to a special committee of five members, with instructions to investigate the matters and charges therein mentioned, and that the said committee be rom posed of Messrs. Carvel, Macdonald (Pic-tou), Geoffrion, Barker and Lennox, and that

the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records and to examine persons on oath or affirmation and to report from time to time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day being called:
Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Mr. Speaker, might I inquire of the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) when it is expected that the proposed inquiry before Mr. Justice Cassels will be commenced, whether it will be proceeded with without delay, or is some adjournment contemplated and is the inquiry to be conducted as a public inquiry, or is it to be an inquiry in camera?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine aud Fisheries).: I am informed that it is going to begin on Friday.


Robert Laird Borden: Is it to be continued ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Whether it is going to be in public or not I do not know.


Robert Laird Borden: Is it to be continued?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not know. I know it is going to begin on Friday. I heard that it was going to sit on Friday and Saturday. That is all the information I have.


Mr. BERGERON.: Who suggested that lawyers should be appointed to carry on the investigation? Did the suggestion come from Judge Cassels or anybody else?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: In an interview which I had with the judge he thought it would be desirable that some lawyers should be employed for the purpose of assisting him in the investigation.


George Eulas Foster: Will the minister inform the House as to the ground upon which , the two lawyers who have been selected have been selected?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: If there are any special grounds?


George Eulas Foster: Yes.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, not that I know of. They are men of repute and that is the only reason why they have been selected.



QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.

Mr. SAM. HUGHES (Victoria and Hali-burton).: Mr. Speaker, I desire to rise to a question of privilege. I notice that the other day I was credited with a remark concerning a comparison between Doukho-bors and some religious order in Ottawa. It is bad enough for me to be responsible for all I really do say, but on that occasion I happened to be some hundreds of miles
or more away when the remarks were uttered and I do not desire to be associated with them.


Mr. T. BEATTIE (London).: Mr. Speaker, some ten or twelve days ago, at Wolse-ley barracks in the city of London, a foul murder was committed. Private Moir shot down a colour-sergeant without cause or reason in cold blood.


Mr. SPEAKER.: This is not the proper time to enter upon a discussion. The motion to go into Supply will be reached shortly and then the hon. gentleman may bring the matter up.


Thomas Beattie: I only want to ask if the government had heard of it. However,
I will bring it up later.



SUPPLY-MURDER AT WOLSELEY BARRACKS, LONDON.

['The motion for Supply will be renewed, and in Committee of Supply we will continue the estimates of the hon. Minister of Public Works.']
Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.


Thomas Beattie: After committing the murder Private Moir obtained two revolvers and a rifle and a large quantity of ammunition and he disappeared from the barracks and has not been heard of since. The police of London have done their best to discover and apprehend the man, but he has got away into the country and the county constables are somewhat indifferent about attempting to arrest a man who is heavily armed in the manner in which this man is, aud I do not think that they have given the matter the attention that they should have. I think that if some moderate reward were offered for the capture of this man he would very likely be obtained. The gentleman whom he murdered was not a member of his corps at all. He was a colour-sergeant named Lloyd belonging to the 20th battalion of Stratford and he was only there taking a course of instruction in order to pass an examination which would qualify him to occupy a position in his regiment-a young man of twenty-two years. It is a very serious case and I think that something should be done by the government in the way of offering a moderate reward for his capture.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What kind of a rifle has he to defend himself with?.


Thomas Beattie: That I do not know.



Robert Laird Borden: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer briefly to a matter which I mentioned a moment ago-the inquiry to be conducted by Mr. Justice Cassels and the manner In which that inquiry is to be carried out. We all realize that the inquiry is a very restricted one inasmuch as it relates to a portion of the administration and to only one of the departments involved in the

report of the Civil Service Commission. It touches only a single paragraph of the report of the commissioners in respect to that department. I have already pointed out to the House that it would have seemed a natural thing to have endeavoured, in the first place, to obtain from the commissioners who had made that report the information which is sought by the inquiry before Air. Justice Cassels. The commissioners who have made a somewhat exhaustive inquiry, although they say it is incomplete even in the case of the Department of Alarine and Fisheries, would seem to be the best men from whom an explanation of the language contained in the paragraph referred to might be sought. As far as the House is aware the government have not sought from these commissioners any explanation of their language, nor have the government invoked the aid of these commissioners for the purpose of obtaining the information which naturally they might be expected to supply. The government have not admitted at ail the expediency of sending back the report to the same commissioners for the purpose of reporting at greater length upon a subject to which the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Air. Brodeur) called attention on the day the report was presented. The government have not even seen fit to propose an inquiry under the first part of the statutes relating to public Inquiries. They have proposed a very limited inquiry into the second part of the statute which relates to such subjects. Since the inquiry has been ordered it is proposed that iMr. G. H. Watson, of Toronto, and Air. Perron, of Alontreal, two members of the bar of their respective provinces, shall be assigned for the purpose of assisting Air. Justice Cassels in the very limited inquirv which he is to carry out. I asked the'government whether or not the commissioners, whose report is, to a certain extent at least, under review^ in these proceedings, were to have any status before that commission, whether they were to be represented by counsel or whether their aid was to be invoked in the matter. Up to the present time no information has been vouchsafed in reply to that question. My hon. friend from Fast Hastings (Mr. Northrnp) inquired of the government whether or not the people of Canada wore to be represented by counsel. The right hon. Prime Alin-ister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), in reply to that question, stated that the matter would be taken into consideration. Up to the present time we have no reply from the government on that point.
It seems quite clear from this reply of the Prime Alinister that lie very properly regards the gentlemen who have been appointed as not representing the people of Canada, and the situation seems to be very much like this : The Department of Alarine and Fisheries is on trial in respect to ' Mr R. L. BORDEN
its administration of public affairs within the jurisdiction of that department ; the government on well known constitutional principles is also on trial because its fate is to a greater or lesser extent involved in the result of the investigation, and two gentlemen both of whom are very prominent Liberals have been appointed to assist Air. Justice Cassels in that investigation. Now, if I remember rightly, in 1891 when an investigation was carried on in respect of the Department of Public Works the government of Canada employed Air. B. B. Osier, who was affiliated with the Liberal party and not with the Conservative party, as one of the counsel to investigate that matter and to probe it to the bottom.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: And Air. Geoffrion.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend (Air. Bergeron) reminds me of what I was not aware that Air. Geoffrion, of Alontreal, who was also prominently associated with the Liberal party and who afterwards became a member of this government, was also appointed a counsel on that occasion. There is another somewhat remarkable circumstance in connection with this matter and it is this : We have had from the Alinister of Alarine and Fisheries on more than one occasion, the suggestion, or the excuse or the apology put forward that certain matters which had received criticism in connection with the administration of his department wrere matters for which he was not individually or personally responsible according to his view, because they had been initiated or consummated as the case may be under the administration of his immediate predecessor. And it appears that one of the gentlemen who has been appointed as counsel in this connection to assist Air. Justice Cassels was for many years a partner in the practice of the law with the immediate predecessor of the Alinister of Alarine and Fisheries. One can hardly appreciate or understand the reasons which have impelled the government to make selections of that character. One would suppose that if the aid of the first commissioners, Messrs. Courtney, Fyshe and Bazin was invoked they at least would have been called upon to make a statement before Air. Justice Cassels, and that counsel w'ould have been supplied to be nominated by these commissioners to whom they could have iven the information and whom they could have instructed as to the matters which they had reported on. One would suppose further, that if that very reasonable course were not adopted the government would at least have endeavoured to appoint men who had not been very actively associated with the Liberal party, who were not very closely in touch with the organization of the Liberal party ; in'short they would not have selected two men, one of whom Air. Watson was I understand not very long ago chairman of the Liberal organization for the

province of Ontario, and the other of whom, Mr. Perron was during the lifetime of the predecessor of the present Minister of Marine and Fisheries the partner of that gentleman in the practice of the law. Under these circumstances it is no more than right to bring the matter to the attention of the government and ask whether or not these commissioners are to be represented by counsel, whether or not the people of Canada are to be represented by cotinsel; and why it is that so extraordinary a choice of gentlemen to assist Mr. Justice Cassels has been made.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I may say at once that so far as the government is concerned nothing will be done to prevent this investigation being as thorough and as extended as possible. As head of that department I have every interest to see that the investigation shall be as complete as it can be. In the very brief interview I had with Judge Cassels the other day I told him that my aim was that officers of the department who had been derelict in their duty should not be spared, and that the cloud on those officers who were not guilty should be removed as speedily as possible. I may say-perhaps my hon. friend will not believe me-but the fact is that I am thoroughly in earnest about this investigation. I want to see the investigation made in such a way that no blame shall be attached to the government or to myself as head of the department as to its precedure. I want to see this investigation conducted in such a way that the people of Canada may be satisfied that the intention of the government and of the department is to make the investigation absolutely right in all respects. I repeat it -I am perhaps more in earnest than he is in wishing that this investigation shall be as thorough as possible. Now, the hon. gentleman finds fault that the investigation is to be held under the second part of chapter 104, but I think there was no discretion for us in the matter. The first part of the statute deals with investigations as to certain public affairs generally, such as the investigation held by the Civil Service Commission, but when we came to a departmental inquiry the statute says it is to be made under the second part of that statute. Whether the investigation is held under the first part or under the second part it can be conducted in absolutely the same way ; it can be as thorough in one case as in the other. It appears to be plain that when the investigation is into a matter of general public interest it comes under the first part of the statute and when it is a departmental investigation it is brought under the second part.


Mr. SPROUI.E.: That would imply there is no public interest in this investigation.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Oh, no. The statute determines the class of investigation that shall
be held under each part. An inquiry affecting our commerce, or our transportation, or as to combines, would be under the first part of the statute, but a departmental investigation is to be made under the second part of the statute, and after all it really does not make very much difference.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand the minister to say that if it related to a matter which concerned the public it should be made under the first part of the statute, and if it were a matter that only concerned the department it was to be made under the second part of the statute. Therefore it occurred to me that if it were made under the second part it implied that the public had no interest in it.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There is no doubt the public is; interested, but I am not the author of tlie law, and the statute makes this distinction, and under the advice of the Minister of Justice this is the part of the statute under which the investigation should be held. The investigation will however be held just in the same way no matter which it comes under; witnesses will be examined under oath and the procedure will be the same. My hon. friend says no effort has been made to try to ascertain the opinion of the commission. Well, I suppose that would be a matter for the commissioners themselves to dispose of. It is not for us to suggest to the judge the way in which he should proceed. I want to leave him absolutely free to act as he Ikes in this investigation. I would not wish to make any suggestion to him which might be interpreted as restricting him in the exercise of his powers. I repeat that we want this investigation to be thorough ; and if I were to make any suggestion to the judge as to the way in which he should conduct the investigation, I might be reproached by the House with interfering with something that I should not interfere with. The commission gives to the judge the right to investigate this matter, and he is absolutely free, so far as the government or the department are concerned, to act in the way he likes ; and that is the position I will take all through this investigation. My hon. friend says that in several instances I have tried to shield myself behind my predecessor. I can assure my hon. friend that there is no intention of that kind on my part. I have never so far done anything, and never will do anything, to shield myself from any responsibility which attaches to me as Minister of Marine and Fisheries. I am manly enough to act as a man should act in such circumstances, and the responsibility I incur for the acts of my predecessor, I will never try to shield myself from that responsibility by going behind a corpse or a coffin. There are perhaps men in this House or outside of it who cannot understand a man taking that position. It has been stated that one of the

persons selected as a counsel in this investigation has been for some time a partner of my predecessor in office. It is true, before itfr. Prefontaine was a minister, when he was first elected mayor of Montreal, he dissolved partnership with Mr. Perron, and that fact was publicly announced. Do I understand that my hon. friend wants now to attack the character of Mr. Prefontaine? I think it was the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. J. D. Reid) who said a short time ago that Mr. Prefontaine was an honest man and that there was nothing against him. Do I understand that the hon. member for Grenville is now standiug by his words ?


Mr. J. D. REID.: I said that if you or any other man on that side of the House was afraid to stand up and defend him, I was prepared to do it. But every one on that side was afraid to do it.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I understand that my hon. friend from Grenville said that there was nothing against Mr. Prefontaine ? If that is the case, why does the hon. leader of the opposition say that we want to prevent the truth coming out so far as Mr. Prefontaine is concerned ? No ; there is nothing that the government want to conceal in this matter. We want the truth and the whole truth to come out, and perhaps we shall find some truth that will surprise somebody.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, if we were looking for a party success I believe we should refrain from criticising the position taken by the government, because to my mind they have put themselves in the worst possible position. What are the facts? The government appointed a commission composed of three men in whom they must have had confidence-honest, honourable men. The chairman of that commission was in the Finance Department for over thirty years, enjoying the respect and esteem of both sides of this House ; Mr. Fyshe, of Montreal, well known in commercial circles, and Mr. Bazin, of Quebec. That commission went to work and made a report. That report was entirely against the present administration. With regard to two departments which they investigated, the Marine and Fisheries and the Militia, their report could not have been more severe. They declared that they had not time to investigate the other departments, but from what they heard, if they had had time to investigate them, they would probably have had the same report to make with regard to them all. That is the report. What does the government do ? The government, to place themselves in a good position before the public, should have acted on that report. The man on the street, who is not prejudiced, would have expected the government to act on that report immediately. The man on the street would have expect-Mr. BRODEUR.
ed the government to say to the commission :	We want you to continue and go
through all the departments ; we want to show the public that we are in earnest, and that if there is anything wrong in any of the departments, we want to put an end to it. But the government of Canada did not do that. They seemed to be disappointed with the report of the commission ; they seemed to think the commission should not have made a report of that kind, and they appointed another commission to investigate the first commission ; that is what it means. It means that the government are under the impression that a new commission will attenuate the report of the first commission. My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has said so. He says, we want the employees who are guilty punished and the employees who are not guilty vindicated. That could all be done by the report of the present commission. We do not want another commission for that purpose.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There are no names given in the report of the present commission.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: My hon. friend knows very well what it means, however. I am sure he knows.


Mr. COMMEE.: What does it mean ?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I am not appointed as a new commission to make a report. Personally I think the government could not be in a worse position than they are. I think this new commission is entirely useless. We are told that Judge Oassels is an honourable man. I believe that, but what I am surprised at, and I do not see any reason for it, is the idea of appointing lawyers. My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries says that it was at the suggestion of the judge that these lawyers were appointed. Of course, I take for granted that what he says is true ; but I am astonished that Judge Cassels should have asked for anything of the kind. And who are the lawyers appointed ? My hon. leader has said that when an investigation took place into the Department of Public Works under a Conservative administration, lawyers were appointed at the demand of the Liberal party, then in opposition, to go through the books and other documents in the Public Works offices at that time. The Conservative administration, though having a very large majority, granted that demand. And who were the lawyers appointed ? The government might have appointed some Conservative lawyers ; but instead of that, they appointed two Liberal lawyers at the suggestion of the then opposition. How different that is from the present case. I am told that one of the gentlemen appointed to-day. Mr. Watson, is or lias been at the head of the Liberal or-

ganization in the province of Ontario. He may again be president, a strong party man, a strong friend of the present administration. The other one, Mr. Perron, is as strong a partisan as could be found in the whole Dominion of Canada; he has been engaged in nearly every contested election trial that has taken place in Montreal, he is looked upon as the staunchest friend of hon. gentlemen opposite. All his life since he became a lawyer he has been a partner of Mr. Pr6-fontaine. My hon. friend said that Mr. Prefontaine had resigned from that firm. We all know what that means ; Mr. Pr6-fontaiue was a member of the firm until he died. His name did not appear, but he was a member of the firm of Archer, Perron & Taschereau. And Mr. Perron is called in as a lawyer in this investigation. I would not say a word against his personality, but we all know how far a man can go for party purposes, and I would say, if it was not so serious, what a farce it would be to have a report from Mr. Cassels assisted by Mr. Perron and Mr. Watson against the report of a commission appointed by this government less than a year ago. The government could not be in a worse position. Tile appointment of Mr. Perron may satisfy the Liberals of Montreal, staunch Liberals who expect something from the government -because those are the only ones to-day who stand by them-but the independent elector, the man who is looking for an honest report, will certainly blame the administration and will have no confidence in the report that Judge Cassels will make. This is another way of spending money, this is another part of the combine. Judge Cassels, I understand, will not be paid any extra fee, he is paid as judge of the -Exchequer Court about $8,000 a year. But how will tli* two lawyers be paid? I believe they will be paid $100 a day each. I do not believe that Mr. Perron would work for less than $100 a day, and he would be very foolish to do so, because if he asks that amount he will get it. How long will the inquiry last? I repeat that the man on the street, the public, will be disgusted with the lavish way in which this government is spending the public money. I am sorry for the good of Canada that the commission which made the first report has not been called upon to go through every department in Ottawa. The government should be interested in having such an investigation. When I look at the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance I have no doubt they are interested in seeing whether proper investigation is made into every department at Ottawa. We will not have such an investigation, as that branch of the inquiry is finished; this will be an investigation of the investigation. It will be something done to try and whitewash what has been said in condemnation of the two departments in which the investigation has been going on.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The hon. gentleman sees that the commissioners in their report say there is a lack of conscience on the part of some officers of the department. At the same time no names are mentioned, no persons are singled out. Does he think I should continue to administer the department with the same staff without taking the proper steps to investigate and find out who are the guilty parties?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I want to say that my hon. friend could have done all that if he wanted to, without having a new commission.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: How would you do it?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I am not going to tell my hon. friend and the House. I will tell my hon. friend privately, it could be done in two hours. When the commission makes a report that in his department money is lavished, that it is the most extravagant department at Ottawa, that it is squandering money, that it has no conscience, that there is only one aim, to spend money, that no discount is obtained as in ordinary trade, it is clear as day to me. The money is not used for religious purposes, it has gone somewhere. Why the hon. member does not need to appoint another commission; in two hours he could find a remedy and could save the money of the country.


William Stevens Fielding: I think the hon. gentleman who has just spoken, and the leader of the opposition also, have an entirely erroneous impression of the nature of the inquiry on which Judge Cassels is about to enter. They have assumed that the inquiry of Mr. Justice Cassels is a review of the work of the commission whose report has already been presented to the House. Nothing could be more erroneous than that conception of Judge Cassels' duty.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What is it then?


William Stevens Fielding: Judge Cassels' duty is to inquire into certain matters as to which the commission seemed to have failed to prosecute their investigation to the end. The commissioners' report may be deemed to be divided into two parts. One part of it relates to the ordinary questions of the civil service, such as the conditions of admission, examinations, promotions, salaries, &e., questions of a broad and important class. In addition to that there is another branch and that probably is the branch which has received the most attention and consideration by the public, that is the accusation made in somewhat general terms, of not mismanagement, but much worse. It is practically stated in the report of two of the commissioners, Messrs. Fyshe and Bazin, that there has been corruption in the Department of Marine and Fisheries. The word is not used but my hon. friend says he knows what the report means.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: So do you.


William Stevens Fielding: No, I will be frank and say I do not know what it means. I know in a general way, but I certainly think, with all deference to the gentlemen composing the commission, for whom I hare the greatest respect, that on that particular point it is a fair criticism to say that the commission has said either too much or too little. If they wished to go into that branch of the question-and I do not say they should not have done so-as to whether or not the officials in the service were corrupt, then they were bound in justice to themselves, to the House, and the individuals concerned, to go further, and say in some detail who was corrupt and wherein the corruption lay. 'mat is the only criticism I offer on the report of the commission As to its general recommendations, I do not call them in question. We will have to deal with them later. My hon. friend says: Why not deal with them? Whether or not we will deal with them has to be considered. If we fail to deal with them at all, we shall be no worse than hon. gentlemen opposite who had a similar report in 1892, kept it for four years and did nothing.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: It was not complete.


William Stevens Fielding: The report was most complete, and if my hon. friend does not want to take the trouble to read it, he may have seen in the Ottawa Conservative paper in the last week, three or four letters from a civil service official, calling attention to the fact that years ago, in 1892, four yems before the Conservative government left office, a report was made by a civil service commission dealing with practically the same classes of questions as are referred to in this report, the question of the political influence exercised in relation to patronage, the inequality of salaries, the purchase of supplies-all these questions were reported on by that commission, which included one of the gentlemen who sat on the recent commission. The hon. gentlemen opposite remained in power for four years from the date of that report without attempting any remedy whatever. So, if it should be the policy of this government, and I hope it will not, to pay no attention whatever to the report of the commission, if we should be simply content to receive it, pigeon-hoie it and forget it, we would be on even terms with my hon. friends opposite, because that was precisely their course with regard to the report of the commission of 1892 as will be explained later on if necessary.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The report of the commission of 1892 and the report of the last commission are not at all alike.


William Stevens Fielding: Let me mention some respects in which they are alike. They are aliice in the allegation that political patronage enters largely into appointments.
Mr FIELDING


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Yes. That is not a crime.


William Stevens Fielding: That is not a crime, but the commissioners said that was a great evil. They said that in 1892 and it is said -by the present commissioners. But while in 1892, that evil, so far as it is an evil, was pictured by that commission in their report just as it is pictured to-day, the Conservative government of that day pigeon-holed the report and took no notice of it.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: And the same thing may happen in this case, so far as that point is concerned.


William Stevens Fielding: If it should happen, then my hon. friend (Mr. Bergeron) will be in a position to assail us ; but the time has not come yet.	,


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I say it is not a crime.
It is something that takes time and is very hard to do. . But when the commission said that stealing goes on. that robbery goes on, that corruption exists, it is a very different thing.	[DOT]


William Stevens Fielding: But I want to come to some other things in the commission of 1892. That commission reported on the question of supplies. We had a debate here, not many days ago, on that question. Whatever evils there may be in regard to the patronage element in the purchase of supplies existed in 1892 ; it was reported on in 1892 ; it was fully exposed to the Conservative government of that day,-and they took no notice of it. In that respect, the report of 1892 and the report of the present day are substantially alike. My hon. friend says there is corruption, there is dishonesty-


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: ' Lack of conscience.'


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, ' lack of conscience'. Now, my hon. friend says he knows what that means. I wish to be candid and to say that, as respects any officer of the Marine-and Fisheries Department, I do not know what it means. I know what it means generally ; I know what thieving, robbery means. But surely my hon. friend would not have this government, on the strength of that report-which, on that branch of the subject, I say is incomplete-lie would not have the Minister of Marine and Fisheries dismiss men now in the service on the ground of dishonesty. Would he have these men, some of them employed for many years in the public service, branded with the charge of dishonesty and dismissed ? Surely he would not. He may suggest that now, but if he had that sense of responsibility which men in public office ought to have, he would say that such a course would be utterly unfair and unjust.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Would the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) allow me ? That is

what is going to happen it what the Minister of Marine and Fisheries says is carried out. He says that he wants a commission to find out and punish the men


William Stevens Fielding: But the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bergeron) says he knows who these men are.	-


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: It is clear, for instance, that they are not the officers of the Department of Finance. They are employees of this department which has been reported upon.


William Stevens Fielding: But the hon. gentleman will see that ' employees of the Marine and Fisheries Department' is a broad and general expression. The misfortune is that the commission,-unintentionally ; they are not lawyers, but good business men-have generalized in such a way as to leave the whole department under a ffloud as respects dishonesty.


Mr. A. A. McLEAN.: Will the minister (Mr. Fielding) allow me a question ? Why did not the government refer this back to the commissioners to find out who these men are ?


William Stevens Fielding: The commission, in the first place, had unlimited power. They had the right to report as they have done, of course. They were free to take their own course. They took all the time they wanted. And they reported to the best of their judgment. Unfortunately, they left this particular branch of the business in an unfinished state ; and it is the unfinished business as respects the reflections upon the integrity of the Department of Marine and Fisheries that Mr. Justice Cassels has been asked to inquire into. Not the integrity of tlie Minister of Marine and Fisheries ; that }s not called into question. Let there be no misunderstanding on that point. We know the doctrine of constitutional responsibility and we accept it. If an official of my department in Victoria, B.C., should betray his trust and steal the public money, there is a constitutional sense in which I should be responsible, and so should my right hon. friend the Prime Minister and all my colleagues. We know, I say, what constitutional responsibility is, and we are prepared to accept that without the slightest hesitation. But there is more than the mere question of constitutional responsibility in this matter. So far as the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is concerned, let it be stated clearly and beyond all question that there is not a a line in the report of the Civil Service Commission which, even in the most shadowy way, reflects upon the integrity, the honour or the independence of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur). It is not pretended that there is any responsibility upon the minister other than that constitutional responsibility which we are ready
to accept. But there is not only the constitutional responsibility which I have described, there is the individual responsibility for acts of dishonesty. Now the commission have given it to be understood that there have been acts of dishonesty on the part of officials of the Marine and Fisheries Department. It is not fair to leave these officials, many of them old employees in the public service, under that imputation. And so, with a view to prosecuting the inquiry further. this reference is made to Mr. Justice Cassel#. There can be no question as to the propriety of that course. While, in the case of questions of classification of officials, salaries of officials and matters of that character, the opinion of any good business man may be valuable, yet, when you come to make an inquiry that will affect a man's honour, his character, his repputation his standing in life, who so well qualified to couduct that investigation, as a judge of one of the higher courts? Surely, if we were to have a further inquiry into that branch of the question, it was eminently fitting that the inquiry should be conducted by a gentleman holding the high position of Judge Cassels.
With regard to the selection of the legal gentleman, I think there is an important difference between the situation in 1891 and the situation of to-day. In the proceedings in 1891. accusations were made against members of this House-accusations, I might almost say, against ministers, because they Involved ministers in the end. But that is not the situation to-day. There is no accusation here against any minister ; there is nothing alleged in the report of the Civil Service Commission which, even if proved to the last point, would call for the retirement of any hon. member of this House. There is no allegation of wrong as affecting any minister or member of this House. The allegation is of lack of conscience. in fact, of dishonesty, on the part of some of these officials. Now, it so happens that most of the officials of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, especially the older officials and those holding more responsible positions, were appointed in years gone by by the Conservative government. What would have been said if the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to-day, acting upon that vague and indefinite report-for, upon that branch of the subject, it is vague and indefinite-had proceeded to dismiss officials appointed years ago by the Conservative party, with no better grounds than the indefinite statements of that report ? What would have been said by gentlemen opposite ? They would have been the first to attack the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. They would have said : You had not any evidence ; you had only vague and general charges ; but you seized upon these and made them the excuse for dismissing old officials appointed by the

Conservative government. We were not prepared to give occasion for an accusation of that character. I trust that, no matter who might be the officials concerned, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries would not be willing to take that course. But, when ,we remembered that a charge of that kind would affect the chief officials, when we remembered that these were gentlemen who have occupied positions in the civil service for many years and who had received their appointments from the preceding government, I think that every consideration of right and fairness and justice would lead us to say that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries took the right course when he declared that he would not dismiss men on the strength of this report, but inasmuch as their honour, their conscience has been called in question, has declared that he will carry on a further inquiry on that particular branch of the subject-not reviewing the report of the commission, but taking up the case where the commission left it off -and. in the light of such a full and fair investigation as shall take place, then let justice be done.


George Eulas Foster: The defence which has been put up by the two lion, gentlemen who have spoken has shot wide entirely of the mark, so far as it attempted to answer the very temperate observations which were made by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries thought that all he had to do to answer that was, in the first place, to make repeated and strong asseverations of his own honour and integrity and his complete desire to see the public service purged, and then he wound up with an ill-concealed threat that before he got through with the investigation we on this side of the House would find out something that we did not know before. The threat was a very plain one; he has used it so often that the moment the boil, gentleman frames his lips we know exactly what is coming. The threat concealed in part, but still open enough, is : We will have our vengeance out of you anyway, because we will punish some of the old officials belonging to the Marine Department. Now, that was not very dignified, not very satisfactory, nor was it politically a very astute defence for the hon. gentleman to make in reference to matters in his department. He has been very anxious indeed to separate himself absolutely from the department. His colleagues are equally anxious, because they know as well as he does that it is impossible constitutionally or practically to separate the head of the department from misdoings of the department itself. They are all very anxious to make it clear if they can to the public, if they cannot make it so to this House, that


William Stevens Fielding: More than a month has passed and the report, as incisive, full and particular as it is, lies there to this day without another move. They have spoken of the commission that they themselves appointed and in reference to its constituents they have given it the highest praise; yet the report declares that there is a department without a head and without a conscience. A month has passed and what has been done? Hon. gentlemen say, and this order in council says, to put it in plain English, that inasmuch as certain general accusations or inferences have been made in the report, that there has not been strict business honesty in carrying on the affairs of the department, we will have a commission which will examine really into what?-to And out whether anybody has taken bribes or has been guilty of personal dishonesty as regards the carrying out of the transactions of the department as employees of the same. That is all. Judge Cassels is not to touch upon the weightiest of all matters, the utter disorganization, inefficiency and lack of business method in the department. These gentlemen say: We want to find out the truth; we do not want these general accusations to lie against any members of our staff and consequently we will appoint Judge Cassels to look into it. But, before Judge Cassels is appointed and before he does a stroke of work the minister himself undertakes to do what they say they want a commission to do, and he has suspended, one, two, or three of his officers [DOT] and is conducting a departmental inquiry of his own. Why, what he wanted Judge Cassels appointed for was to do that very thing, and it seems to me that the hon. gentleman who presides over that department ought not for a single instance to have undertaken any Inquiry into these matters himself when they were relegated to the commissioner who was appointed for that purpose and who was appointed because of these very reasons and these only.
The hon. Minister of Justice was good enough to, say, in his speech in his own constituency, that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries was carrying on an investigation in his own department, that he was weeding out the Tory goats from the Liberal sheep, I suppose, and further it was asserted by the Minister of Justice, who had appointed a commission to find out something which he did not know, and which the government wanted to know, that the Tory goats should be well punished by dismissal for their wrong-doings in the matter of their departmental work. What a spectacle it is to have a government, which wants to know something and cannot make a decision until it finds it out and has Judge Cassels appointed to investigate; pronouncing judgment themselves as individual members of the cabinet! The Minister of Marine and Fisheries did so and the Minister of Justice, of all men in the world, did so in his speech in his own constituency the other Mr. FOSTER
night. That is British justice. That is one way of doing things, but it does not seem to me to be the best way. Ah, but the Minister of Marine and Fisheries was wonderfully anxious to find out just who had been doing these things. There had been different accusations, if you call them such, but which I would rather call inferences, by Messrs. Courtney, Fyshe and Bazin. What would be simpler than to say to these gentlemen: We want you to give us the facts from which you drew these inferences. These gentlemen are responsible men; they have the Prime Minister's and the government's own endorsement of their character and ability.
They went into it themselves, they investigated it, they made their report and the inferences or accusations are a part of that report. If the government wanted to know exactly who they were, what more simple than to ask these gentlemen to further amend the report by giving the special instances. That would have been an easy thing to do. Why, if the government wanted the information did they not take that short business cut and get the information that the commissioners have on their note books or within their minds, because it is they who made the report in which these accusations or inferences are brought out which are referred to Judge Cassels. What happens now ? The Minister of Marine and Fisheries says he is intensely desirous that the whole truth shall be brought out and what does he do ? He appoints a commission to investigate himself under the idea that he is not investigating himself but certain officials in his department. It is a commission appointed by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries himself as the order in council goes, differently worded from a general commission. And then the Minister of Marine and Fisheries who is the person responsible, who is the person implicated and the person whom the public will hold responsible ; he appoints his own counsel to carry on the prosecution in the case, absolutely appoints his own counsel. He is being tried, his efficiency or inefficiency is to be shown in this investigation. Talk as you like, if this gentleman who is at the head of the department has guided for two years a department with that sort of thing going on and has not found it out and has not reformed it and has not put it in good directive condition, the minister himself must have the responsibility. He is the man who is really on trial and yet he appoints a commissioner who is for all we know to carry on the investigation in camera, and then he appoints two red hot partisans in order to shield himself and his department. There cannot be any other inference Hon. gentlemen may say what they please. They may try to make themselves believe what they please but the country at large will not be satisfied with that kind of dealing. The country will say:

These gentlemen want to mitigate the force of a report which has struck them hard and they try to mitigate it by appointing an in camera investigation and then by putting their own hard and fast partisans on to carry out the investigation. But, you say, Judge Casseis will carry on the investigation. Yes, but these are the counsel through whom he is to carry it on. They are the men that are to advise what witnesses should be brought and what cases should be taken up. They are the men who are to steer the whole investigation. Judge Casseis, cannot do it, it is not his position, he is in tlie way of a judge, an inquiring judge of course. But the cases have to be brought and the witnesses have to be brought, and who shall lie shielded and who shall not be shielded, that is the part of Mr. Perron and of Mr. Watson and they are being paid their fees in order to do that part. Now, will the country stand for that sort of thing ? I ask my right hon. friend if he thinks the country will. If he is imagining such a vain tiling as that he will wake up some day and find he is mistaken in his imaginings. The least the government can do is to make the investigation openly. If they want some of their own partisans to defend themselves let them get them and pay the country's money for that if necessary; but let them put some one there who has at heart the State's interest and no other interest than the State's interest, as a prosecutor to bring [DOT]evidence and to bring up the cases. For instance, what is one of the glaring cases. It is with reference to your Commissioner of Lights. Now. Sir, we have been told by the Minister of Justice that these were Tory goats who had got the Minister of Marine and Fisheries into all this trouble. Was the Commissioner of Lights a Tory goat ? Will you take his appointment and his salary when these gentlemen came into power in 1896 ; will you take his specific appointments since and his increases of salary from time to time, and the responsibilities that have been put upon him ; will you put all this together and say that it was simply a Tory goat that was working all this time, and that it was the purpose of the minister to weed him out from the Liberal sheep in that department. This is a gentleman who was appointed by the minister, who was chosen by the minister, who was given almost absolute power by the minister, who went into the business of the buoys and fog signals as though, to look at the commissioner's report, he were the paid employee of these two great concerns interested chiefly in finding out how much he could buy from them and where he could find a place to store the goods before they were wanted for actual use. The minister cannot escape from the responsibility in that case. Was it a Tory goat who made the arrangement with Falconer, an arrangement which on the' face of it is so child-like and so unbusinesslike that you would think no 233
sane man, mature and grown up man would be guilty' of. None of these things were committed by these Tory goats. Now I ask the minister if he proposes to go into that transaction of his Commissioner of Lights, who, to the extent of $1,000,000 worth of new apparatus within two years patronized one single concern and caused the commission to say, as they went through the astounding history, that it looked as if that body had their _qwu servant at work in the department. Will the minister have Judge Casseis root that out from the bottom 1 Is that a portion of Judge Cassel's work ? Will Mr. Watson, King's Couucel, take it up and push it ? Will Mr. Perron go into that business ? Is that what is to be done, or, are these gentlemen simply in chamber to find out how little they can bring out, how much they cam shield the government and how far they can go to keep the grand old party from getting what is rightly its due ? They have been 12 years in power, they have had their chosen men in that department and at the end of that time it is pictured to the public as a department without a head, without direction, and without conscience. The people of this country want a full investigation, they' want it in the light of open day, they want it fair and not loaded, they want to see somebody who is not a paid and partisan friend of the minister, interested in bringing the evidence and in making there searches before Judge Casseis.


Mr. HAUGHTON LENNOX (South Sim-coe).: The Minister of Finance seemed to take comfort to himself that there was no imputation against the Minister of Marine and Fisheries in the report of the Royal Commission. I take distinct issue with the hon. gentleman upon this point. What I complain of particularly in regard to the reference to Judge Casseis is that it is an isolated charge takeu out of the body of the charges made by the commissioners, in which is included a charge and imputation against the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, as distinct a charge as could possibly be made. I want to call the attention of the House to the fact that in the report, both before and after the statement which is referred to Judge Casseis, there are statements equally as damaging as the statement which is referred to the judge. And when the minister says in the order in council :
The minister observes that some statements are made in that report which affect the honour and integrity of the officers of the Department of Marine and Fisheries.
He fails to grasp the significance and meaning of the Royal Commission because that report, as I read it, is not directed to the officers of the department alone but to the head of the department as well. Let us see whether this is correct or not. They say on page 33 :



Your commissioners have spent a large an.ount of time trying to get an insight into the general administration of the government business, as shown in the management cl this department. They found that to make any efficient inspection was a matter of enormous difficulty.
And they point out the reasons for that. They Indicate that they have not made an exhaustive inquiry; hut they leave it as a clear inference that, if the government desires to know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, they are quite prepared to go on and investigate further. I want to call your attention to the fact that they are speaking, not of goats or of sheep,* but of a department; and when they are speaking of a department, they are speaking of an hon. gentleman who is at the head of the department, and who said this afternoon that more than all he desired a complete and thorough and extensive investigation. On page 34 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; but there is no efficient organization.
Are they pointing at the subordinates or at the head? I understand that the head is responsible for the organization, and if the head is not able to perform the duties of the organization for which he is responsible, he should resign. They go on to say :
It is practiallv impossible to fix responsibility on anybody.
Does that responsibility rest upon these unfortunate subordinates whom the minister has suspended, whom he tries himself and makes guilty by his own act before a proper investigation is had? The report continues :
Tlie' deputy is supposed to shoulder responsibility for everything, as his signature shows; but that means that he speaks for ' the department ' and ' the department/ like the King, can do no wrong.
That we hardly believe.


Mr.   POSTER@: Theoretically.


Haughton Lennox: Theoretically only, of course. The commissioners go on to say:
There seems to be a huge redundancy of work, which proceeds in a lumbering haphazard way, giving rise to constant mun-dering and confusion.
Whose act is that? Is that the act of the deputy head? Is that the act of a chief clerk or of a second-class clerk, or is it the act of the responsible minister of the Crown, who is at the head of the Marine and Fisheries Department? I take it, that applies to the head of the department- that ' there seems to be a huge redundancy of work, which proceeds in a lumbering, haphazard way, giving rise to constant Mr. LENNOX.
blundering and confusion.' Does the minister want to leave that on record? Is he satisfied that his department should be so characterized? Then they say :
There is no sign visible of a single directing head or an intelligent purpose, unless it be that of spending as much money as possible.
Who is the head of that department ? Who should be the single directing head ? Who should be the man of intelligent purpose to control the expenditure of the department, and to see that extravagance and dishonesty and graft .do not prevail? Who but the minister, who says: Wait till we have an investigation, and we will show what will surprise some hon. gentlemen- meaning, with that cowardly threat, that Conservative members of his department will suffer. We have it so far pretty clear that these gentlemen are speaking, not of subordinates, but of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. Wha4 are they talking of? They are talking of paying two prices where we should only pay one; they are talking of paying dishonest prices when we should only pay honest prices; and does the minister want to escape on the plea that for two long years all this has been going on in his department and he has been absolutely ignorant of the fact that we have been paying for goods at these dishonest and extravagant prices ? These gentlemen go on to say :
Zeal for economy and good management, or pride in the work, is not visible.
What are they speaking of ? They are speaking, as the heading indicates, of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. No attack, says my hon. friend, upon the Minister of Marine and Fisheries; no imputation against him; and my hon. friend waxes eloquent on that point, and thinks he has settled the question. I want to say here and now that we have not all the people before the court in this inquiry before Judge Casseis ; that when it is referred to Judge Casseis to try the officals of this department, the record is not complete ; that if you are to have a fair trial, an honest trial, a thorough and efficient trial, which the minister says he desires, it would not be alone to find out whether certain officials of the department are guilty or not, but to find out where the minister stands in regard to this matter as well. They go on to say:
Perfunctory and mechanical discharge of duties is the rule, with apparently no perception of any need for improvement.
And I suppose that If there were any improvement inaugurated, it would naturally be by the head of the department. Then the report says :
The lack of organization and of organizing power in tlie deoartment has recently been very conspicuously and painfully illustrated

by the fact that the accountant's or book' keeping branch had apparently fallen into such confusion that expert accountants had to be called in to put things to rights and create some intelligible system. After months of work by these highly paid experts, the result has been at least greatly improved books as far as mechanical form is concerned, but probably little else; and this achievement has been accomplished at an almost fabulous expense.
Then we come to the paragraph which my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has seen fit to refer to Judge Cassels; but, mark you, he did not see fit to refer the whole of it. He thought it desirable to leave out the first sentence, which shows the meaning of a great deal of what follows :
There is not only a lack of efficient organization and method in the department.
Then follows what my hon. friend refers to Judge Cassels ;
There would also seem to be a lack of conscience.
A lack of conscience where, when you take the whole clause? A lack of conscience in the department, and so in the hon. minister himself. I need not follow with what is set out in the order in council, as my hon. friend has had it printed; but I may point out that this does not. even as printed here, mean that the commissioners thought the officials were responsible, but means that they were of opinion that the minister was responsible; and to show that I will read what Is set out here. I will read just what is said following the words in reference to 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 there is no such thing; but the whole commercial world knows otherwise. If no one gets any benefit from trade with the government except the trader, then it must be clear that in these great purchases made for the government, without discount, its officers must be assisting the trader to get better prices from the government than he can get anywhere else; for everywhere else he has to give a discount.
Down to that point there is nothing to indicate that it is the officials who are charged with dishonesty ; it is a general charge of dishonesty in the administration of the department at the expense of the country. What follows shows clearly that the commissioners had it in their minds that the officials are doing this either in ignorance or upon an intimation that the government wants it done in this way.
In other words, some of the government officials are serving two masters and apparently succeeding with both-scripture notwithstanding-
Whom do the commissioners mean by two masters ? They mean serving the seller and the buyer. The buyer is the minister ; they are serving two masters, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and at the same time the men who are selling to the department. Does anybody believe, with our experience of what has taken place in the last eleven or twelve years, that this thing is done for love or for any other purpose than to enable these men who sell to the government to have the means, if they see fit, to assist the government when a crisis comes and an election is coming on ? No other reasonable construction can be put upon this paragraph than that these officers have either acted ignorantly or are acting by connivance with the government in paying prices much too high. That is borne out more strongly still by the expression.
-and apparently succeeding with both.
If the commissioners had not in their minds that they were acting in concert with the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, why should they use that phrase that they were apparently succeeding with both, scripture notwithstanding ? The minister is endeavouring to narrow this inquiry and secure an unfair advantage because if he had wanted to have the thorough, broad and complete investigation he says, why should he select this paragraph out of what I have read and what follows and refer that merely to the judge. He is not giving Judge Cassels a proper chance to try this case at all. If we are to believe what the minister says as to his desire for a full investigation, would he not have made the investigation as broad as I have suggested ? The minister seemed to have a doubt as to whether we could believe him. He said : I do not know whether hon. gentlemen will believe me or not but my object is to have a full and thorough investigation. Let me say to him now that if he had been desirous of convincing the members of the opposition or, what is far more important, the people of Canada, of his bona fides and honesty in this matter, he would have secured that end by referring to Judge Cassels, not an isolated sentence but the whole matter of his department, or else referring it back to the commissioners who had cast the aspersions upon him and his department.
The Minister of Finance also says that this is not a review. It is not a review, it is a good deal more than that, it is an attack upon the Royal Commission and as it stands to-day it is an appeal. The very day that this report was placed upon the table of the House the minister made an attack. He did not conceal his motive, he was clear and distinct. His statements are on ' Hansard '. He stated what he thought of this report and amongst other things claimed that the commissioners had gone beyond their duties and beyond the scope of what was referred to them. I

care not whether they went beyond the scope of what was referred to them or not, they have found a certain amount of truth, they have laid it before the House and if the minister wanted to ascertain the names of the men referred to in the report it would have been an easy matter to consult the commissioners. But the minister made his attack and then he followed it up. And what is he doing now ? He is putting these commissioners upon trial. The language he uses in his own order of reference, in the order in council, makes that perfectly plain.
The minister observes that some statements are made in the report ivhich affect the honour and integrity of officers of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. On page 61 of the report the following paragraph appears.
Then he quotes the paragraph.
The minister further observes that it is assumed by that statement that commissions are received improperly, or enhanced prices paid through dishonesty on the part of officials of the Department of Militia and Defence.
I have already pointed out that it is not confined to the officials of the Marine and Fisheries Department. He says then, as the result of the whole matter :
The minister therefore recommends that he be authorized to appoint the Hon. Walter Cassels a commissioner under part 2 of chapter 104 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906. to investigate and report upon the foregoing statements contained in the said report.
His department is on trial but he selects his own judge. No one will argue for one moment that in view of the language used by the hon. gentleman himself, this is not a clear and distinct appeal and an endeavour to reverse the statement of the commissioners in regard to the matter just quoted. The leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) asked the other day whether the government intended to appoint anybody to represent these commissioners. Their action has been called into question, their finding has been challenged, the matter is referred to Judge Cassels, with the hope evidently that the findings of this commission will be reversed. Under such circumstances would it not seem honest and fair, Mr. Speaker, that instead of the gentleman whose department is attacked first selecting his own judge, them proceeding to try some of the offenders himself before the investigation could come on and then selecting two eminent counsel who are clearly identified with his party and with this department, somebody should have been appointed to represent Canada and to represent these gentlemen who have had the bravery to make this report to the government. The minister has seen fit to take Mr. LENNOX
another course. I have not a word to say against Judge Cassels.
But I have this to say-and I think I shall be upheld in the country if not in this House-that this whole affair is inconclusive. 1 venture the prediction that this trial will result in the same kind of farce as did the West Elgin election trial some years ago, in which also Mr. Watson figured. I say that, not because I have no faith in Judge Cassels-I have every faith in him;
I believe that if he were given a chance he would get at the bottom of this matter ; but I have pointed out that he is not given a chance ; he is bound by the terms of the order of reference in such a way that he cannot possibly investigate this matter as it ought to be investigated in the public interest. And this I say because the government has shown a desire to follow the methods of their friends in Ontario in the West Elgin case and their own methods in the insurance investigation of a more recent day. The minister says there must be a full and thorough investigation. But how is it to be accomplished ? Behind closed doors. A full and thorough investigation was promised when the insurance commission was appointed. But what happened ? The moment counsel appeared on behalf of parties interested, Judge MacTavish refused, at the instance of Mr. Shepley, to allow that counsel to ask a question. And the same method will be pursued in this investigation. Why should not counsel appear and have a statgs in this investigation ? Why should the doors be closed ? The officials of the department over wThich my hon. friend (Mr. Brodeur) presides, officials of whom he is the guardian in a sense, are attacked ; they are on trial. Yet, I venture to say that, with all his boasted sense of justice and his boasted desire for a full and fair investigation, he would not allow the counsel of these gentlemen to appear in order that a fair investigation may be held. A cloud may rest upon the officials, or it may rest upon those who are higher than the' officials. And, in that condition of things, is it fair-or is it not an outrage ?- to commit the matter to two counsel, one being Mr. Watson, who has been all his life identified with the workings of the Ross administration, and the other, this gentleman from Quebec, who is identified clearly and completely with the department under investigation, and both selected by my hon. friend (Mr. Brodeur) ? So, I have no hesitation in saying that this investigation will be a farce in its progress and a farce in its results.
Let us see how these things are worked out. Mr. Watson will be the senior counsel in this matter. I have nothing to say against him personally. So far as a man can be said to be a good man who is of his political persuasion and has always been mixed up with the managing of the machine,

he is a fairly good man. But I do not think that this kind of thing adds to a professional man's morality in the end. Mr. Watson is the gentleman who engineered the West Elgin election case, and he is the gentleman who will guide this proceeding. I do not think he will go as far as Mr. Shep-ley went in the insurance inquiry. Mr. Shepley was the counsel throughout the entire insurance investigation ; he guided and shaped the evidence, and every question by anybody else had to percolate through Mr. Shepley and he had to give his own interpretation to it in propounding it to the witness. And at the end, when all the evidence was in, you will say. Mr. Shepley, after addressing the commission, went about his business leaving them to decide. Nothing of the kind ; Mr. Shepley remained, as we have been told in this House to assist and direct the judges, before whom he had pleaded, in arriving at their conclusions. We shall have a better state of things, I believe, in this ease, for the reason that I have faith in Judge Cassels and feel sure that he will not consent to anything of that kind. But, still, we shall have an investigation guided by Mr. Watson. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur), in one breath told us that he had told Judge Cassels the other day that he was to have a full and thorough investga-tiou


George Eulas Foster: That was gratuitous.


Haughton Lennox: Yes. That he was to find out the guilty parties and spare them not. i But in the next breath, the minister tells us that it would be improper for him to instruct the judge as to what he should do. That is only in passing, however.) What I particularly want to point out is that the minister told us that Judge Cassels said he wished to have counsel to assist in this investigation. But he did not tell us-and so I assume it did not happen-that he asked Judge Cassels to name counsel that would suit him Oh, no ! that would not do. Counsel must be named by the very party that names the judge, the party that more than any other is interested in the final result of the investigation. In the West Elgin case, we have a confession signed by Donald McNish, and witnessed by A. B. Aylesworth, his counsel, of the state of things in that election. Subsequent to that, we had three judges appointed by the Ross administration to inquire into the manner of conducting that election, Judge Barron, Judge Morgan and Judge MaeTavish-and the last named qualified, more or less, I imagine, in that case for his subsequent employment at the instance of the Crown. And when 1 tell you that these judges say that practically nothing was done wrong in the West Elgin election, and when I read you the confession of their own side you will be able to form an opinion as to that
inquiry. That investigation was conducted and engineered by Mr. Watson. And the report, in concluding, compliments Mr. Watson upon the able and thorough manner in which he conducted the case on behalf of the Crown. I have here a speech made by Hon. Geo. W. Ross in which he refers to that trial and appears to think that Mr. Watson acted on behalf of the culprits, Pritchett and others, who were on trial. He said :
Mr. Watson had acted for the defence; he did so on his own responsibility.
But, to be perfectly fair, let me say that the hon. gentleman may have referred to the subsequent trial in which it happened that Mr. Watson, who had acted for the Crown in the first investigation, appeared for the defence. Either way is not satisfactory in some regards. However, Mr. Watson is complimented on the result of that investigation. Mr. Ross points out in a speech he made in Napanee on the eve of the last general elections, what a satisfactory result it was, and it was satisfactory in the face of what I am going to read to you, signed by Donald Macnish, the gentleman who produced and furnished unfair recommendations of the gentlemen to be deputy returniing officers, and that declaration was witnessed and concurred in by A. B. Aylesworth, as able counsel as could be found in Ontario. Here is the declaration :
1.	That a large number of persons were especially sent into the constituency by men working on behalf of the Liberal party for the express purpose of taking part on Mr. Maenish's behalf in the election held January 12, 1899, and we believe that fraudulent and corrupt means were used by some of such persons to secure his election.
2.	That some of the said persons illegally and without authority acted as deputy returning officers at the said election and in at least three cases so acted in the names of reputable local men. having, under assumed names, been introduced to the returning officer bv local agents of Macnish.
3.	That in manv of the polling subdivisions of the riding there were grave irregularities connected with the return of the ballot boxes and their contents, the voting, and the counting of the ballots thereat.
i.	That there were large numbers of persons brought into the riding for the express purpose of personating legitimate voters, and assisted by some of Macnish's local supporters such persons did personate qualified voters in voting for Mr. Macnish.
5.	That the declared number of votes for Mr. Macnish largely exceeded the number of bona fide votes cast for him.
6.	That a large number of ballots cast for Mr. McDiarmid were in some nefarious and corrupt manner manipulated, whereby the result of the election was rendered doubtful, and in this connection the voting at Shedden and Middlemarch and in several divisions of St. Thomas, where said straneers so acted as deputv returning officers, merits special mention.

7.	That there are good reasons to believe that there are manv specific and well authenticated cases where agents for Mr. Mac-nish concealed at their homes some of those strangers, who there paid large sums of money to electors to induce them to vote for him.
8.	That Mr. Macnish will forthwith deliver to the Speaker of the legislative assembly his resignation as a member thereof for the said electoral district.
(Sgd.) DONALD MACNISH.
Witness:
(Sgd.) A. B. Aylesworth.
I have only one word to say in addition. When that matter was subsequently referred to Judge Barron, Judge Morgan and Judge McTavish and they sat and examined 211 witnesses, as Mr. Ross here states in his speech at Napanee, and as the fact was, these gentlemen, under the able guidance of Mr. Watson, whom they complimented, were able so far to whitewash the illegality, rascality and criminality indulged in on that occasion, that they found practically that nothing wrong had been done in West Elgin.


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture).: I would not have risen to speak on this occasion were it not for some words that fell from the lips of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster). It seems to me that the burden of what he said in regard to His Honour Judge Cassels, and the investigation before that commissioner, implies one of two things, either that he thinks the commissioner is dishonest or a fool. Whatever his oninion may be, I do not think that the members of this House imagine for a moment that His Honour Judge Cassels is either the one or the other. In fact, he was chosen by the government to carry on that investigation because we had absolute confidence in his integrity and his ability, and. therefore, we thought it better to leave the conduct of the investigation entirely in his hands. The commissioner asked for legal assistance and he has received it. He has not yet declared to us or to the country whether the investigation is to be an open one or in camera. I may say that the government assumed, and does still assume, that that investigation will be a public one, and the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) has absolutely no foundation whatever for his assumption that it is to be in camera ; he has absolutely no foundation for the fabric of accusations he has raised against the action of the government on that supposition. I will not say any more in regard to that, because I believe that the matter is in the hands of an absolutely competent and honest judge, and having put it into his hands we think it best to let him deal with it in the way he sees fit.


George Eulas Foster: Before my hon. friend spoke, had the government decided in their own minds that it would be a good thing to have the investigation public?
Mr. FISHER


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The government has not given any dictation to the commissioner.


George Eulas Foster: Did the Minister of Marine and Fisheries know as much about it as the Minister of Agriculture, and if he did, why didn't he answer the question that was put to him?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: All I say is that the matter has been left in the hands of the commission. We have assumed that the investigation will be public, but at the same time we. have not undertaken to dictate whether it shall be or not. I do not think that in any way contradicts what the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has said.


George Eulas Foster: I cannot come to that conclusion.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend may come to his own conclusions, but his own conclusions very often lead him stray, as they would lead the country astray if they were accepted. My hon. friend from North Toronto has talked about ministerial responsibility and about the responsibility of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries has assumed his full ministerial responsibility so far as regards the efficiency of the department, the organization and work of the department. But the minister has not assumed the duties of a judge to investigate the integrity and honesty of his officials. I do not think that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is at all called upon to exercise that function, and if he had, on the report of the Civil Service Commission, undertaken to declare that so and so and so and so were dishonest and must be dealt with. hon. gentlemen opposite would have been the very first to raise a howl of partisanship and political persecution. It was because the Minister of Marine and Fisheries did not wish to assume the responsibility of prosecuting any of the gentlemen who were smirched by this report of the Civil Service Commission that the government appointed an independent judge who could do that in a judicial manner and without the slightest suspicion of partisanship.
The hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries has been very busy, ever since the acceptance of the position of minister, investigating his department. He has been trying to use his ministerial responsibility to put that department on a firmer and more satisfactory footing. What has been the history of my hon. colleague the Minister of Marine and Fisheries since he has become minister ? He took that office, I think, in February, 1906. He was in the midst of an arduous session, he carried through the work of that session, and the parliamentary duties of a minister absolutely precluded his making a thorough investigation into the details of the working of his department. Immediately after the session he sat-

isfied himself that the book-keeping of the .department was not all it ought to be, and he then employed Mr. Falconer to undertake a thorough investigation of the book-keeping of the department, not only to try to find out whether there was any absolute wrong-doing, but to find whether a better system of accounting could not be adopted and put into operation. The evidence of Sir. Falconer and the other accountants who came before the Committee on Public Accounts showed that it required time not only to investigate but to work out a system which they might substitue for the system which was in existence before they began their work. My hon. friend the Minister of Marine spent the summer going about the country examining and investigating the different offices of the department. He came back here in the fall to enter upon a long and arduous session during which it was impossible for him, with his parliamentary duties, to undertake a thorough investigation. At the close of the session of 1907 he was called upon by the Prime Minister, at the request of the imperial government, to go to England and take part in the colonial conference. While he was there he was asked by the Prime Minister to help my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) in the negotiation of the French treaty and he was away for six months. During that time he could not carry on any investigation or reorganization of the department. When he came back he asked for the report of Mr. Falconer and in a little while afterwards he had the report of the Civil Service Commission. But, before the report of the Civil Service Commission had come to him or to the government my hon. friend had commenced again, on his ministerial responsibility, an investigation into the organization of his department with the object of bringing about efficiency in the service and which it is his duty to carry on and which is not a matter at all for the investigation which Judge Cassels has been asked to undertake. My hon. friend (Mr. Foster) spoke a few minutes ago as if the investigation which has now been entrusted to Judge Cassels ought to have been carried on by the Civil Service Commissioners. The Civil Service Commissioners, as a matter of fact, did not make any accusations against any individuals, although they did make general statements in regard to conditions in the department. X have not spoken to the commissioners about it. but from their report I should say that they did not consider that they were the proper persons to conduct a judicial investigation and take evidence in regard to the particular responsibility or honesty of any one member of the department. We have put it into the hands of a judge who is the right man to make a judicial investigation and give a judicial decision. My hon. friend (Mr. Foster) spoke of the accusations in the
Civil Service Commissioners report. If they had made any accusations surely they would not be the right people to investigate and give a decision on the question in regard to which they had made accusations. If Judge Cassels thinks it wise he can summon the Civil Service Commissioners before him to give any further information than that published in the report and we can get the advantage of that. I had not intended to dilate upon these matters. I am not going into details with regard to them at all. There will be occasions upon which they can be taken up and dealt with at greater length. I only want to show that the accusations which have been made against my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries are not well founded. Those against my hon. friend in regard to his shirking his' ministerial responsibility are not justified or based upon facts, but, as a matter of, fact, the action and the career of my hon. friend, since he has assumed that office, show that in every possible way he has been prepared to take the responsibility of his ministerial position although he is not prepared to take the judicial action of deciding whether an individual officer in his department is guilty of dishonesty or not. He leaves that to a gentleman whose reputation is such that hon. members on the other side of the House cannot, in so many words, attack it, although they may try to insinuate that he may be influenced unworthily.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. EDMUND BRISTOL (Centre Toronto).: Mr. Speaker, with all deference to those who have spoken on the other side of the House, it seems to me that in this discussion they have strayed far from the questions which the leader of the opposition so courteously asked the First Minister this afternoon. There were two simple questions put to the right hon. gentleman. One was, why the inquiry in this case had been restricted and placed under the second part of the Act respecting public and departmental inquiries instead of under the first part of that Act; and the other inquiry was, whether, in addition to the two Liberal partisan counsel who would defend the government, it was the intention of the government to appoint other counsel who would act independently in the interests of the people of Canada at large. If I can understand the reasons given by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries in relation to the first question put by the leader of the opposition, he takes the ground that he himself and the government had in no way been attacked by the report of this commission, that he and the government are held absolutely

blameless and that therefore there is no necessity for any inquiry of a general character in the public interest. The Minister of Finance also seems to state that while there may be and no doubt is a constitutional responsibility there is no further or other responsibility falling upon the government which would involve inquiry into anything except the conduct of some officials whose names have not been mentioned in the report of the Civil Service Commission. That must indeed be a very comforting position for the government to take. They congratulate themselves that they are absolutely absolved and held guiltless, and they therefore decide they will have no tribunal to Investigate themselves, but they will have an investigation of some of the departmental officials. Let me present to the government and its followers some few considerations which they may reasonably think on before they become steadfast in their conclusion as to their non-responsibility in this matter, and as to the interest of the public in a broad investigation instead of the restricted and narrow investigation which they offer. It is interesting to note that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries declares that he wants the fullest possible investigation and that while he holds up one hand for the fullest possible investigation he holds up the other hand for a narrow and restricted inquiry into the officials of his department only.' That is a contrast which the people of this country are quite able to appreciate. The Minister of Finance told us that in 1892 Civil Service Commission made a report which to a large extent involved some of the various iniquities which the present civil service report has pointed out. If that be correct, then I do charge that the government of this country from 1896 to the present time have been going on in the full knowledge that these double prices were being paid and in the knowledge of the iniquities which have been proven by this new Civil Service Commission. Even if that were not so, I charge that the question of this department and all the mismanagement and all the extravagance of this department was brought up in this House two years ago by the leader of the opposition who on May 18, 1906, moved :
That all the words after the word ' that ' in the proposed motion he omitted and the following substituted therefor:
A committee of seven members be appointed to inquire into and investigate the expenditure of public moneys in or by the Department of Marine and Fisheries from and after the 30th day of June. 1902, and to inquire whether any abuses, irregularities, improvidences or maladministrations have arisen or occurred in respect of such expenditures and whether any persons employed in oi' connected with the said department have profited therebv. and whether any additional safeguards _ should be provided in respect of the expenditure of public money in or by the Mr. BRISTOL.
said department and to report upon the matters aforesaid.
That the said committee have power to send for persons, papers and records and to examine witnesses under oath.
By means of this resolution and the speeches in support of it, the government had their attention brought in the most forceful manner to the absolute rottenness of the administration of this department, and it is idle for them now to say they have no responsibility. Two years ago when this resolution was moved, everybody who takes an intelligent interest in the public affairs of Canada was well aware of the rottenness of this department, and yet the government wilfully shut their eyes to it or were incompetent to apply a remedy. There was brought to the attention of the government at this time the scandal of the ' Arctic,' the scandal of the purchase of cutlery for the ' Montcalm ' where the most extraordinary prices were paid for tableware for an ice-breaker, and above all there were the Merwin scandals. I emphasize this latter because in the Public Accounts Committee in 1906 it was proven that this man Merwin had sold to the Department of Marine and Fisheries, articles which that department and any business man in this country could have purchased direct from the wholesale merchants and manufacturers at from 100 to 187 per cent less than they paid Merwin. There was a Sturtevant engine which cost $262.50 and which was sold to the department by Merwin for $550: there was another engine of a similar character which cost $25 and was sold to the department for $550, and another similar engine which cost $335 and which was sold to the department for $900 or at a profit on the transaction of 187 per cent. The battle was fought in the Public Accounts Committee in respect to this man Merwin and it was only after the greatest possible effort and in face of obstruction on the part of members on the other side of the House that the facts in relation to this thing were brought out. I.et me ask? Is there any sane business man on the opposite side or any sane business man in Canada, who, if he found a man charging him an exorbitant profit or from 100 per cent to 187 per cent for articles of ordinary commerce, would go on buying from that man without tender and without having his prices checked. But that state of affairs went on until October last, and goods were purchased from Merwin to the extent of considerably over a million dollars without tender. And yet the government say :	We are a
business administration and we have no responsibility in this matter. Why, Sir, if the board of directors of any company were to tell the shareholders that for three years they had gone on dealing with a man who had so grossly overcharged them for ordinary articles, the management of that com-


APTfJL 28. 1908
[Stage Direction]
pany would not be permitted to continue for a moment. Surely, the administration of the public affairs of a country should certainly be on the same business basis as the administration of the affairs of a private commercial corporation. Nay more, X would put it on a higher plane, and 1 would say that a man of honour anxious to endeavour to live up to the fullest extent to the trust imposed in him, would be even more careful in the conduct of a great public department than in the ordinary affairs of business.
Here we have the spectacle of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, for over two years in this department, with statements brought constantly to his attention as to the rottenness of that department, saying and the government saying : We knew nothing of this matter ; we are not responsible ; the commissioners have found no fault with us, let us go after a few understrappers in the department. I think the people of this country will not be satisfied with such sophistry ; business men, who conduct their affairs honestly, will not be satisfied with such an absurd and unintelligible argument put forward by the apologists of this government. Mr. Speaker, I want to place on record the plain distinction between the two classes of investigation which are open to the administration. In the first place, they appointed a commission in May, 1907. not to investigate charges or abuses, irregularities, improvidence or mal-administration, but to look into the operation of the Civil Service Act and the services and compensation of the officials of the government ; and such inquiry was to include the following subjects :
1.	General operation of the Civil Service
Act.	.
2.	Classification of the service.
3.	Salaries.
4.	Temporary employment.
5.	Technical employees.
6.	Promotions.
7.	Discipline, hours of service, &c.
8.	Efficiency and sufficiency of the departmental staffs.
9.	Retiring allowances.
10.	Any other matter relative to th© service which in the opinion of the commissioners requires consideration.
It has been pointed out that two bon. ministers have attacked these commissioners for going outside of the terms of their commission ; and if it had not been for clause 10, it would no doubt have been possible legally to take that position ; but under clause 10 they had the right, and they exercised that right, of making a more general investigation. Now, the order in council authorizing that commission was passed under part 1 section 2 of an Act respecting public and departmental inquiries, being chapter 104 of the Revised Statutes of Canada. Subsection 2 is as follows:
The Governor in Council may. whenever he deems it expedient, cause inquiry to be made into and concerning any matter connected with the good government of Canada or the conduct of any part of the public business thereof.
The order in council appointing the Hon. Mr. Justice Cassels as commissioner is based on part 2, section (i, of the same Act, relating to departmental investigations, which read as follows:
The minister presiding over any department of the Civil Service of Canada may appoint at any time, under the authority of the Governor in Council, a commissioner or commissioners to investigate and report upon the state and management of the business or any part of the business of such department, either in the inside or outside service thereof, and the conduct of any person in such service, so far as the same relates to his official duties.'
The part which the Hou. Mr. Justice Cassels has been asked to investigate is merely one statement in the report, which is as follows :
That immediate steps should be taken in order to determine what officials, if any, deserve condemnation, and to give to all an opportunity to meet the charges implied.
By the very terms of this last commission the minister and the government leave themselves out of the investigation. Suppose the investigation goes on. Certain officials of the department are charged with getting graft or commissions, and the question is naturally asked, what did the minister know of these transactions ? Did you tell him or give him information of the people from whom you were buying, or of the high prices you were paying ? Under this commission questions of this kind are completely shut out, because the conduct of the minister is in no way to be inquired into ; the inquiry is absolutely confined, under the order in council, to the acts of certain officials of the department. So that we have the administration calmly saying, in the light of the facts which are common knowledge to the people of this country ; although for years we have known of these charges of graft, and although within the last two years they have been brought repeatedly to our attention, we are absolutely without responsibility, we are innocent, there is no charge against us.
Now, I do not wish again to go over the very able argument which was made by my hon. friend from East Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) in regard to the responsibility of the minister ; but I do affirm that any unprejudiced person, reading that report, will say, quite apart from any observations that I have addressed to the House, that there is ample evidence on which any man wishing to protect his honour against aspersions, any government holding themselves high as the guardians and trustees of the people, would have demanded the fullest possible investi-
[Stage Direction]
gation and the fullest opportunity to free themselves of any suspicion of connection with or knowledge of the graft that is [DOT]charged. And so I submit that when it is sought to narrow this investigation, it is an absolute and direct effort on the part of the administration to contract themselves [DOT]out of the investigation and to say :	We
are innocent, we do not propose to have any inquiry made into our acts, but we propose to narrow the inquiry down to what a few officials in the department may or may not have done.
That leads up to the second point which is of great importance to the people of this [DOT]country, and that is the method of conduct [DOT]of this investigation. And here one is somewhat amused at the answers which have been made to-day ; because, instead of the -ministers making a fair and proper answer to the questions of the lion, leader of the [DOT]opposition and the arguments advanced, they put up straw men and at once *knock them down. A very good example of that was the argument presented this afternoon by the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher), who tried to insinuate that some attack had been made by this side of the House upon the hon. Mr. Justice 'Cassels as the commissioner in this inquiry. I want to say, so far as I have the right to *do so, that I have not heard any such attack, i do not believe that any such attack was directly or indirectly made, and I want to be allowed to say that I have known the Hon. Mr. Justice Cassels for many years, and I gladly say that he is universally regarded by the bar of Ontario as one [DOT]of our ablest lawyers and one of our most high-minded and impartial men. I cannot pay too high a tribute to the great abilities of that hon. gentleman, and I do not think the government could have made a better [DOT]choice for their commissioner than the hon. judge whom they have appointed, and that is the feeling, so far as I know it, on the [DOT]Conservative side of this House. But that has nothing to do with the question. That was simply to draw a red herring across the trail. The hon. Minister of Finance attempted to make an excuse for the appointment of two partisan Liberal counsel to assist in this investigation ; and when it was pointed out to him that when a charge was made against a Conservative department, two of the ablest Liberal lawyers in Canada, one of English origin and one of French origin, were appointed to assist in the investigation, the Minister of Finance said, in that case it was a Tory minister who was involved, whereas in this case it was merely the officials of the department. It certainly is a -new distinction to make that we should employ the most distinguished counsel to bring to earth a Conservative minister, while we should employ a partisan counsel to bring to justice, if justice it be, the members of a department who have been accused of wrong-doing.
Edmund James Bristol: That, of course, is an absolutely and utterly illogical position for the Minister of Finance or any one else to take. The whole point is : Do hon. gentlemen opposite really think they will have satisfied their own honour, will have satisfied their Liberal friends throughout the country, will have satisfied public opinion in Canada by appointing to assist in this matter two strongly biased Liberal lawyers It does not matter how able they are, the point that was made is simply that it would be common decency, at all events, if the government proposed to appoint two gentlemen of the same stripe of politics as the administration whose life, so to speak, is at stake in this matter, to have appointed independent counsel who were not strongly swayed by considerations of party politics.
I wish to emphasize, with all the force I can, what I believe to be the indecency, and impropriety of this administration in appointing these two gentlemen to act as counsel. It goes to show that the ingenuous and somewhat amusing, but I fancy hardly intentional statement of the Minister of Marine to-day that he did not want any blame to attach to himself or to the government in connection with this matter, was really to be worked out by the fact first that the new commission was so restricted that it was absolutely impossible under its terms to attack either the minister or the government, and secondly that counsel were being employed whose political proclivities were such that it might reasonably be anticipated that their bias would induce them to do every thing they could to protect the government by whom they were paid and whose life long supporters they were. So, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I wish to protest as strongly and as vigorously as I can against both the restricted nature of this commission and the appointment of partisan council in connection with the investigation of a matter of such great public importance.


Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice).: Mr. Speaker, the subject under discussion may be, I suppose, compendiously stated as whether or not this government has done right in the course it has taken in this matter in authorizing the issue of a commission to Mr. Justice Cassels. To appreciate whether or not that action on the part of the government was the correct method of dealing with this subject, it seems to me we should remember exactly the position created by the circumstance of the report of the Civil Service Commission being made and laid on the table of this House. I do not, for the moment. speak of the circumstance that no sooner was that report presented, no sooner had it become the subject of any discussion in this House, than the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) who to-day inveighs so emphatically against the course

the government has taken in this matter, was himself the very first to suggest that it was incumbent on the government to deal with this question either by the appointment of a committee of this House or by the issue of some commission of inquiry. \\ e have taken the better of these two alternatives. I do not suppose any hon. gentleman in this House would contend that any more impartial tribunal for the investigation of this question could by possibility have been selected than the one which has been named or that there would have been any greater propriety, even although there had been party advantage, in the appointment of a committee of this House to investigate this question. We have then accepted and acted on one of the two alternative suggestions made by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), yet in doing that it seems we have, according to the views he has expressed to-day, most grievously erred. It is of course but another example of the facility with which hon. gentlemen who desire to criticise on all occasions the government of the day and who are determined, no matter what course that government may take, to condemn it off-hand, and to cry out against the course which it has adopted, will trim their sails according to the breeze and be prepared at any time and In any event and at all seasons to condemn whatever may be done by those who are opposed to them politically. The situation when this report from the commission of inquiry into the operation of the civil service was made was, it seems to me, a very simple and plain one. I have been accused to-day of having attacked this commission when speaking-before my constituents on the subject some three or four weeks ago. I deny that statement ; X made no attack. If I had wanted to criticise, the material for criticism was ready to my hand. I did not even criticise, although the report of the commission itself certainly well invited criticism. X said on that occasion what I have no hesitation in saying again and w'hat any hon. gentleman who reads the mandate to these commissioners can at once see for himself, namely, that they stepped altogether outside of that which was defined to them as their jurisdiction when they made a report at length as they have made with regard to the different departments of the governmental service. They were appointed to inquire into the operation of the Civil Service Act; they were not appointed to inquire into the administration of the general departments of the government service. They were appointed with specific reference to many matters arising under the Civil Service Act. These particular matters were specified in the order in council appointing them, in the commission issued to them. They were to inquire generally into the operation of the statute, with special reference to the
classification of the service, to the salaries of the service, to the matter of temporary employment, of technical employment, of promotions, of discipline, of the hours of service, of retiring allowances and then (in the only phrase that could possibly, by any stretch, be taken to cover the course which they followed in making the remarks they have seen fit to make on general administration) they were finally appointed to inquire into the efficiency and sufficiency of the departmental staffs. I am not here to criticise, much less to attack the course which the commissioners took. I am simply pointing out, not in any way of attack or even of criticism upon their work, that they did undoubtedly go beyond the commission of inquiry issued to them in what they have reported. But that I make no point of, that is in no degree an answer to what they have said, or in any way a circumstance which relieved the government from considering the report which they have seen fit to make. When that report comes to be presented not only does it deal with matters committed to them for inquiry, but it goes into the general question of the administration of the different departments of the government service, and they have reported to this House that in the Department of Marine and Fisheries there is this to be criticised, the system in vogue of distributing the daily correspondence of the department. They have taken the time to discuss at some length that method of distributing the correspondence and to suggest what they consider would be improvements in it. They next take up and discuss what they say is a lack of efficient organization in the staff of that department, and at considerable length again they discuss that feature of the administration of the department. Other similar matters are dealt with, with which the minister who is in charge of that department, himself can deal, and in regard to which he is himself engaged. But they have gone further and have not only stated these general things with regard to the administration, the organization and the system or method of doing the work of that department by the staff there employed, but have said that there seems also to be in that department a lack of conscience, and having made that statement they follow it up by saying that some government officials are serving two masters. That is a tolerably specific statement, if we can make that observation with regard to something that is absolutely and entirely general. I do not know, I have very considerable doubt in my own mind, whether the gentleman who penned that phrase had at the time or has now any certain, particular person in mind toward whom he aimed when he used the expression :	There are some of the government
officials who are serving two masters.
I incline to think, after giving it the best

consideration I am able, that the gentleman who used these words himself would say-I did not mean any specific person ; I meant merely, in arguing what I thought must be the condition of things, to say that, from what I had seen of the lack of organization-of the lack of efficient work, if you please, of the wrong system upon which things are done in that department- there must be somebody or other who was serving two masters. Now, whichever thing he meant-whether the man who wrote those words meant that there was some particular individual or set of individuals in the department who were lacking in conscience and who were trying to serve not merely their employers but some one else from whom they were receiving benefits for favours given, whichever meaning was attached, in the mind of the person who wrote these words, to the words he has used, it is a subject of inquiry. And I do not for a moment shirk the situation that, although this was something quite beyond what these commissioners were appointed to do, the fact that they have said it is, none the less, a reason why the thing which they have said must of necessity have, at the hands of the government, further investigation.
Now, it seems to me that the circumstance presented by the delivery of that report from any person entrusted by the Crown in any kind of inquiry into a matter affecting the public service was not unlike, in principle, what would be the case supposing some party of government surveyors or some set of men who might be in government employment and sent out on some prospecting investigation, came, if you like, by accident-or, if you like, by search -upon a dead body in the course of their work. and. looking at the circumstances, thought that this dead body might have been the result of foul play and. in the course of their report upon their work made the observation that they had, upon a certain day, come upon this corpse, and that there might have been foul play in connection with it. What then would be done ? What would be the duty of those charged with the administration of justice, without regard to whether this body of men had been sent out for the purpose of searching for what they had found, or had come upon it, and had reported that they had come upon it. by accident? The course naturally taken wTOuld be the empanelling of a coroner's jury, and the investigation of this corpus delicti by the form of a coroner's inquest. That is exactly the course the government has taken in this matter. Hon. members in this House talk about somebody being on trial. The very men who use that expression over and over and over again must perfectly understand that this is no proceeding in the nature of a charge and trial, that it is nothing else than that to which I have likened it, an examin-Mr. AYLESWORTH.
ation into circumstances-of, if you like, a suspicious character-in regard to which an investigation is directed precisely of the nature which is carried on by a coroner and coroner's jury in the case of inquest upon a body found. In these circumstances this is in no sense a prosecution or trial; it is an investigation to ascertain facts. This report gives no one any facts upon which he can act. Merely by way of illustration, I presume, two instances are given of what the commissioners say they found in the nature of impropriety or wrong-doing in the department; and, as I said before, if one wanted to go looking for opportunity of criticism, it would not be hard to find material ready to hand upon the face of this report itself. Because, it turns out, the moment they mention in detail two specific instances of what they thought was wrong-doing in the department, in each of the two cases it was they who were mistaken and the department was absolutely correct. They charge, in terms, that there had been an authorization by the department, that there had been an accepting by the minister, of a recommendation of one of his subordinates, to depart from a contract and to pay a higher price for a certain commodity than that which the seller had undertaken to receive. In that, they were entirely wrong. They fell into an error, not unnaturally, but an error which they would not have fallen into if any one had known that they were travelling outside the purpose for which they were appointed or were engaged in an investigation which they intended to make the foundation of a report of this character-which simply illustrates the danger of acting upon or accepting the conclusions of gentlemen who have gone about a work which they were not appointed to undertake, and a work which nobody was aware they were engaged in at all. If they had mentioned to anybody in the department, I suppose, that they thought there wTas in these circumstances of the coal purchase at Prescott something that called for explanation, any official of the department acquainted with the facts, or in possession of the files of the department, could at once have shown them that, in that particular instance at all events, there was nothing calling for comment, for the minister at the head of the department, immediately on the recommendation of his subordinate coming to his attention, refused to act upon it, directed that the contract should be acted upon and that that thing exactly should be done which the commissioners find fault writh the department because they thought it was not done. In the other instance, they are equally at sea, and equally under a mistake, simply by reason of the circumstance that they were going on unguided, unassisted, and without reference to any person who was in a position to know the facts and drawing conclusions which the

circumstances not only did not warrant, but, immediately on being known, demonstrated were entirely at variance with the truth.
Now, notwithstanding that these features of the report must necessarily lessen the weight which otherwise would be attached to it, we have the fact that two out of the three gentlemen for this purpose make these observations with regard to the personnel of the staff in the Department of Marine and Fisheries. What was the government to do ? I make no point of the fact that the third or chief commissioner did not concur in the remarks of his colleagues. It would have been exactly the same situation if but one of the three commissioners had said what the two have said here. If, instead of saying it in the report, they had said it by letter, or in any formal way had brought It to the attention of the government or of the minister, the situation would have been identically the same ; and therefore, I say, I make no point whatever of the fact that they have travelled afield and outside and beyond their jurisdiction; I make no point whatever in derogation of the weight that should be attached to this report of the other circumstances I have adverted to. I come simply down to this situation, that gentlemen who were entrusted by the government with a certain investigation have seen things, in the course of that investigation which, they say, call for further inquiry, and that they considered themselves justified in summing up by the statement that somebody or other in the Department of Marine and Fisheries was without conscience and apparently serving two masters. That is the one thing in the report that calls for further action in the nature of inquiry. The other things in the report are matters of departmental administration with which the minister is in a position to deal. But that particular statement is a statement which cannot be ignored and a statement in regard to which no investigation the minister himself could make would satisfy hon. gentlemen who are so ready to criticise that nothing whatever which can be done will satisfy them. That statement appearing on the face of the report was something which, according to the gentleman who, for the time being, was leading the opposition, called for the issue of a further commission of inquiry, or the appointment of a committee of this House to investigate; and the government taking the view which he presented, has appointed a further commission of inquiry to do exactly the work which I have described as the work of a coroner and a coroner's jury in this matter. , Well, the next question I suppose is whether any exception can be taken to the gentleman who is chosen for the duty. Now I am not aware that any person in this House or out of it has taken the slightest exception to the gentleman who has been
named to do this work. We have in the past not only, in this House but in other legislative assemblies in this country, seen the' necessity arise for the appointment of commissions of inquiry of one character or another. We in the province of Ontario, within the last three years, have seen a good many instances of it, and we have seen commissions of inquiry appointed by a government supported by hon. gentlemen who sit opposite, a government that they laud to the skies and we have seen commission after commission issued by that government to political heelers of the very lowest description, selected for no other purpose than to do the duty of an executioner, and in whose hands the result of the commission was foreseen and expected. If this government had selected for the purpose of this inquiry a man as commissioner against whom one word of exception c-ould be taken, then there might have been some foundation for the attacks that have been made today, and that have been made consistently since this commission was appointed ; as if there was in the appointment some intention to whitewash, some intention to prevent thoroughness, some intention to get over what is said to be the damaging effects of the commissioners' report. I say Sir, that the very fact that this gentleman has been chosen as commissioner is in itself a sufficient answer to charges of that character.
But criticism upon the course of the government does not stop there. Criticism fol- . lows the least action which is taken by the government, objection is sure to follow every step which the government may take, no matter what it may be. If the hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, instead of making the appointment he has made, had chosen to investigate for himself and had made no appointment of a commissioner at all, it would at once have been said that he was standing behind his officials, that he was identifying himself with them, that if they were without conscience, as was charged by the commissioners, then he was equally to be condemned because he was making common cause with them. On the other hand, the moment that he appointed this commission of inquiry, at once the word went out from headquarters, at once the ' Mail ' newspaper, which I suppose is the gospel of the hon. gentlemen from the province of Ontario who sit opposite, takes the position that the minister has determined to sacrifice his subordinates, that he is not manly enough to stand behind them, but that the fiat has gone forth that they must be beheaded. Well, everyone is prepared for either alternative, that is a beautiful example at all events of the fact that whatever course may be taken in this matter by the government, that course will necessarily be condemned, and that course is the one which will afford the best opportunity for criticism and attack.

Now, Sir, the commissioner having been selected, and being a gentleman not only above reproach, but actually above even attack by those who would attack every earthly thing that was done by this government, the next question was as to the manner in which that inquiry should be carried on. Now it has been said that the commissioner himself desired in this matter to have the assistance of council. I take no advantage of that position. I assume, as legal adviser if you please of the government in this matter, the ful'est responsibility upon my own shoulders for the advice that this was an inquiry which ought not to be conducted without tlie assistance of counsel ; and whether the commissioner desired council or not, I would certainly be unwilling that he should enter upon an inquiry of this character, one the result of which is so certain to be attacked, without the help of counsel to assist in the investigation, and relieve him from some portion of the laborious work which otherwise he would have to undertake personally. Somebody of necessity must investigate, case after case of individual character; somebody must pore through file after file, thousands upon thousands of pages in the Department of Marine and Fisheries ; somebody must of necessity go up many a blind alley before he can possibly hit upon anything that would be productive of results, anything that could lead to a determination of any of the circumstances whi.cli the commissioner is appointed to investigate. It might be said :	Let
the commissioner himself do it. His time is no more valuable than that of anybody else ; he is a public servant, and let him take the weeks or months that may be necessary' to do that work of preliminary investigation. I submit that it would not be wise or prudent that the commissioner should do that work, and for the simple reason that the man, whoever he is, who does that work of investigation, whoever he is. whether counsel or commissioner, who does the work of questioning witnesses, must and will be undoubtedly represented as prosecuting counsel. This inquiry although it is in every sense as far removed from the trial of any accusation as any inquiry possibly could be, is already represented by nearly every speaker opposite who has addressed you to-day, as a trial of somebody or other, and just as it is so improperly represented, just as it is sought to be in the eyes of the people so distorted from its real character, so truly would the man who was conducting that inquiry, whether he were commissioner or counsel, be represented as nothing else but a prosecutor, or indeed a persecutor. The moment you put the commissioner into a position where it is possible to say that of him. you detract immeasurably from the weight which his report would have, and you at once bring him into the arena of a prosecuting counsel instead of leaving him Mr. AYLESWORT^
where he ought to be, a judicial officer to determine. In these circumstances I certainly felt no hesitation whatever in advising that counsel should be engaged for the assistance of the commissioner. I take upon myself the fullest responsibility for the course the government has taken, and am willing to relieve the commissioner absolutely from the suspicion even of having suggested that anything of the kind should be done.
Then it having been decided that there should be counsel in this matter, the next question was who that counsel should belt is perhaps not unnatural that, having the duty' of recommending the person of the counsel, I should turn in my mind at once to the men of my own immediate acquaintance. I happen to be, from the circumstance that for nearly a generation I have practised law in the city of Toronto, better acquainted with the lawyers of Toronto than I am with the lawyers of any other part of this country', and it was, in these circumstances, not an unnatural thing that I should canvass in my own mind the men with whom I am best acquainted and of whose ability and standing I have the best knowledge when it was a question of who should be selected for this work. I take the full responsibility of having recommended the name of Mr. Watson for this position. I did that upon my knowledge of the man, and I have not heard as yet any criticism offered except the question which I see was propounded by the hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Northrop) as to Mr.- Watson's identity a few days ago, and the observation made this afternoon by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) that he had been, or, I think, the statement was that he at the present time was in charge of the Liberal organization for the city of Toronto. Mr. Speaker, I am in a position to give an unqualified denial to the latter of these two statements. Mr. Watson is not, so far as I am aware, identified wi,th any Liberal organization in Toronto or elsewhere in this country. He was at one time, I think, chairman or president-I really do not know what the title was-of some organization of that character in Toronto-I have no idea whether for a riding or for a ward or for the whole city. I am absolutely indifferent on that head. I know Mr. Watson to be a Liberal politically'. He is a man who I know has confidence in me and perhaps it is not strange on that account that I should have confidence in him, and I do not hesitate in this House or anywhere in this country to justify before hon. members or before any body of men the selection of Mr. Watson for this work. He is a man of standing in his profession. I have known him personally for about 35 years, from the time when he was a struggling young barrister to the day' when he stands amongst the foremost leaders of the bar in the province of Ontario, and hon. gentleman must

recognize him not merely as a man of integrity and character, but as a man possessing legal attainments such as fit him for any brief or any work which may be entrusted to him by any client. In these circumstances I had no hesitation, on Mr. Watson occurring to my mind, to recommend him as a man who would conduct this inquiry properly, who would conduct it as it should be conducted, who would pursue the end towards which this investigation was directed and who would make the investigation of that thorough and complete character which was from the beginning intended. I cannot too highly emphasize the observation that was made this afternoon by my hon. colleague in charge of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, that the one intention and desire in the appointment of this commission was that this work should be thorough and the one piece of instruction which I have given in this matter to Mr. Watson in a personal interview and in writing was that this work was to be of a thorough character, that the thing that was expected of him was that he would spare no effort to make this investigation perfect and complete and that he would go into the department to the [DOT] very bottom of things and satisfy this government and the country whether or no there was any foundation for the remarks which have been made by the commission as to the lack of personal honesty and integrity on the part of officials of the department, and if there is foundation for them to determine who the men are that they may be weeded out from among their fellows and that the truth in regard to them may become known. These are the instructions that Mr. Watson has, and I am well enough acquainted with him to know that these instructions will be carried out and that the work which he undertakes will be work that is thoroughly done. In these circumstances it is not a subject of criticism, it is not a matter in regard to which those who may wish to criticise have the slightest ground for the attacks they make; that counsel has been selected anil that counsel has been the man of whom I have spoken.
Now, Sir, it has been asked here whether or not this gentleman is counsel for the minister or whether or not any counsel is to be engaged for the gentlemen who have prepared the report of the commission of inquiry into the civil service. Well, Sir, I scarcely know whether or not such a question is being propounded seriously. I suppose that the hon. gentleman who put such a question knows perfectly well the character of this investigation. If any hon. gentleman of the legal profession or acquainted with the ordinary course of legal proceedings puts such a question he must see at once that it carries with it its own answer. He knows-he must know that this investigation is in no sense, as I have already
said, a question of trying anybody, but that it is simply an investigation of inquiry, and he might quite as well ask, to return, again to the illustration which I have used before, whether or not counsel for somebody or other for some individual or witness, was going to appear before a coroner appointed to take evidence in an inquiry of this nature. It is no attack upon the commissioners, it is no trial of the commissioners, the commissioners are in no sense upon the defensive ; it is supplementing and. carrying forward the work which they, in the way in which I have described, have done. It is in no sense a review or a trial or any kind of imputation or charge against these commissioners. This, Sir, is simply a public inquiry and counsel who appear in this matter under the instructions of this government appear for the public, as occupying precisely the position that a county Crown attorney occupies at a coroner's ininquest, inquiring for the whole country and engaged to probe the matter to its depths to ascertain what foundation there may be for a statement which appears in the report which is the basis of this inquiry. Mr. Watson is counsel for the people. Hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House amuse themselves by using that phrase of which they are so fond, and I wonder if it never occurs to them that they are, perhaps, unconsciously, or perhaps purposely, seeking to identify the sixty or seventy men who compose His Majesty's opposition with the people of this country. They seem to forget that the people are represented by their chosen representatives in this House of parliament, that the country is represented by this government and that it is the government and not the gentleman who, sit on your left, Sir, who have the right to speak for the people in whom the people have time and time again already demonstrated, as time and time again they will in the future, demonstrate their confidence by their votes at the polls. Mr. Watson is the representative counsel in this inquiry for the people of this country. He is selected for that work by the government who have the confidence of this House and the confidence of the country, and it is of little moment for hon. gentlemen in whom so often the people of Canada have refused to repose confidence to speak here as though they were voicing the sentiments of the people of this country. I submit to you, Sir, under these circumstances that the appointment of Mr. Watson is one with which the people of Canada will be satisfied, and until some charge is brought against him other than that he belongs politically to the majority, his appointment is not open to criticism.
Now, I simply took the floor to speak as to the appointment of counsel. I regret that I am quite unable to answer observations that have been made in the course of this debate because I have had to depend en-

tirely on wliat good friends who are able i to hear have told me as to what has been | said. Unfortunately for myself I am not .physically in a position to engage in political controversy. I have risen simply to lay before the House the considerations which have moved the government to take the course it has taken in appointing for this important work the gentleman who has been selected as commissioner. I take great comfort to myself, as I am sure every one in this House ought to take comfort to himself, that the appointment of Mr. Justice Cassels has been so well received on all hands and that there has been no criticism applied to his appointment. Under these circumstances, whatever else may be said of this commission or of any person w7ho may be engaged in it, I have the confident hope that the course which that commissioner may take will commend itself to every one in this House and in the country. He can certainly be relied upon to do his duty in the premises, without fear, favour, partiality. or affection. He is acting literally in judicial capacity ; he is charged to report who the men are (if there be any) who are described in this portion of the report in .question. No other duty is put upon him nor was there any intention to put any other duty upon him. He was appointed .simply arid solely for the purpose of pursuing to the end the question started by these commissioners : That there did seem to be somebody, or more than one, in the department in question who was not honest, who was not faithful to his trust, but who was worthy of punishment and dismissal. His duty is to try these men, whoever they may be, so far as there is trial, and to investigate and report what foundation there is for the existence of this suspicion which has led to the statement that forms the whole basis of the inquiry. I submit that the government has taken the only proper course in this matter, that it has adopted and acted upon the very suggestion that came from the leader of the opposition or the hon. member for North Toronto, and that acting on that suggestion it has appointed a man who is above question and above reproach, and that upon the result of the inquiry which may be conducted before him this House and the country may well depend for a certain knowledge of what, if any, foundation, exists for the charges and insinuations which have been so freely made.


Mr. W. B. NORTHRUP (East Hastings).: There is an old adage: that whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad, and I venture to say that when the history of this country comes to be written no more perfect illustration of this adage will be found than in the order in council that is being considered to-day. And, if by any possibility the perfection of that illustra-Mr. AYLESWORTH.
tion could be improved upon I venture to say it would be in the counsel who have been named to assist the commissioner. And. if by any stretch of imagination we could imagine any further addition to the perfection of that illustration it would be the speech of the Minister of Justice to which we have now listened. To avoid any possible misunderstanding, let me say in the first place that no one in this House Jins spoken with greater respect or could with more sincerity speak with respect of the Hon. Mr. Justice Cassels, than I. It is a pleasure to me to speak of him in these terms. I believe that from one end of the country to the other no commissioner could possibly have been selected whose ability and integrity stand higher than the ability and integrity of the Hon. Mr. Justice Cassels. And, it is because I do so highly respect him and that I know he will do his duty in whatever sphere he is placed, that speaking for myself I regret that this additional stain has been cast on the dignity of the bench by his appointment to such a contemptible little commission as this. Sir, no one can really understand the question without considering the historical retrospect so as to know what has led to the unhappy position in which the government finds itself to-day placed. Although I need not go beyond the Civil Service Commission report itself to find that there are other departments equally open to criticism, I shall confine my remarks to the Department of Marine and Fisheries because it is that department we are specially dealing with now. I would remind the House that this department was so deplorably mismanaged and had run to such a scandalous state of chaos that not long ago the Prime Minister himself on the floor of parliament in the presence of dozens of hon. gentlemen admitted that the department had reached this sad state under the guardianship of the Hon. Mr. Prefontaine, predecessor of the present minister. And the right hon. gentleman said that he had put in office the present minister to bring order out of the chaos which then existed and because he thought he would be able to bring that department up to the standard which at one time it had attained. That was the description of this unhappy department, according, not to Conservative imagination, but according to the statement of the right hon. the Prime Minister made on the floor of parliament. And why did the right hon. gentleman say so ? I suppose he was impelled by necessity to make that admission, humiliating though it must have been to the gentlemen behind him who sat there night after night deliberately voting that the voyage of the ' Arctic ' was a most excellent undertaking on the grounds of economy ; that Merwin was a philanthropic patriot and so self sacrificing as to give his goods and chatties for the benefit of the country, and that Strubbe

was a man whose character and conduct were beyond description. It must have been galling for these hon. gentlemen who again and again voted that everything was right and proper and most delightful, to hear their right hon. leader admit that the department was in a state of disreputable chaos. It would be only fair to admit that while the present minister is constitutionally responsible for the acts of his predecessors and that having accepted the office he must bear the responsibility, yet, morally and politically and every way except constitutionally had he (to use a common expression) made good and had the department improved under his regime, it is only fair to admit that he might well come before parliament even in the face of this unhappy report and plead that he at all events was not one of the parties referred to in the strong denunciation of the commissioners. But has the present Minister of Marine in a single respect remedied the debauchery of the department that existed under his predecessor? I challenge any gentleman on the other side to point me to a single respect in which the improvement has come. We remember how scandalized the country was when we found that Mer-win, partly under his own name and partly under the name of Brooks & Co. was selling half a million dollars worth of goods to the department year after year and raking off over fifty per cent profit.
I look into the Auditor General's Report which we are now investigating before the Public Accounts Committee, and I find that our old friend Merwin is carrying on business at the old stand, in the same old way, and it is reasonable to suppose with about the same profits; and yet the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, who would wish to appear before this House and this country as an honest and capable administrator, knew two years ago exactly what Merwin was doing. Many hon. gentlemen will remember the case of Strubbe, of Montreal, who in the presence of a couple of friends, cashed a cheque here in Ottawa for about $4,700, sent $2,500 to his own bank, and put $2,200 into his pocket ; and although he left Ottawa within an hour afterwards, he could not tell what he had done with the money. It was such a common circumstance to place $2,200 in his pocket in the presence of a couple of friends who came from the Department of Marine and Fisheries with him, that he could not recollect what he had done with it. And yet this same gentleman is carrying on business with the Department of Marine and Fisheries in the same way as before. Evidently these two gentlemen, in the estimation of the present minister, possess the necessary qualifications for doing business with the department, and are therefore still doing business with it.
The hon. Minister of Justice has referred 234
to this commission as a coroner's inquest. I am not prepared to contradict him on that point. A coroner's inquest is generally a post-mortem ceremony, and I quite understand that after the death-blow given by the report of the Civil Service Commission, the hon. gentleman thinks it is very appropriate to have a post-mortem, to be followed by the funeral obsequies at a date to be named by the government either in next November or at some later date. I have referred to the state of the Department of Marine and Fisheries under the previous minister and under the present minister. We have found the Public Accounts Committee year after year dragging out scandal after scandal in that department ; and yet to this day no one ever heard of any one being punished until the report of the Civil Service Commission came down; and then, Sir, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, who stands before this House as so noble that he would scorn to judge one of his subordinates, has to call in a judge to pronounce the sentence. This minister, after beginning to suspend and decapitate his subordinates quite royally, when he thinks he can do it with safety, calls in a judge to pronounce the sentence of death on those whom it pleases His Royal Highness to have executed.
Now let us consider the exact condition of affairs. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries and the Finance Minister speak of the report of the Commission as if there was really nothing in that report that in any way reflected upon the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. I did not mind the Minister of Marine and Fisheries saying that as much as I did the Finance Minister, who has stood before this House and this country for integrity and honesty, and I was pained to hear him speak as he did this afternoon. Was a greater absurdity ever heard ? On the one hand, they say, we have given you a commission because the leader of the opposition and the hon. member for North Toronto said : In view of such a report you must have either a parliamentary committee or a royal commission to investigate. Why, Sir, it reminds one of the evening when the right hon. gentleman who leads this House, having been taunted by the hon.' member for Grenville, the hon. member for Leeds and myself, with one instance of corruption and extravagance after another in this very department, promised to give us an investigation by a parliamentary committee ; and when he brought down the motion for the committee, there was such a puny reference to a few trifling charges, that we could not have had any investigation at all under the terms of the reference had not the whole department been so hopelessly extravagant and corrupt that we could touch nowhere without finding something. Yet the Minister of Finance dares



to stand before this House and speak of the hon. leader of the opposition and the hon. member for North Toronto having asked for an investigation and therefore this commission was given, when all that anybody who knows his A B C's has to do is to read the report at page 44, where he will find charge after charge, made, not against officials


William Stevens Fielding: It is not of much consequence, but I did not make any allusion to that at all, if that will make any difference.


William Barton Northrup: I apologize to the hon. Minister of Finance. The statement was made by a minister, and I thought it was made by the Minister of Finance. When such extraordinary statements are made by ministers, it is not to be wondered at if one attributes to one minister a statement made by another. However, the statement was made from the ministerial benches, I believe by the Minister of Justice just before he resumed his seat, that the leader of the opposition and the hon. member for North Toronto had asked for an investigation by either a parliamentary committee or a commission, and therefore this commission to Mr. Justice Cassels was appointed. Consider the audacity of the man who would make such a statement before this House in view of the fact that the report of the Civil Service Commissioners says this :
The lack of organization and of organizing power in the department has recently been very conspicuously and painfully illustrated by the fact that the accountant's or bookkeeping branch had apparently fallen into such confusion that expert accountants had to be called in to put things to rights and create some intelligible system.
Who called in these accountants ? Why, the minister. The Commission found that somebody was so much to blame that he had to call in outsiders to do the work which should have been done by his department ; and yet we are told that there is no reflection on the minister. Then the report says :
There is not only a lack of efficient organization and method in the department. There would also seem to be a lack of conscience.
Not one word to say that that lack of conscience was only in subordinates ; the report applies this remark to the department. It is not for me, standing in this House, to say that the minister is devoid of conscience, but the report hits equally the minister and his officials, and the courageous way would have been to have a committee of this House to investigate the matter, and to say whether the head of the department was to blame or only some subordinate. I remember in the olden days that the Reform party laid down the prin-cip'e in this House that investigations of Mr. NORTHRUP.
this kind should be by this House, that it was the duty of the members of this House to investigate, and they deprecated the royal commissions. But notwithstanding the fact that half a dozen charges have been made against the department, we find the minister taking before the council a modest little order which he wants to have passed, limiting the inquiry, not merely to one single charge, but to one head of that charge. Let me remind the House again of the extent of this last commission, to show how contemptibly insignificant the reference is. On page 34 of the report the following paragraph occurs :
There is not only a lack of efficient organization and method in the department. There would also seem to be a lack of conscience. In connection with the enormous expenditures which are deemed necessary, the word ' discount ' never appears. It is tacitly assumed that there is no such thing; but the whole commercial world knows otherwise. If no one gets any benefit from trade with the government except the trader, then it must be clear that in these great purchases made for the government, without discount, its officers must be assisting the trader to get better prices from the government than he can get anywhere else; - for everywhere else he has to give discount. In other words, some of the government's officers are serving two masters, and apparently succeeding with both-scripture notwithstanding.
So that is the whole reference to Mr. Justice Cassels. We have a judge brought down from the bench, we have two counsel appointed, and all under the sun they can investigate, of all the details given in this report, is whether or not there is a rake-off in the department by which certain officials in the department profit in the purchase of goods. An official who will order a million and a half dollars worth of goods in a year might be a secret partner in the firm from which he orders, but that could not be investigated ; he might order a million dollars worth of goods from a firm on condition that the firm would subscribe one hundred thousand or two hundred thousands dollars to an election fund, but you could not investigate that. He might be paid by the firm in any way you see fit, but as long as there is not a rake-off coming to him from the purchase of the goods, Mr. Justice Cassels has no more authority to investigate than has the Speaker of the House. Thus you see how contemptibly insignificant the investigation is. Every one knows, it has been common rumour on the streets of Ottawa for years, that in connection with some of these large firms, ministers and ex-ministers are partners. I am not in a position to know this, to assert it positively, blit I know that it has been the common talk for years and that any proper investigation would allow that fact to be discovered. Why any minister in the cabinet to-day might be a partner in the
73T7

Wilson Company, the Merwin Company, the Brooks Company or any other company and that fact might be known to the witness in the box and to counsel, yet under this order of reference it would be impossible to investigate that matter because that is not the subject referred. Can we imagine anything more absurd than that after all this cry in the country as the result of these charges, we have a paltry, puny, whittled down reference, only the single point whether the men who buy goods get a rake-off back from the purchaser.
If there could be anything more absurd than that it would be the appointment as first counsel of Mr. Watson. The minister of Justice grew very eloquent over his friend Mr. Watson. I have nothing to say against Mr. Watson, I think it would be cowardly, on the floor of this House, where he cannot defend himself, to say a word against him. I shall only state a couple of facts that cannot be gainsaid. An investigation was held in the county of Elgin some years ago on behalf of the Ontario government into charges of corruption in an election. A commission was appointed by the Ontario government and Mr. Geo. Watson was appointed counsel to elicit the evidence necessary and proper to be brought before the commission to enable them to make an intelligent report. Mr. Watson no doubt thought he was doing his duty because he drew his pay and I am sure he would not do that if he did not think he had done his duty. The commission solemnly sat, the evidence was produced and I have the report here. If we believe the report founded on the evidence .brought forward by counsel on that occasion, there was never a purer election on earth than that election. The minister said he appointed Mr. Watson because he knows him. Of course he does, no one knows him better. He was the eminent counsel who secured the verdict of acquittal here. A short time afterwards a protest came up for trial. Mr. Wallace Nesbitt appeared for the Conservative and Mr. A. B. Aylesworth, who is now the Minister of Justice, appeared for the respondent. I shall not occupy the time of the House by reading the confession of Mr. Donald McNish, because every one in Canada knows that there is no offence forbidden by the election law which is not included in the solemn confession signed by Mr. McNish as having been committed in that election, and in order to prevent any possibility of his afterwards saying that he did not understand what he was signing, that although it was true that his signature was attached to the confession, he did not know that all these crimes were set forth in it, Air. A. B. Aylesworth was compelled to sign as witness because Mr. Nesbitt knew that with the name of that eminent lawyer, who was at the head of his profession, attached as witness to the signature of his 2341
client, the client would not be able to say that he did not know what he had signed, because his professional honour and reputation would compel Mr. Aylesworth to drive the lie down his client's throat. So we find that the minister can well say that he knew Mr. Watson because they had met during an inquiry in West Elgin and, knowing Mr. Watson, he appointed him first counsel in this important investigation. Counsel might have been selected from any province in the Dominion. There is no particular reason why counsel should come from Ontario and Quebec ; they might equally well have been selected from New Brunswick, Nova Scotia or British Columbia, and yet out of all the lawyers in Canada, he selected Mr. Watson. Without saying a word against Air. Watson, if the minister were here he would bear me out when I say that I could name Reform lawyers in Toronto, just as able, in just as good standing in the profession as Air. AA'atson whom he could have selected if he had chosen to do so. There is no gentleman in this House from any province in Canada on either side of the House, who would not be able to name a Reform counsel from his own province, eminently capable and able to conduct such a trifling investigation as this inquiry. But no, of all the lawyers in this country the first one to be selected was the gentleman who had made a record along the very line on which it would be in the interest of this government to have another record made in this case.
One would have supposed that one counsel would have been sufficient in a little investigation like this, but no, a second had to be appointed. Again the bar of the whole Dominion was at the service of the government and of all tile men in Canada the only one they could choose as a fitting colleague for Air. Watson was the partner of the late Mr. Prefontaine. The Alinister of Alarine made a certain statement in the House this afternoon which I cannot characterize as f would like on the floor of this House ow ng to the rules of parliament. But I will say as a fact, and my statement of fact can be contrasted with his, that when I asked in the House the other evening if Air. Perron was a member of the firm of Prefontaine, Archer, Perron & Taschereau. of which the late Air. Prefontaine was head, I was reading the name from the Alontreal City Directory of the years 1903-1904, so that up to that date Air. Perron was in the city directory of Alontreal as a partner of Air. Prefontaine. Does it not strike the ordinary man, I shall not speak of the politician, as rather extraordinary that when this judge was appointed to investigate the doings of the department of which the late Air. Prefontaine was head for some time, being succeeded by the present minister who has been its head since, the only man to be selected as a colleague of the counsel who

was uot able to find anything wrong in the other ease, was the gentleman who, above all others in this country, was interested in protecting the name and fame of his late partnr, Mr. Prefontaine ? Why was this ? I do not pretend to say. There are two possible explanations. One may have been an honest desire to see that justice was done to a colleague now unhappily removed, another may have been that in view of all the reflections that have been thrown on Mr. Prefontaine from the other side of the House, in view of the innumerable times that the present Minister of Marine has held up the shadow and the shade of Mr. Prefontaine between himself and attack, it may be that he felt some pressure from the province of Quebec which compelled him in his dying political moments to defend the memory of the late Mr. Prefontaine. Whatever the reason, the fact remains that the people of Canada are to be represented, if they are represented at all before this coroner's inquest, to use the words of the Minister of Justice, by one counsel who could not find anything wrong in West Elgin, where other counsel found so much, and by another who was the partner of the late Minister of Marine. Surely the people of this country must begin to have their own opinion of the conduct of lion, gentlemen opposite and perhaps most suspect them when they promise most fairly. The 'Minister of Justice was good enough to sneer at hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, because he said we claimed to represent the people of this country. Do not let us bandy words about claiming to represent the people. Let members on both sides for a moment lay aside all political bias and prejudices and consider what has happened on the floor of this House. Let us consider the fact that we come here at the beginning of a session and find that thousands of miles of timber limits belonging to the people the session before have now been granted to private individuals ; who inquires what has become of these lands, who inquires when the people are dispossessed of portions of the public domain? Never a gentleman on the government side of the House. Never will you find inquiry raised in that respect, except from the ranks of His Majesty's loyal opposition. Whether it be coal leases, or timber leases, or fishing leases-no matter what it is that the people have lost, so far as my experience goes in this House, I never heard an inquiry or a regret from the other side of the House, but I have heard many an inquiry and deep regret from hon. gentlemen on this side. So, I think, if we lay aside bias and prejudice and frankly consider the duties discharged by gentlemen in this House, it will be found that in any inquiry of interest to the people, of help to the people, it is the opposition that represents the people.


William Barton Northrup: But let us take the report of the commission which is before the House. It says that all sorts of extravagance, corruption, rascality

if I may use the term-exist in several departments. Has any single step been taken by any minister to see whether these charges are true or not? It is true a little inquiry is proposed into one corner of this great domain. But when such serious charges are made, is it not a shocking state of affairs that ministers who control this House and who are supposed to have the honour of the people in their charge, make no move to see whether the report brought down by tne commissioners is true or not? Would it not strike any man of ordinary business capacity, any man accustomed to affairs, that when three commissioners bring down such a report as this, no doubt at serious expense to the country, it would be easy to ask them: * To whom do you refer? Who are the people who are guilty of this wrong-doing?' When these men have done so much of the work why send new men to begin de novo. The first men have been working for weeks and months in the mine and have brought up good solid ore ns the result of their workings. Only those who desire not to discover the truth would take such a course.
Now, I do not intend to discuss this question further, more than to say that when the matter comes to be laid calmly and dispassionately before the people of this country, when, laying aside political bias, if it be possible, we come to consider the case on its merits, what are the people to think of a commission appointed to investigate about one-twentieth of the charges that are made, and that one-twentieth so selected that by no possibility can a minister be hurt? What are the people to think when they see a minister sheltering himself behind a commission so that he should by any possibility be hurt and telling them: ' Go on. investigate among my subordinates?' And then, when he has so entrenched himself that not even a stray shot can possibly hit him. even then he is afraid to appoint counsel in the ordinary way to investigate the case, but selects, I venture to say-without casting any disparagement upon the integrity or ability of the gentlemen-the two counsel who of the whole bar of Canada are the least suitable for the particular duties which they are called upon to perform in connection with this commission. Then. Sir, when after such an attempt as that, first to shelter the minister and then to select counsel so as to secure him from any possibility of trouble, we find the government gravely telling the House and the people that they have given this commission because that is what the leader of the opposition and the hon. member for North Toronto have asked, can any one fail to be reminded of the well-known lines :


190S
[Stage Direction]
In short, I firmly do believe in humbug generally,
For it's a thing that I perceive To have a solid vally;
This hath my faithful shepherd ben.
In pastures sweet heth led me,
An' this '11 keep the people green To feed ez they have fed me.
Hr.  E. SI@: MACDONALD (Pic to lilt The debate started by the hon. leader of the opposition (Sir. II. L. Borden) this afternoon has given some hon. gentlemen who sit behind him an opportunity to go over all the old stories that they have been revamping for the last two or three years. It is quite evident that most of the hon. gentlemen on that side who have spoken this afternoon have never read the Civil Service report at all.


Sir. OWEN.: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Slacdonald) has read it, he can give us something new.


Sir.   SIACDONALD@: It would not take much reading on my part to fit me to instruct the hon. gentleman who interrupts me. I say that the remarks of these hon. gentlemen and the reiteration of all these fables and old wives' stories that they have been retailing until they have begun actually to believe some of them themselves, indicate that these gentlemen have not read the report. It is true that my ingenious friend from South Simcoe (Sir. Lennox)- whom I will not call an artful dodger, but would rather call an artful dissector-has treated the report in a way for which he can find no authority in his effort to find some references to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. I submit that any gentleman who reads the report through will find that there is not the slightest intention on the part of these commissioners to refer to the minister in any manner, and the hon. gentleman who tries to argue to the contrary is simply torturing the language and attempting to put a construction upon it which it will not bear. And when the hon. member for East Hastings (Sir. Northrup), who has spoken with more than ordinary eloquence and fluency this evening, undertakes to say that there are charges of rascality against three or four departments contained in this report, he will not find any such charges in regard to any departments in this report ; he simply cannot put his finger upon any such language. He will not find in this report in referring to officials of the department of this government anything that would demand an investigation more than these words that are contained in the report on which the order in council is based appointing Judge Cassels as commissioner in this matter. It is all very well for hon. gentlemen, taking inspiration from their party organs, to run away with the idea that this report has said something about somebody in particular. But let us calmly and deliberately look at this report and see
what these commissioners have said. They have first dealt with the Department of Marine and Fisheries and have said a good deal in regard to the files and correspondence, the methods of dealing with these files and the difficulty of finding matters referred to in the files. Then they deal with the methods in regard to correspondence between those in the department itself and with parties outside. They go on and deal with the number of officials and state that there are enough officials in the department to do the work if they were trained and organized. They go on to discuss the question of putting responsibility upon particular officers for departmental acts. And when hon. gentlemen opposite attempt to argue that a phrase used in this report is intended to refer to the minister they refer to a portion of the report which clearly indicates the deputy and those responsible to him. the heads of the several branches and to them alone. Then they go on and deal with the lack of organization in the department. Then they come to the one and only specific statement contained in the whole report which makes an allegation of wrong-doing or ' lack of conscience,' to use their own term, the only charge which this House or the government could take cognizance of for further investigation. And as I intend to refer to that when I come to the order in council I shall not read it now. Then they go on and discuss the system of purchasing supplies in the Marine Department, and I want my hon. friends opposite who are endeavouring to make themselves believe that this system of purchasing grew up under this government to listen to this statement of the commissioners.
Your commissioners are informed on the best authority that this state of things has been going on ever since pre-confederation days.
The hon. member for East Northumberland (Mr. Owen), if he will examine the report will find that the good old Conservative party he loves so much purchased supplies just in the same way in the Marine and Fisheries Department, and he will find the statement reiterated that so far as there is anything to be condemned in that respect in the Marine Department, the only trouble was that the officials went on purchasing supplies just as they did under the previous government. Then the commissioners go on and discuss the wisdom of the appointment of the lighthouse board, and they name the officials who compose that board, Colonel Gourdeau, Colonel Anderson, Commander Spain, J. F. Fraser, H. A. Allan and Captain J. W. Troupe. They condemn the proposition that the power of determining where lights should be placed in this country should remain under the control of that board. Having dealt with all these subjects, they come to the following conclusion :

Your commissioners regret that they have been unable to investigate the condition of things in some of the other departments. But to do the work Vith any pretensions to thoroughness would take much more time than would probably be agreeable to the government. They have been able to go over only a very small section of even the Marine and Fisheries Department. If they had had time it would have been most desirable to have inspected the work of the department at the agencies-Quebec, Sorel, Halifax, St. John and Prescott-particularly Quebec and Halifax.
: Now we are told that there have been great abuses in the purchase of supplies, and we are reminded of the stores purchased for the ' Arctic ' and the ' Montcalm '. Some of those hon. gentlemen who have never seen the ocean, know nothing of the way in which steamers are run in the St. Lawrence and on the Atlantic ; if they did they would have saved themselves a great deal of the rhetoric with which they have flooded this House. The men who go down to the sea in ships require to be pretty well fed ; and sailors who go on long voyages exposed to the perils of the Arctic navigation require to be well provided for. Hon. gentlemen seem to forget that their own friend, Mr. Gregory, a gentleman whom they appointed and who has been continued under this administration, was the man who certified to the accuracy of the quantities and the correctness of the prices of the supplies purchased, not only for the ' Arctic ' and the ' Montcalm,' but in regard to every dollar's worth of supplies purchased in the city of Quebec, and he has been doing that inspection the last twenty years. The hon. gentleman who spoke last (Mr. Nortbrup) insinuated that the minister should be held responsible for any excessive price paid for supplies. Well, will he tell me how in the name of all that is reasonable could a minister in Ottawa be supposed to know whether this official away down in Quebec certified correctly to the purchase of a barrel of flour ? Is the minister of a department continually to assume that the officer who has that duty in charge is deceiving the government, and wasting the public money by paying more for supplies than he ought to ? If the ministers in all the departments were to assume dishonesty on the part of their officials, we would have a very peculiar state of affairs in this country. Then these gentlemen go on further to say :
Your commissioners have to confess that the general conclusions which they have formed regarding the administration of the department are most unfavourable. It seems to have few redeeming features. Although there are some, one of which is the presence in the department of some good men, chiefly, but not wholly, in the lower ranks. With a better organization and better methods, these might form the nucleus of a good staff. The trouble is not of recent origin, but has been Mr. MACDONALD.
long continued, and is the result of evil methods and practices persisted in for many
It has been the same under all administrations. This difficulty of administration, this trouble of Which they complain, this lack of conscience which they say they have discovered in certain officials, all these things, they declare, are not of recent origin, but have been long continued, and are the result of evil methods and practices persisted in for many years under all administrations. Now I say that my hon. friends who have discussed this question, if they go to work and dissect this report, will be unable to find one single reference of a nature which calls for an investigation, either by the government or by this House, except, the subjects mentioned in this order in council. We are told that there have been difficulties in regard to methods of administration, abuses which have always existed, and the commissioners go on to discuss the question of salaries, and to discuss civil service reform, which they take to mean the absence of all political influences in the appointment of civil servants. The hon. member from East Hastings (Mr. Northrup) talked glibly about this report, but he will not find anything in it calling for investigation with the exception of the subjects contained	in the order in
council appointing	Justice Cassels as
commissioner. That brings me to the question raised by the leader of the opposition as to whether this inquiry has been restricted. The hon. member for Beau-harnois (Mr. Bergeron) suggested that it was not necessary to have this commission at all. He seems to disagree with his leader. The hon. member for Hastings insinuated that because this government had appointed Mr. Justice Cassels and because they did not re-appoint the three commissioners, therefore they did not want to find out anything wrong. Now it won't do to laud "justice Cassels in one breath, and in the next breath to insinuate that it would be just as well to have no commissioner at all. Y'et that is what the member for Beauharnois (Mr. Bergeron) said this afternoon. Now, is there any restriction of the inquiry ? I have shown that a careful perusal of the report will lead any fair-minded man to the conclusion that the only words contained in the report respecting the Marine and Fisheries Department that the government could deal with, are these :
There would also seem to be a lack of confidence. 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 offi-

cers must be assisting the trader to get better prices from the government than he can get anywhere else; for everywhere else he has to get discount. In other words, some of the government's officers are serving two masters, and apparently succeeding with both-[DOT] scripture notwithstanding.
And the minister draws, in his report to council the inference that commissions are received improperly or that enhanced prices are paid through dishonesty on the part of officials in the Department of Marine and Fisheries. The report continues :	*
But unfortunately the report does not mention any names which would enable him to take definite action concerning these officials. It is, however, in the interest of the Department of Marine and Fisheries and of the country that immediate steps should be taken in order to determine what officials, if anv, deserve condemnation and to give to all an opportunity to meet the charges implied.
I submit that the statement is broad and generous. It draws the only inference that can be drawn. It is by way of reflection upon the officials of the department. I do not know whether my hon. friends, ingenious as they are in being able to manufacture imputations and suggest all kinds of wrong-doing without the slightest pretext can possibly infer more, from the language used, than what is indicated by the minister in his report, It seems to me that it gives full effect and to the utmost limit to which my hon. friends might go in that direction. What then does the minister do ?
The minister therefore recommends that he be authorized to appoint the Hon. Walter Cassels a commissioner under part 2 of chapter 104 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, to investigate and report upon the foregoing statements contained in the said report of the Civil Service Commission reflecting upon the integrity of the officials of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, or any of them.
That is the reference. Now, what can the gentleman who was appointed commissioner do? He is appointed under a section of the statute which gives the minister authority to appoint.
A commissioner or commissioners to in vestigate and report upon the state and management of the business, or any part of tht business, of such department, either in the inside or outside service thereof, and the conduct of any person in such service, so far as relates to his official duties.
That is what the minister has done. The broadest and most complete powers are conferred by this order in council and this statute upon Mr. Justice Cassels. If these gentlemen have anything to say about Mer-win, if these hon. gentlemen have anything to say about the ' Arctic,' if these hon. gentlemen have anything to say about any of these stories that they have been circulating up and down this country, this gives to Mr. Justice Cassels full and complete authority to investigate and to put on record before this House and the country his findings and report so that this House and the people may deal, not with the insinuations and innuendoes that have been hurled up and down through the country by hon. gentlemen who have abandoned every shred of policy upon every question and who have got down to that one and only occupation as a political party, but with the report and findings of Mr. Justice Cassels. We will have an investigation upon all these insinuations under this statute and order in council which will enable us to have the findings and report so that we will understand the truth in regard to this matter. This inquiry is limited, is it ?
The commissioner or commissioners may, for the purposes of the investigation, enter into and remain within any public office or institution, and shall have access to every part thereof, and may examine all papers, documents, vouchers, records and books of every kind belonging thereto, and may summon before him or them any person and require him to give evidence on oath, orally or in writing, or on solemn affirmation if he is entitled to affirm in civil matters; and any such commissioner may administer such oath or affirmation.
It gives him the fullest and most complete power In order that, if there has been wrongful dealing in regard to supplies, in order, if the officials of the department, not within the last year or two but at any time in the past, have been serving two masters he can find it out. So, it will be with reference to the whole catalogue and category of insinuations that we have heard upon this matter. This inquiry is not restricted. This inquiry goes to the very widest limit in order that there may be a most complete report in regard to anything that may be deemed to be wrong in the Department of Marine and Fisheries. So much for the question as to whether this inquiry is restricted. Some hon. gentlemen have suggested that if there were such and such a thing it would not be possible to investigate it. I am sure that my hon. friends who make this suggestion are dealing in casuistry. Does any one suppose that Mr. ^Justice Cassels, if he found, in any of these things, a suggestion of partnership on the part of any official or minister with anybody dealing with the department, disclosed upon any document which he has the right to scrutinize to the fullest possible extent and limit, would not report to this House and put on record before the House and the country what the facts may be in regard to the matter? I think it is not fair for hon. gentlemen to attempt to suggest that there Is a restricted inquiry here. They feel their weakness on this subject because we have tacked on to this the weakest kind of an argument that could possibly be made

in regard to a subject of this kind. Now, one hon. gentleman lauds Mr. Justice Cas-sels at one moment and another hon. gentleman suggests that if the government had chosen the old Civil Service Commissioners to conduct this investigation it would have been far better. If Mr. Justice Cassels is the good, the upright and the honourable judge, if he is half as worthy as hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House tell us he is he is surely qualified to make this investigation. But, these hon. gentlemen tell us in one breath that he is an upright and honourable judge and in the next breath they tell us that he is not the man for the place. But, if he is half as worthy as hon. gentlemen on the other side contend he is


Mr. WARD.: Who said he was not the man for the place?


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD.: Surely the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ward) could not have been in the House or he would have heard the hon. member beside him (Mr. Northrup) suggesting that it was an indication that the government did not want to get at the truth because if they did they would have left the matter to the old commission.


William Barton Northrup: I raised no point as to the integrity of Mr. Justice Cassels.


William Stevens Fielding: But you said he could not get at the truth.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I would point out that hon. gentlemen occupy a very peculiar position. My hon. friend from East Hastings (Mr. Northrup) of course praised Mr. Justice Cassels at one moment and the next moment he pointed out that this government were worthy of condemnation because they had appointed Mr. Justice Cassels, asserting that he would not get at the truth quite as well as if the old commissioners had been allowed to continue the work that they had been doing for a long time.


William Barton Northrup: I criticised the government for appointing Mr. Justice Cassels to conduct such a limited inquiry.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend has been too long at the bar and has had too much experience not to know that if Mr. Justice Cassels is half as good a man as my hon. friend says he is he will, with the powers which he has under this statute and under this order in council, be able to investigate anything that my hon. friend has ever insinuated against the department during the past five or six years.


Henry Alfred Ward: He will be hauled over the coals for going beyond his powers. The commissioners have been blamed for doing that.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Well, I can assure my hon. friend that there is not the Mr. MACDONALD.
slightest evidence of any restriction of the inquiry in this case. It is impossible for them to argue that there is. They have taken the position at one moment of saying that Mr. Cassels is a very able man and at the next moment declaring that this investigation would have been very much better conducted if it had been conducted by the Civil Service Commissioners. And then, as if they knew precisely the untenable position they were in they take the other course: they are driven to the weakest possible position, they turn around and abuse the counsel who have been called in by the government to take part in this investigation. At one moment they tell us that these gentlemen are able men, and as far as I have been acquainted with the jurisprudence of the great province of Ontario from reading its decisions in the courts, not merely in election proceedings, but in questions of great moment affecting all the great interests of the provinces and although I have not the pleasure of knowing the senior couusel in this matter personally and I only judge him as one lawyer would judge another in another province, yet I say that Mr. Watson enjoys a reputation not merely in Ontario but in all portions of this Dominion among lawyers as a man iu the very front rank of his profession.
Hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House who are members of the bar know that there is no man at the bar of Ontario could reach the position Mr. Watson has attained, unless he was an honourable man and that coupled with his legal knowledge he possesses the integrity which every man in such a position must have. But because Mr. Watson is a Liberal we are told that this whole investigation is to fail. Mr. Perron also occupies a high position at the bar of Quebec and the same remarks apply to him. Of course the old game is to abuse the lawyer on the other side, and my hon. friends opposite have got themselves into the very weakest possible position when they say that though these are able men, yet they are Liberals and all kind of things must be suspected about them. I apprehend that the record of the Hon. Mr. Justice Cassels at the bar and the estimation in which he is held by all who know him must be kpown to these gentlemen opposite, and if Mr. Justice Cassels is to carry our his powers under the statute and under the order in council, it is a most unwarranted assumption that men of the standard of Mr. Watson and Mr. Perron would be found disregarding their oath not merely as barristers but as King's Counsellers, to endeavour to prevent Mr. Justice Cassels from conducting a proper investigation. I submit that when these gentlemen read the report of the Civil Service Commission they will find that the clause which is contained in this order in council is the only portion of the report which makes any imputation on that

department in the sense in which an investigation should be held. I submit that the statute and the order in council give the fullest possible powers to deal with the question, and as to the rest of the arguments of liou. gentlemen opposite they are unwarranted and unfair, and snch arguments would not be advanced if these gentlemen were at the bar discussing this question or anywhere else than in this House where they seem to constantly prostitute almost every public question for partisan ends.


Mr. RICHARD BLAIN (Peel).: We have had the pleasure of hearing the same stero-typed address from my hon. friend from Pictou when he rises so often in defence of everything wrong that is done by the present government of which he is such an ardent supporter. In the Public Accounts Committee when we endeavour to discover the wrong-doings of the government the hon. gentleman leads the forces in defence of every act of the government and we are therefore not surprised that to-night he should come to their rescue in this matter. Bet me in the first place direct the attention of the Minister of Finance to a statement made by him this afternoon, that the Liberal Conservative party appointed a royal commission to investigate the civil service in 1S91, and that when the report of that royal commission was presented to the House in 1892 the Liberal Conservative party pigeon-holed that report. I take up the * Hansard ' for 1893 and I find that the Liberal Conservative government introduced a Bill for the purpose of bettering the civil service and carrying out in some respects the recommendations of the royal commission. And Sir, we find the Reform party then in opposition condemning the Liberal Conservative government of the day for proposing to make changes in the Civil Service Act, and among the chief of those who objected was Mr. Laurier, now the Prime Minister of Canada. At page 2815 ' Hansard ' 1893. Mr. Laurier said :
The hon. gentleman's demand is not logical. If I agree to the principle of the Bill, 1 would give every facility to perfect it, but we object to the Bill in toto and object that it should go any further.
In the discussion Mr. Laurier said :
I look upon the Bill as a device to put pensioners upon the civil list, and there is no other reason for it. I therefore move that the Bill be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months.
Here we have it that when the Liberal Conservative government was making an effort to reform the civil service and carry out some of the provisions of the commissioners' report, Mr. Laurier moved the six months hoist. And in face of that the Minister of Finance stands up to-day and states that the Liberal Conservative party
did nothing to carry out the recommendations.


William Stevens Fielding: Will the hon. gentleman be good enough to show what important reform recommended by the commission was carried out ?


Mr. BARKER.: That is not what you said.


William Stevens Fielding: I stated that for four years they had that report and no material part of it ever wps adopted.


Richard Blain: What the Minister of Finance said was that the Liberal Conservative party had pigeon-holed the report.


William Stevens Fielding: So they did.


Richard Blain: Was that a fair statement of the efforts of the Conservative party to improve the civil service.


William Stevens Fielding: Show me what important feature of that report was adopted and carried out.


Richard Blain: I am pointing out that the year after the report was presented a minister of the Liberal Conservative government introduced a Bill to make the conditions of the civil service better.


William Stevens Fielding: In what respect ?


Richard Blain: And I am showing that the present Prime Minister moved that the Bill receive a six months hoist. The Minister of Finance cannot contradict that. The Minister of Finance asks what was made better by the Liberal Conservatives that the commission reported on. That is not the question.


William Stevens Fielding: I thought it was.


Richard Blain: Whatever faults the Liberal Conservative party may have had in those days were dealt with in the general election of 1S96.


William Stevens Fielding: And will be again.


Richard Blain: The Minister of Finance may have some different history from the eastern part of Canada.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, and in the middle too.


Richard Blain: Yes, we have the Liberal party driven out of power in the province of Ontario for the next twenty-five years.


Mr. JOHNSTON.: Huron for instance.


Thomas Beattie: What about Colchester?


Richard Blain: My hon. friend need not worry about Huron.


Alexander Johnston: It suits me first-rate.


Richard Blain: It is strange these hon. gentlemen opposite are always referring to the Liberal-Conservative party. The government have appointed a commission to look

into some of the departments ; this commission has made a report such as was never presented to any other government in the history of this country ; and we have now the spectacle of one minister after another condemning the three commissioners. What the Liberal-Conservative party say is that after the government have appointed three commissioners to investigate the civil service and the question of civil service reform, and after the commissioners have at considerable expense travelled to different parts of the country, taken many pages of evidence, given their best attention to the question, and made a report, if there are to be any further suggestions, they should come from these three gentlemen, instead of another man being appointed to look into the matter. As to whether or not Mr. Justice Cassels is the proper man to make the investigation I have nothing to say. In any city in Canada you can find men qualified for such a duty. I will wait until Mr. Justice Cassels brings in a report, and I will judge from that whether he is the proper man or not.
The Minister of Justice twitted the Liberal-Conservative party with the statement that the Ontario government had appointed commissioners to look into various matters in the province of Ontario, and I am sure that the hon. Minister of Justice did not do any credit to the position he holds in this government when he said that these commissioners were political heelers. Mr. Whitney's government did appoint some commissions, and the men who composed those commissions were respectable gentlemen, eminently qualified to discharge their duties, and they brought in some reports that were rather damaging to the Reform government in the province of Ontario and the Reform party in Canada. I may point out that one commission they appointed was the School book Commission. My hon. friend the Minister of Railways will know something about that, because he voted in the Ontario legislature that the school-books were supplied to the children of the province of Ontario at the proper price ; and when the Liberal-Conservative party introduced a resolution to the effect that the price was altogether too high, my hon. friend supported a motion that the prices were all right. When the Liberal-Conservative party came into power, Mr. Whitney's government did appoint a commission to inquire into the school-book question : and what did that commission find ? They found that the children were paying twice as much for their school-books as they should, and reported accordingly. Here is an object lesson for my hon. friend, if he is seeking one. When that commission reported, Mr. Whitney set about to take some advantage of the report, with the result that to-day the children of the province of Ontario are paying Mr. BLAIN.
for their school-books less than half of what they did when the Reform party was in power.
One would suppose from this discussion that there was nothing wrong in any department except the Department of Marine and Fisheries ; but all that one has to do is to turn up almost any page of the commission's report to learn the contrary. For instance, my hon. friend the Minister of Customs thinks his department is all right. Let me read a paragraph at page 29 of the report, which says :
Every collector of customs has been appointed from the ranks of the party in power at the moment. Many of the inspectors are in a similar position, and, under a clause of the Civil Service Act waiving the examination of persons appointed to positions requiring special and technical qualifications, almost all the appraisers in the outside service of this department have been appointed without undergoing the Civil Service examination.
When we say anything about men appointed to positions in the Customs Department, the minister's answer always is that they must pass the civil service examination ; and yet the commission reports that a large number of the men appointed by my hon. friend have not passed any such examination. Then, we have a comparatively new minister in charge of the Post Office Department, and I would like to draw his attention to what is said at page 31 of the report :
Tour commissioners found that in all the post office branches officials were employed who had failed to pass the examination laid down by the Act.
These hon. gentlemen came into office with the promise to the people of Canada that they would purify the civil service ; and when we charged that they were appointing political supporters regardless of their qualifications, we were met with the statement that they would be required to pass the civil service examination, and yet we find these commissioners saying that in the Department of Customs and in the Post Office Department officials have been appointed who did not pass any civil service examination whatever. Then, we have a new condition of things. According to this report, not only <lo the politicians who support the present administration use their influence to have men appointed to office, but they use their influence to have the same men promoted. At page 27 of the report the commissioners say : '
As a rule your commissioners found in the outside service that politics enter into every appointment, and politicians on the spot _ interest themselves not only in the appointments but in subsequent promotions of officials.
I do not, Mr. Speaker, wish to detain the House longer. I wish only to say that in
739a

my humble opinion w:hen an inquiry is commenced, and when men have been selected to make that inquiry, and they have done their duty up to a certain point, if there is a necessity for further investigation, it should be referred back to the same men to do that work ; and I am very much surprised that after the government appointed three gentlemen with special qualifications to deal with this matter, and after these gentlemen have brought in a report dealing with different departments of this government and stating that they have found some men making an attempt to serve two masters, we have the government appointing another commission to find out which of these masters these officials are serving.
Surely the men who are appointed to do that, who after examination found that such a condition of things existed, were better qualified than any other men to put then- finger upon the men who are making an effort to serve two masters, which cannot be successfully done. I agree with the proposition of the leader of the opposition (Air. R. L. Borden) that the people of this country will not be satisfied. 1 think the mutual praise policy on the part of the Minister of Justice about his old companions in his happy days, that have gone by, in the province of Ontario should cease. When he knew that these men had been engaged in politics and election trials in the past, he should have attached some dignity to his office, if he had no dignity to attach to himself and have said that when a grave question of this kind presents itself to the people of Canada, he would not leave himself open to the suspicion that he appointed a political supporter of his to defend the government. As the hon. member for Bast Hastings (Mr. Northrup) has pointed out, he could have found honourable men in the profession in any city in Canada, who had no political bias, and I am sure if such men had been found the appointments would not be open to the same objection, and would not receive the same criticism.


Hon. WM. PATERSON (Minister of Customs).: Just a few words as my name has been mentioned. I did not intend to take any part in this discussion, but really I have been somewhat struck with the contradictory nature of the arguments, if you may call them so, of the hon. gentlemen opposite. I am trying to see where we are at in this matter. One fault that is found with the appointment of Mr. Justice Cassels is that it is an attempt to review the work of the commissioners, which they say is a highly reprehensible thing to do. Another hon. member says he has not been appointed to review the work of the commissioners at all, only to review one little thing in their report, which is so small that the hon. member for East Hastings wonders that the judge would so lower
himself as to come down from the bench and deal with it.
Another thing that struck me as very remarkable is the attitude of gentlemen belonging to the legal profession. I am but a layman, and have been rather inclined on looking to them as a body of honourable men, men who, if they had a duty placed on them, would discharge it honestly. But if I am to take what I have heard from the member from Toronto, the member from Simcoe and the member from East Hastings, who belong to that great profession, their idea of the sense of honour that dwells in some of their number, is apparently such that one is tempted to ask if they could trust themselves in an investigation of this kind. Could my hon. friend have confidence in himself if he was appointed on a Whitney commission ? Surely he could, at least I think he could, although he has shaken my faith. The other gentlemen who have spoken, every one of them belonging to that profession, have taken the ground that men sworn to do their duty, sworn in a judicial investigation, will disregard their obligation. It is not my judgment.
The hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Northrup) tells us this is a little, trifling, contemptible task to ask the judge to descend from the bench and undertake. In the same breath he tells us that this judge is a noble man. He must be that, for he has always had the admiration of my hon'. friend, and that would prove him to be a noble man. This noble man so misapprehends the nature of the duties he has been asked to perform that he is not able to see, what the profound brain of the hon. member for East Hastings could see, that the inquiry is a little, miserable, contemptible thing that he should not have taken hold of. He was not compelled to do so. The government recommended him for appointment and he accepted the appointment. Why on earth did he do it ? Why could he not have some conception of the dignity of his office equal to that of the member for East Hastings (Mr. Northrup). Why could he not have asked him, why has the hon. member, who loves him so, allowed him to accept it ? Why did he not go to him with that lifelong friendship and admiration and say : Judge, you will never think of taking that, surely ? Why it is the meanest, smallest, most contemptible task ever given to a man 1 He did not do it, he has let the poor judge get into that scrape. Think of it! He assures us that he took care to laud the judge to the highest point. So do they all, the member for Toronto, the member for Simcoe, they all upheld him in that.
These hon. members have their own appreciation of what members of the profession, sworn to perform a judicial act, will do. How do they know what they will

do ? Is it a common thing in the profession, has it been known in the profession that members act in that way ? If I should take that low estimate of these men, which I utterly repudiate, let us see how this admiration for the honour and ability of the hon. judge comes in. Surely, with his ability and his honour, if he found these gentlemen who are chosen to assist him in his duty, which is to arrive at facts, not to prosecute anybody, trying to hide the facts, trying to pervert the work they have undertaken to do, and if he allowed them to do so, he would not be of the character given him by the hon. members for Bast Simeoe, East Hastings and Toronto. They cannot take that position. You can see at once, Mr. Speaker, how bewildered I have been with the arguments of the hon. gentlemen opposite. Such a thing could not happen or Judge Cassels cannot be the man these gentlemen say he is. If he allowed that to take place he would lack either discernment, capacity or honesty, and they dare not charge him with such a lack. Is my argument good or not ?
He is appointed to do something which he does not consider beneath his dignity. It is true he is not asked to review the report of the commissioners. The government and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries are willing that this report of the commissioners shall go out, 10,000 copies of it, wherever the members choose to send it. They have the benefit of whatever weight it carries. We do not ask to have it reviewed, we do not ask to have the opinions in it qualified. We do not ask a commission to be appointed to see that if they cannot contradict what has already been reported. That is going out with all the condemnation that it will carry.


Haughton Lennox: Ten thousand copies?


William Paterson: That is the number ordered to be printed, I think.


Henry Alfred Ward: Two thousand copies.


William Paterson: It is immaterial. It is going out by thousands of copies. And this commission is not appointed to refute or contradict what they have said. But here is the statement of the commissioners that they believe that certain officials in that department are dishonest and corrupt. They do not give the names of these men, and this judicial Inquiry is to ascertain whether there be such men in the service that they may be dealt with. And the investigator will report. We are asked : Why not have called upon the commissioners to do this? Well, I suppose the judge will be at perfect liberty-and for all I know he will do it-to ask the commission to give him the facts. He may say : Here is a charge you have made ; evidently you had reason to believe it is true ; would you please tell me the officers whom you suspect, or refer me to the files of the'de-Mr. PATERSON.
partment that I may trace up the matter tor myself? That is the point we wish to ascertain. Now, this is the one point in this report with which the minister could not deal. He wanted a judicial inquiry, and he is having it. The rest of the report, referring to the correspondence, the duplication of work, the lack of supervision and other weaknesses alleged are departmental in their nature and must be dealt with by the head of the department. And the minister is proceeding to deal with them- started long ago. He has examined into the working of his department, and he is examining into it to see where improvements can be made. The testimony of these commissioners themselves shows that. They say :
There is not only a lack of efficient organization and method in the department. There would also seem to be a lack of conscience.
That is the subject of this investigation. But they say also :
The lack of organization and of organizing power ill. the department has recently been verv conspicuously and painfully illustrated by the fact that the accountant's or bookkeeping branch had apparently fallen into such confusion that expert accountants had to be called in to put things to rights and create some intelligible system. After months of work

So the minister was at this months ago, according to these commissioners.
After months of work by these highly paid experts the result has been at least greatly improved books as far as mechanical form is concerned, but probably little else; and this achievement has been accomplished at an almost fabulous expense.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


William Paterson: That is in print and it is going out in these 7,000 or 10,000 copies. People will see, at any rate, that action was taken by the minister months before these gentlemen saw his department at all.


Haughton Lennox: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Paterson) allow me to ask a question? He has repeated his statement about ten thousand and seven thousand copies going out. Each member receives seven or eight copies, making two thousand in all. What becomes of the rest?


William Paterson: I am speaking merely from memory and am willing to be corrected if I am wrong. Tell me the number.
Mi-. LENNOX. Two thousand.


Mr. LAKE.: Can we have the ten thousand ?


William Paterson: I do not know anything about it; that is a matter for the Printing Committee. It is going out in thousands at any rate. There is no attempt to hide it, is there?


Haughton Lennox: I don't know.


William Paterson: It has been in the papers. At any rate, it is shown that the minister, months before these men saw his department, had recognized the weakness of the system and had engaged professional and expert accountants to inaugurate a new system of bookkeeping by which he will be able to check purchases made through the outside agencies of the department. That system these commissioners report to be a great advantage mechanically, but probably little more. I will not stop to ask whether that was a well considered or a fair expression on the part of the commissioners, for I am not here to criticise them. But if one were criticising he might ask how these men could know that the system was of little use, for that was a matter to be determined in the future and by experience. The minister was carrying on his reorganization. What does these hon. gentlemen opposite want? I would like to ask the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Poster), if he were in his place, or the hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart), they being the only two gentlemen who have had the responsibility of administering a department, what either of them would have done if he had been at the head of a department and a report of this kind had been made? To hear hon. gentlemen opposite talk one would suppose that it was the duty of these commissioners to go into the Department of Marine and Fisheries, turn the minister out of doors and reorganize the business themselves. They did their duty when they pointed out what seemed to them weakness in the department-just as they did in my department. I have no fault to find with them for pointing out these weaknesses, for if there is anyone interested in knowing the facts concerning the management of the department it is the minister in charge. A minister values his reputation as hon. gentlemen opposite value theirs. If he has any ability he wants to exercise it and wants to get due credit for exercising it and for doing the best he can. What could these commissioners do except to point out where they thought weaknesses existed? The Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) will not object to that. He will look through their recommendations and if he agrees that there are weaknesses he will strengthen the department at those points. That is what I would do in my department.
They did not come into my department, the inside. They asked the commissioner if Mr. Bazin and Mr. Fyshe would be allowed to come in. Why, he said, most certainly. And so they would. I would be glad to have them go through, and if they found any weakness, if they could suggest any better way of managing anything in my department, and my judgment agreed with theirs, I would adopt it. I may be egotistical, but I believe that I can run my department better than they can. I am not going to say that I would neglect any good suggestions they might make to me. I would examine their suggestions. I would test them, but I would not adopt them if they did not commend themselves to my judgment-not if I were a free agent. Even though these gentlemen should go cursorily through my department and think they saw on the surface some weak point which they thought could be remedied, I would listen to their suggestions, and I would accept them if I thought they were an improvement. If they found that some of the work was being duplicated in the Marine Department, if they found that some of the officers had not carried out their instructions, why, I have no doubt that my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) would see what he could do to improve matters. He started in to do this months ago, and he is at it now. and he will accomplish it. I say to hon. gentlemen opposite that in all fairness they had better wait and see in what shape he gets his department, wait and see What the report of Judge Cassels is. The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) says he is going to wait, he is not going to pronounce judgment until he sees the report of Judge Cassels. He is a wiser and more prudent man that the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Northrup) and some other gentlemen who are willing to judge the minister before they see the report. It would not be the part of wisdom for the minister to sit in a judicial capacity on these men in his department who are charged with being corrupt and dishonest; he asks for the assistance of a judge to look into the facts, and he gets that assistance. When the report is made it will be his duty to examine it and see if there are any suggestions in it that will improve present conditions, and if he finds any that commend themselves to his judgment, I have no doubt that he will give effect to them. Hon. gentlemen opposite have taken two lines of argument. First they object to this commission because they say it is going to review the work of the previous commissioners and upset it. Nothing of the kind. There are two specific instances which the commissioners give as acts of maladministration, namely in the purchase of coal and in the purchase of flour, but they did not follow their inquiry far enough to learn the facts of the case. But they put these two charges in their report, and that report goes out wherever this volume goes. The commissioners also make a statement with reference to my department, I do not speak of this with any idea of weakening their statement, but only to point out that in the short time at their disposal they were not able to get at the real facts of the case and to explain the situation fully and fairly to the people. The hon. member for Peel read

something that they said about my department in the outside service. He read this:
Many of the inspectors are in a similar position, and under a clause in the Civil Service Act waiving the examination of persons appointed to positions requiring special and technical qualifications, almost all the appraisers in the outside service of this department have been appointed without undergoing the civil service examination.
Yes, that is true I believe, in some cases it is, and I have never been able to see yet that a man passing the civil service examination was thereby a better appraiser than one who had not passed it.


Richard Blain: Will the hon. gentleman read the balance of that section ?


William Paterson: I am coming to that I think it was a collector of customs at Quebec that they were questioning, and I think he said that according to his recollection one man had been plucked because he did not know who the Druids were. He could not get through. Now I do not care whether an appraiser knows who the Druids were or not, but I want him to know whether goods are linen or cotton, or something else. In our department we need to appoint men who understand their business, and all the collegiate institutes or university training in the world will not make a man a good appraiser if he knows nothing about the quality of goods. But no man has been appointed appraiser without undergoing the technical examination which is prescribed in the Act and which is given ]him Iby a superior officer. If he passes that successively he is recommended to me by the commission.


Richard Blain: Were there any cases of men who were plucked?


William Paterson: There may have been some cases where applicants to appraiser-ships were plucked because they were not sufficiently conversant with their business.


Richard Blain: The commissioners complain that my hon. friend appoints appraisers who do not pass the civil service examination. My hon. friend says they do not require to pass it, but he has a special examination for them. Now when one of his supporters in the House recommends to him a man for an appraiser, has any one of these men been rejected because he could not pass the special examination he refers to ?


William Paterson: I cannot remember. But if none of them were rejected, it would show the discernment of our supporters in the House. But I only want to tell the hon. gentleman that he is not appointed on the recommendation of a member of the House unless he passes a practical examination. That is what we start with.


Richard Blain: Although the commissioners condemn that policy of appointment Mr. PATERSON.
without passing the civil service examination my hon. friend is not going to pay any attention to their recommendation ?


William Paterson: Their judgment and mine do not run in the same direction. Passing the civil service examination would not hurt a man. It is a literary examination. Who were the Druids ? What happened in King Charles time ? and so oh. It would not hurt a man provided he had the technical knowledge as well, but to require a man to pass the civil service examination alone, which is purely literary and to accept him as an appraiser on that is not, I think my hon. friend will agree, the wisest thing to do.	-


Richard Blain: What I say is that when we have the civil service examination my hon. friend should either apply it to the officers of his department or else.abolish the examination altogether.


William Paterson: That is not necessary, because a part of the Civil Service Act expressly states that in the case of technical officers the civil service literary examination may be dispensed with.


Richard Blain: Make it easy for political purposes.


William Paterson: No, no ; that is the Act. Now, the hon. gentleman asks me to read a little farther :
In the service of this department

That is In reference to the Customs Department-
-there are many anomalies and incongruities. In order to avoid the necessity of an examination a new class has been created under the name of ' examining officers/ a class not found in the schedule to the Civil Service Act.
Is that the point that my hon. friend wanted me to read ?


Richard Blain: Yes:


William Paterson: I am very glad he did. I ask the attention of the House to that especially as my hon. friend has called attention to it. It is a little valuable because it shows the care that was exercised by these gentlemen. There is a direct statement that :
In order to avoid the necessity of examinations a new class has been created under the name of 'examining officers/ a class not found in the schedule to the Civil Service Act.
Well let us see. Section 39 of the Civil Seivice Act reads as follows :
Notwithstanding anvthing in this Aot a person who has served over three years as an officer or acting officer in the outside service of the customs may be appointed an examining officer in such service subject to such examination on the 'duties of office and other qualifications as is prescribed by the

deputy head in a report to be concurred in by the head of the department.
There it is. This commission say it is not to be found in the schedule of the Act.


Richard Blain: Is it found in the schedule to the Act ?


William Paterson: Yes, look at page 20, Schedule. First there are the 'higher classes,' next * technical officers,' next ' other classes ' such as ' examining officers (including lockers and landing waiters) ' with salaries from $400 to $1,000. That is going out in all these thousands of copies all over the country. It is going out to say that in order to avoid examination I have created a new class under the name of examining officers.


Haughton Lennox: That is your royal commission ?


William Paterson: Yes.


Haughton Lennox: Appointed by the government.


William Paterson: I was not finding fault with it. I do wonder, however, that they should have overlooked the Act and not only overlooked the Act but should have put in the report a statement which, as you can see for yourself, is absolutely the reverse of what is in the Act. It is charged that I adopted this new class in order to avoid examination. You gentleman are guilty with me in this matter. A few years ago I was impressed with the fact that we had in the service scores and scores of men, some of whom had been appointed twenty-five years, some eighteen years, some fifteen years, some twelve years, and some later, under ourselves, although the great bulk of them had been appointed by my predecessors who were, to all intents and purposes, permanent officers. Year in and year out they were there. They were paid year after year, but they were not on the permanent staff, and, not being on the perma-staff, they were not entitled to their three weeks holidays a year and it, unfortunately, they became sick, the department had no power under the law to allow them their salary or to pay their wages ; whereas, if they had been on the permanent list they would have enjoyed the same treatment as that which those on the permanent list enjoy. Many and many-scores-I am not speaking extravagantly - of these men, faithful men, who had been there for years and years, and who were appointed in the days of my hon. friends opposite, were unable to pass the literary examination. I do not know whether I could pass it myself or not. I could have done so when I came out of school, no doubt. I question now whether it would not bother some of you to answer all the questions that are put. A number of these men who had been there for years and years could not hope to pass
this examination. Men who had given faithful service for years and years, 1 thought, were entitled to fair treatment. I introduced into this House a Bill to amend the Civil Service Act in order to enable that to be done. These hon. gentlemen opposite as well as gentlemen on this side of the House endorsed that Bill. They were parties to it. I hold it was right. I glory that I did it. Many of these men, faithful servants, serving as faithfully as any man who had passed the civil service literary examination, which is all that is required under the Act, were in the position that I have described. Instead of, as the commissioners say, appointing that class with the view of avoiding examination it is provided that when they have been three years or more in the service you can prescribe a practical examination for them in the duties of the office they are discharging and if they pass that successfully-and what more do you want-then, on my recommendation, they are put on the permanent list, the men's hearts and the hearts of their wifes and families are made glad and justice is done to them and the country. Was it to avoid examination ? No, it was not that they could be put on as preventive officers without any examination at all, but it was because I wanted them to undergo an examination in the duties of their office. What surprises me is that it escaped the attention of the chairman of this commission when such a sentence as this was put in their report.
He was secretary of the treasury board for a considerable time after this was inaugurated and the way the special examinations take place is this :	The officer applies for an examination, the commissioner prescribes the examination and I don't see it, it is sent to a superior officer who is generally the inspector of the . division, the officer undergoes the examination and if he is successful the inspector reports to the commissioner and the commissioner reports to me and recommends that the appointment be conferred, and that report passes through the hands of the secretary of the treasury board, and a number of such reports must have passed through Mr. Courtney's hands. How such a sentence could be inserted there baffles me and leads me to think that some one who did not understand the thing is a party to it and not Mr. Courtney. Is my hon. friend from Peel satisfied I have read that now. Now, Mr. Speaker, I believe that what the government have done in this matter will find justification in the country. While I recognize the right of the opposition to get all the advantage they possibly can in a fair and legitimate way, yet there is such a thing as pursuing certain tactics too far. I ask these gentlemen opposite : Have they in any degree whatever given fair play to that man who only came into his office two years ago and who of neces-

sity lias been absent from it for months and months together, and especially when that very report states that months and months ago he started to get the department into better shape. Appoint your commission again if you want it to go through my department. I will welcome it and so would the Minister of Marine and Fisheries welcome it, but we would like them to go to the bottom of things and when they do report to be sure that they report facts, especially when their report is to go broadcast over the country.


Richard Blain: What objection can the hon. gentleman have to referring the report back to these three gentlemen.


William Paterson: They finished their work. The government did not call them off. It was their duty to do that work and if they felt unwilling or unable to do it surely that is enough. We accept their work except where they make that insinuation or implied charge against the honesty of the officials of that department and we inquire into that. No man is more interested in having his department right than the minister in charge. And when these gentlemen opposite say the people of Canada will not be satisfied with our action, the true fact is that what they want is that the people of the country should not be satisfied. Did not the member for Beau-harnois tel] us that it means party advantage and gain to them, and how dear that is to their souls, their speeches of this afternoon show when they did not hesitate to insinuate against the honour of men of their own profession, and against the character either because of weakness or incapacity of an honourable judge who stands amongst the highest in the community.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I shall not detain the House long, but it would not be right to allow some of the observations of the Minister of Customs to pass unchallenged. The hon. gentleman said that the hon. member for Hastings complained that Judge Cassels should undertake such a limited task, and yet in the same breath declared him to be an upright, capable and honourable judge. No oue ou this side of the House refutes that. AVe do not complain of the character of the man but we do complain that the order of reference is so circumscribed that Judge Cassels can only deal with a small fraction of what in the interests of the country he should deal with. Did not the Minister of Justice complain that the old commission went outside of their order of reform ? Did he not cite two iustauces to prove this and did he not state that the allegations they made were not founded on fact. Then the Minister of Marine and Fisheries states that with regard to certain things in his department the allegations in that report are absolutely incorrect. When the Minister of Marine and Fisheries presented that report to the House Mr. PATERSON
he stated that some of the allegations in the report were wrong, and the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Customs endorse that statement, and they say another commission must be appointed presumably for the purpose of determining whether the allegations made by the first commission are right or wrong. This shows, Sir, that it is the Civil Service Commission that is on trial and not the department, and that is one of the reasons why the government were afraid to reappoint the same commissioners and allow them to finish the work which they declared they had not time to finish. The Minister of Justice stated that the leader of the opposition asked the government to appoint a Committee of the House or an independent commission, and that in appointing Judge Cassels they had followed the advice of the leader of the opposition. That statement is not correct. What the leader of the opposition said was that because the old commission had not inquired into one quarter of the things it should in the interests of the country have inquired into, and had only dealt in a perfunctory way with one or two departments, the matter should be referred either to a Committee of the House or to an independent commission to go through all the departments and to finish the work which the commission had only commenced. Has the government appointed Judge Cassels to completejhe work which the Civil Service Commission left off ? Not at all. They appointed a commissioner but thev limited the work of that commissioner and restricted him to an inquiry into one allegation against the Marine Department. That is not what the leader of the opposition suggested. Was the hon. leader of the opposition justified in saying that we required another commission ? If you take up the report of the commissioners you cannot reach any other conclusion. What did that report say ?
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. Heavy expenditures have been incurred without necessary consideration or supervision, and while no doubt the several officers have thought themselves justified, owing to the expansion of the revenues, vet such conduct is contrary to the public interests and. in the opinion of the commissioners, ought to be restrained.
That applies to any department, and therefore the leader of the opposition said that we wanted another commission to inquire into that subject. Then, the commissioners take up the question of certificates which are made to the effect that tlie goods were required for the public services and that the prices were reasonable and fair. On this point the commissioners say :
In the first place there is the question of certificates. These certificates are in general terms, that the articles have been received,

that the articles are necessary in the public interests, that the prices charged are according to contract, or that the prices are fair and just. In reference to the question of certificates, the Auditor General in his evidence pointed out that in one department he did not believe in the certificates received. This is a very serious affair.
The Auditor General did not regard the certificates as correct or reliable. Is this new commission to inquire into this subject ? Not at all; it is not in the order of reference. Then the commissioners say in regard to the Department of Railways :
Your commissioners are of opinion that in many instances stores are ordered unnecessarily, and it may be doubtful that a good quality is always delivered. Mr. Pottinger states in his evidence that it is his opinion that the amount paid by the Intercolonial Railway for coal was higher than it ought to be. In instances which have been brought to the notice of the commissioners stores have been received which were not wanted and which it is difficult to get rid of. In fact, at different points stores have been shelved where in all probability they were unnecessary.
Will the new commission inquire into that or touch the Intercolonial Railway ? Not at all. That is why we complain- because it has no power to inquire into these matters, which we think ought to be inquired into. I take another department, the Marine and Fisheries Department, as to which the commissioners report :
Your commissioners have spent a _ large amount of time in trying to get an insight into the general administration of the government business, as shown in the management 0f this department. They found that to make any efficient inspection was a matter of enormous difficulty.
Therefore they could Dot make the inspection they desired. Again 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, but there is no efficient organization.
Who is responsible for the efficiency of the organization ? Is it not the head of the department ? Then the report goes on to say :
It is practically impossible to fix the responsibility on anybody. . . 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. . . The lack of organization and of organizing power in the department has recently been very conspicuously and painfully illustrated. . . . There is not only a lack of efficient organization and method in the department. There would also seem to be a lack of conscience.
This new commission is not empowered to make inquiries into the various ramifications of thpt department. It is empowered only to inquire into the allegations made in the order of reference, which applies only to a few sentences of the report. The commissioners say further :
The extracts from the ' challenged accounts ' file show constant inquiries from the Auditor General as to prices, hut there is always some more or less satisfactory explanation, ending with whatever certificates may be necessary, and further investigation baulked.
And yet this new commission is not to go into that inquiry. Are we not justified in saying that it ought to be given wider powers? We are not objecting to the commissioner who is appointed to do the work, if he is only given the power necessary to enable him to go over the whole field. The commissioners say further :
A new officer was appointed in connection with it called the commissioner of lights, whose whole time is now given to its management although it includes the management of a lighthouse depot established at Prescott, where a great variety of work is carried on connected with the lighthouse and buoy service. Your commissioners have to report that in their commission this new departure has been a most unfortunate one so far as the efficiency of the special work is concerned; and it certainly has not added to the general efficiency of the Marine and Fisheries Department.
They follow that up by saying :
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.
Yet the new commissioner has no power to inquire into that. The commissioners follow that up by saying :
They have been able to go over only a very small section of even the Marine and Fisheries Department.
To do the work completely, that whole department should be gone over, and the new commissioner has no power to do that work.
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.
Yet the head of that department is the one responsible for the organization ; but the Dew commission has no power to inquire into that subject. It is because of this that we complain of the limited power given to Judge Cassels. The Minister of Justice argued that the other commissioners went outside of their order of reference ; and if the new commissioner went outside of his order of reference a similar complaint would be made against him. If there is one thing more than another that a



judge or a lawyer always keeps in view, it is that he must he guided by precedent, and all precedent seems to demand that a judge or a commission should keep within the order of reference ; and if they travelled outside of that, the government would condemn them, as the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Customs have condemned the Civil Service Commissioners. And then they have made the order of reference so narrow that he can travel over no field. They have touched on only one or two of the departments. We have many spending departments, we have the Post Office Department, and the great spending Department of Public Works, some transactions of which have been laid bare to the light of day. Even the Marine Department has only been dealt with in a perfunctory way. There is the Interior Department, which administers the lands of the country, the timber limits and immigration. The Militia Department has been barely referred to, and it has been declared that a great deal might be said of it. Then we have the Departments of Agriculture, Customs and Inland Revenue, which are not dealt with in detail. This new commission cannot touch any of these departments except the Department of Marine, and that, only with regard to one or two particular items in the report. It is because of this that complaint is made, and not because of the man who is appointed to do the work. We say there is more to be done and the country will not be satisfied until a full and free inquiry is made in all departments and a report made to the House, so that we will know where it is necessary to make amendments or to reorganize departments in the interest of economy and of honesty. When that is done and not until then, the country will be satisfied that the government have done their full duty in connection with these commissions.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Montreal-barracks for permanent corps,
Hon. WM. PTJGSLEY (Minister of Public Works).: This is a revote to provide towards the erection of barracks for one unit of the permanent corps in Montreal. A request for this building was made by the Department of Militia and it has been urged upon the Public Works Department upon several different occasions. Application was made as early as 1902 and it has been repeated since and the department is strongly of the opinion that this work should be undertaken. The appropriation of 1907-8 was the first vote.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why was it not commenced ?


William Pugsley: There is some land to be acquired by the Militia Department.
Mr. SPROTJLE
The department has made a sale of St. Helen's island to the city of Montreal, for the sum of $200,000 and it is intended by the Militia Department when this money is paid over to appropriate part of it for the purcahse of a site. My information is that Montreal is now about ready to pay over the money and in that case a special appropriation will be asked for in the supplementary estimates to buy the land.


Mr. AMES.: Is this vote conditional on the payment of the $200,000 by the city of Montreal ?
Mr. PUGSLEYr. I cannot say it is conditional. It is not likely that the erection of these barracks will be proceeded with until the money is paid over.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is it decided where these barracks will be erected ?
Mr. PUGSLEYr. No, I cannot say where they will be.


Herbert Brown Ames: That is the most important question. Montreal has asked for these barracks for a number of years and I understand the Militia Department have found it impossible to decide on the location. It makes a great difference to the city where it is located. The location may give universal satisfaction or cause general dissatisfaction.


William Pugsley: I cannot give the information but my hon. friend will understand that as in the case of a post office an effort will be made to locate it so as to give general satisfaction. The total cost of the building is expected to be $126,000. It is intended to provide quarters for single and married officers, men's barracks, hospital, guard room and cells, recreation room and also-fittings for the buildings.


Herbert Brown Ames: How much is to be paid for the land?


William Pugsley: It is not intended to pay for the land out of this, that will come out of the $200,000.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is it intended to build the barracks in the Parc Lafontaine ?


Mr. LEMIEUX.: There is great objection to having it built in that park. It is one of the few breathing places we have in Montreal and the citizens will object very strongly to having the barracks there. It is hard for the minister to say where it will be. If it is mooted that the land will be purchased in some part of the city, then as my hon. friend who has been in the council and understands land speculation knows, the competition for the sale of land to the department by speculators will be very marked. I do not think it wise now to say where the location will be.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is it intended to build in the Parc Lafontaine ?


William Pugsley: It would be impossible to say that ; I am not informed that the location has been decided on.


Herbert Brown Ames: The minister has said it would increase the price of land, but the park is the property of the government and that argument would not apply. I know that many citizens object to having it in the park and that is why I want to know if that question has been decided.


William Pugsley: I thought I was very frank, I said that I was not informed where the location will be.


Haughton Lennox: With reference to what the Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) has said as to keeping this matter secret lest publicity should enhance the price of the property, I think that, perhaps, this side of the House are getting a little tired of that excuse-for we regard it as little better than an excuse. We find it merely a means to facilitate the work of the middleman, who comes in and taxes the people an exorbitant price. Members of the House are aware, that we have expropriation laws which protect the government and the people. When owners demand an exorbitant price, the proper method for the government to follow is to take expropriation proceedings and secure the land at such value as men on their sworn testimony prove to be fair instead of repeating such experiences as we had in Halifax, through Mr. Lodge and others, of being salted for an enormous price for the benefit of a middleman. I for one, take no stock in this excuse that the government is afraid to say that they want a particular property because the price will be put up. We have honest men in the country who will swear to the true value, if the government will make an investigation under the Act and take the property. The person who asks an exorbitant price and does not get it has to pay the costs of the proceedings, and*\ after a few people have had experience of that kind, we shall get land at reasonable prices. Our experience has been that, while the government keeps the information from the House, they give it to one of their friends, on which he goes and gets options and the end is that we pay to this middleman a most exorbitant price.


Herbert Brown Ames: Can the minister tell us fwhether this building is to be used for artillery, cavalry or infantry, and what number of men it is expected to accommodate?


William Pugsley: It is for one unit of the permanent corps.


Herbert Brown Ames: Which includes


William Pugsley: I regret that the minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) is not here. He would be able to give the information. But my hon. friend (Mr. Ames) 2354
will understand that it is rather outside my department.


Herbert Brown Ames: Can the minister say whether this unit includes cavalry and artillery? That has an important bearing on the situation, because the choice of location should depend a good deal on the nature of the building and how it is to be occupied, If this means keeping a large number of horses in a building in a thickly-peopled part of Montreal, or in a public park, of course that would be a disadvantage. Unless such details are furnished us, we cannot know whether this money should be voted or not.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would it not be wise to wait until the Minister of Militia is here?


William Pugsley: This is only a re-vote.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But the information may not have been out last year, and it is desirable to get it out now.


William Pugsley: When the Minister of Militia is here and some other item is under discussion, if any hon. gentleman calls attention to this matter, there will be no objection to the Minister of Militia making an explanation as to the number of men to be accommodated.


Herbert Brown Ames: With that understanding, it will be all right
Montreal general past office-enlargement additions and alterations, including fittings, furniture, Ac., $70,000.


William Pugsley: This is a revote and it is required for the enlarging of the present quarters for the Montreal post office. As many hon. gentlemen are aware, there was an appropriation last session of $300,000. Out of that sum, a property which was owned by the proprietors of the Montreal ' Gazette ' was purchased, and a contract was let for the erection of a building on this site, the contract being for $487,537. In addition to which, of course, there will be other expenditures for heating, fittings, &e.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What will be the total cost?


William Pugsley: The total estimated cost, including site is $762,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was it in connection with the new post office that I saw that Mr. Wright had purchased an option?


William Pugsley: No, that was in connection with the new examining warehouse.


Herbert Brown Ames: Who has the contract for building this addition to the post office?


William Pugsley: Messrs. Peter Lyall & Son, Montreal. There were several tenders, of which Messrs. Lyall's was the lowest. A day or two ago, in answer to a question, I gave a statement as to the different tenders.


Richard Blain: I noticed in the newspapers an account of a banquet in Montreal tendered to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) at which a Mr. Lyall was chairman; is this the same gentleman?


William Pugsley: The very same gentleman-and a very excellent citizen of Montreal he is.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This would seem to be only an enlargement of the old post office?


William Pugsley: It is more than that. It is the building of an addition. The 'Gazette' property is on the opposite side of Fortification Lane from the post office, and is to be wholly occupied with the addition to the post office, connection to be made across Fortification Lane.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What area of land was purchased?


William Pugsley: I have not the figures relating to the land before me, but it will explain the matter as well, perhaps, if I say that the addition is to extend from the present post office building along St. Francois Xavier street to Craig street, 126 feet, and along Craig street 96 feet.


Mr. KEMP.: Then, this will be larger than the old building?


William Pugsley: I think so.


Albert Edward Kemp: Does the government need as large a place as that?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Oh, yes. The present post office was built in 1874, and as my hon. friend from St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) knows, is entirely inadequate for the postal service of Montreal. When the translantic mails arrive in Montreal, the condition of the post office is simply chaos. Even the offices of the postmaster and his assistants in Montreal are taken during the Christmas season for the foreign mail. Today we have no place for our employees, and it is a great relief to know that at last we are to have a decent building for our staff. The population is now nearly half a million. With the addition of the new suburbs Montreal is going far ahead of Toronto.


Albert Edward Kemp: But the revenue of the post office is not as great.


William Pugsley: In the statement I gave of the total cost I omitted the cost of acquiring in Montreal the right to utilize Fortification lane. The corporation require us to pay rent the same as they charge the Bank of Montreal. But they also agreed to commute that if we desired, and we decided to commute it into a capital payment I think of $11,000. That should be added to the total cost.


Albert Edward Kemp: I understood the government are spending some $762,000 in Montreal, and does he mean to say that the cor-Mr. PUGSLEY.
poration are asking the government $11,000 for the right to cross Fortification lane?


William Pugsley: The reason is that there is some law of general application, and the city requires us to pay the same as the Bank of Montreal. This building is to have a basement and a bridge 70 by 25 feet thrown over Fortification lane.


Herbert Brown Ames: The Montreal public have, I think, been long suffering from lack of conveniences in the post office. They have pointed out many times to the Postmaster General that there was great congestion in the old building. I hope the Postmaster General realizes that when this new building is constructed it will be necessary also to reconstruct the entire postal staff as well as the building. I have in my hand a letter which was published in the ' Star ' on the 8th April, signed by a well known lawyer, in which he draws attention to at least five cases where letters have been mailed and have never reached the parties to whom they were addressed. That I presume is largely due to the past state of affairs. We can only hope that when the new building is constructed there will be a complete remodeling, not only of the facilities, but also of the staff.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I must protest on behalf of the employees of the Montreal post office against a too severe criticism. There has been a wonderful improvement within a year or so. In the old days I know there were many complaints, due chiefly to the fact that the salaries were inadequate. I hope the new Civil Service Bill will provide better salaries for our employees. On the other hand, I am pleased to state that we have appointed as assistant postmaster in Montreal, Mr. Gaboury, who has given entire satisfaction to the citizens. The other day I was present at an interview with the members of the produce exchange and of .the board of trade and they highly complimented Mr. Gaboury on the success of his new methods. I am aware of this letter published in the 'Star,' signed by my friend Mr. McCormick. When I heard of the complaints I ordered an investigation. I gather from reports I have that Mr. McCormick might perhaps publish another letter to say that the fault was not in the post office, but in his own office. However, the investigation will prove who was to blame. Within the last eighteen months we have reorganized the letter-carrier service and put it in a very satisfactory shape. I hope if the citizens will be patient a little longer they will have just as good a system of delivery as there is in other large centres. I admit that in the Montreal post office for some years past there has been at work some influence which prevented the staff from doing its duty towards the public. But since the appointment of Mr. Gaboury there has been a marked change for the better.


Albert Edward Kemp: What influence does the minister refer to?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The old officers had lost all control over the later appointments. We had men there who had been in the service for forty years, and they had no control at all over the employees, for reasons which I need not detail to the House. But since Mr. Gaboury's appointment there has beeD a great improvement.


Mr. MORIN.: I would like to know why the people in the country districts should not be as well treated in regard to postal facilities as the people of cities. Why does the government build a post office in one place and refuse to build one in another equally deserving? I know of places with a population of 1,500 to 2,500 and the government will not build a shed for them. I will not speak of Dorchester county, for that has been on the blacklist for a long time. Put take the county of Beauce. The towns of St. Mary, St. Joseph, St. Francois; St. George, Tring, St. Ephraim and like towns have two or three thousand of a population, and yet you will find the post office in a little room eight by ten feet, and a person who goes in before you has to come out before you can get in. There is no accommodation whatever. The government do not even pay rent to the people who keep the post office. Why cannot you do a little more for the rural districts and do a little less for the cities?


Mr. TALBOT.: The hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) would not agree with that.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: I do not ask for a building in my own county. We have not one building erected by the government.


William Pugsley: I like to bear my hon. friend talk. He is very sensible and I think his views are very worthy of consideration. His views and mine are alike ; I am a very strong believer in giving accommodation to the public in the way of post office buildings in various sections of the country. Of course, as my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) said last evening, we must go slowly and people must be patient We cannot erect these buildings all at once. We are doing the best we can, we are proceeding with reasonable expedition and as the business of the country will permit.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Some people appear to be welcome aDd others are not.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I wish to say, in reference to the observation of the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Talbot), that the hon. member for East Grey does not agree exactly with him. What was the principle I laid down ? That where the government could not rent a building at a reasonable price they should erect one.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: That is just the reverse of the position taken by the hon. member for Dorchester. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) says that instead of building they should rent.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Whenever the government cannot rent a suitable building at a moderate figure they should erect one.


William Pugsley: You and the hon. member for Dorchester cannot agree.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member for Dorchester says that you do not even pay rent for these buildings.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The salary of the postmaster is based on the revenue and on the revenue also is based the rental allowance which is given to every postmaster. A post office which gives a revenue of $10 or $15 is not entitled to a large rental allowance.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is no rental for a small post office.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What rental is there for a post office which gives a revenue of $50 ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I cannot give it offhand, but I know there is an allowance.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is no rental at all. It is not always according to the revenue, because no matter what the revenue is the postmaster gets $50. That is according to the Act.


Rodolphe Lemieux: $35 is the minimum. As to the rental allowance, I cannot give the graduation just now, but it is based on the. revenue. I receive every day, letters from all parts of the country asking for increases and I spend my time signing letters explaining that the rental allowance is based on the revenue of the office.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: In the county of Montma-gny there was a man who had a house. He could not sell it and he could not give it away. He is a gentleman in the Senate. We must Dot mention his name at all ; his name is Mr. Choquette. Well, he got the Minister of Public Works to buy this building for $4,994.50. As I said last night, two years afterwards, the house fell down. What is the population of the town ? 1,600. When that building went down, they said : We must build one or buy one. These people had to be accommodated because Mr. Choquette lives there sometimes. The county is a Liberal county and no matter what takes place they must be accommodated. Here is the town of Levis with a population of 7,783 and a $49,000 building is being erected. Is there any equality in the treatment of the people in that case ? I will not say anything about Dorchester, but take the county of Beauce. Beauce has a population of 45,000 and there is not

a post office in it belonging to the government. The government have done nothing for the county in that regard. If you do not want to treat Dorchester right you are welcome ; we can get along without you ; we do not ask any favours, but why should you not treat the country on an equality ? It looks-I have said it in the House already and I am going to repeat it, and if the chairman wants to call me to order he may do so-as if the government were in this case, the biggest bribers in the world. Have I not heal'd time and time again members of this House say : I am afraid that I will be defeated in my county in this campaign, I am going to get them a post office or a public building or a railway, and that will help me. Then, they brag that they have got a building, or a wharf or a pier built in their county, and they say that it will help them.


William Pugsley: Would the hon. gentleman regard it as a bribe if we were to think it desirable in the public interest to erect a post office in his county ?


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Of course if we had to take your word we would do so, but you know very well you are not serious in what you say. If you are, I do not believe you. The government help these men to be elected in their counties. If a man has not the confidence of the people to be returned to this House, he should stay at home. Not very long ago, I heard a member boast that he had 65 miles of railway built in his county, and he would be elected for years to come, and another said his election was sure, because a wharf had been built in his county that cost $10,000 or $12,000. The government bribe people in that way, it may be indirect, but it is bribery all the same. In my county the government never spent a dollar, but we have to pay the bribes for other counties.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Morin) stated yesterday and he has repeated it to-night that Senator Choquette sold a building to the government for a post office and that after it was sold it fell down. Is the hon. member serious in making that statement ?


Jean-Baptiste Morin: I will tell you plainly, I don't want you to talk to me and I don't want to talk to you.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: I shall not resent that impolite remark of the hon. gentleman but I thought he might address the chair. The statement made by the hon. member with regard to the post office is not correct. In the first place only part of the roof fell down and at the time it fell it was not occupied as a post office. It was only when the whole thing was put in proper shape that the post office was located there.


Richard Blain: There was a total expenditure last year of $1,571 for a pneumatic Mr. MORIN.
tube system in Montreal which I understand has been abandoned. That requires some explanation. Then, the Postmaster General referred to the reorganization of the Montreal post office and he spoke of the deputy postmaster as carrying on this reorganization passing over the postmaster who is paid a large salary. Perhaps the postmaster was a political appointee and had no qualification for the office.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Harwood who was a-respected member of this House for years was appointed postmaster at Montreal, but unfortunately he had to .undergo a severe operation which was the occasion of his ill-health for a year and a half, and on account of which he could not give to his duties the attention which he otherwise would. Fortunately Mr. Harwood has now recovered and is able to discharge his duties in the Montreal post office. He is a very able man and is much respected in the office. When I spoke of the reorganization of the office I referred to Mr. Gaboury, because it is Mr. Gaboury who has special charge of the employees. Mr. Gaboury started from the lowest grade in the service and has attained to his present position through his own merits. Mr. Harwood and he are working hand in hand and I am sure the results of their labours will give satisfaction to the city. As to the pneumatic system, when Sir William Mulock was Postmaster General he intended to introduce that system in Montreal and Toronto. It has proved a success in large cities like London, Liverpool, Berlin, New Yoi'k and Chicago. But in view of the climatic conditions in Montreal and the large expenditure its installation would entail it was thought that for the present the money had better be applied to other more immediate needs in the postal service. Some pipe was purchased for the tube system and that can be sold by the Department of Public Works at any time.


Herbert Brown Ames: Was land purchased opposite the Bonaventure station for the pneumatic system and is that land still owned by the government.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I think it has been exchanged with the Grand Trunk Railway Company for another lot.


Herbert Brown Ames: Where is the lot that has been given the government to exchange for the lot opposite the station.


Rodolphe Lemieux: On Imperial avenue.


Herbert Brown Ames: What use does the government intend to make of the lot on Imperial avenue ?


William Pugsley: 
Mr. FOWLER.: Why did you not sell the original lot instead of trading it.


William Pugsley: It was thought we made a good exchange.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is this going to be a case of an exchange of a better for a worse article until iinally the money is lost?


William Pugsley: I think we made a very fair exchange.


Herbert Brown Ames: I understand that an extensive set of plans, costing nearly $9,000, were prepared by Mr. Maurice Perreault. These plans, I understand, were paid for by the government. In whose possession are the plans to-day? The city of Montreal had an experience of a similar kind with this gentleman, and he undertook to hold the plans.


William Pugsley: The chief architect tells me that the plans are in the department, the property of the department.


Herbert Brown Ames: If the government decide to construct a system of this character, have they the full right to use these plans?


William Pugsley: Certainly. They are the property of the department, and the department can use them at any time.


Herbert Brown Ames: I understand that the materials purchased for this system are still in the hands of the department, and. will be sold as old junk for whatever they will bring.


William Pugsley: We have a certain quantity of pipes in Montreal and also a quantity in Toronto.


Herbert Brown Ames: What is the value?


William Pugsley: I have not the particulars at this moment, as I did not expect this matter to come up under this item.


Richard Blain: I think this is rather important. Here we have a government purchasing a large quantity of pipes, purchasing land, getting out plans and spending a large amount of money in connection with a system which they have abandoned altogether. Among the items we find that they are paying $75 a month to a political supporter in Montreal for the storage of the pipes.


William Pugsley: We are not paying storage now. We are storing them on our own land.


Herbert Brown Ames: When did the rental for the storage of pipes cease, and what property was being occupied before by the storage of those pipes?


William Pugsley: The charge for storage ceased on the first of the present year, when the pipes were removed to a lot owned by me government, and were stored free of cost in a shed erected for that purpose.


George William Fowler: What qualification had this gentleman for making these plans ?


William Pugsley: He was an architect.


George William Fowler: And he was paid the sum of $9,000 to do what the chief architect at Ottawa, with his twelve assistants, could not do. Is this a part of that $100,Out) which was paid out so generously by this government to the architects of Canada, or is it in addition to that?


William Pugsley: I have no information that $100,000 was paid to architects.


George William Fowler: It was pointed out the qtlier day that the payments amounted to $100,000.


William Pugsley: That was the figure of the hon. member for East Simcoe, and I did not feel like taking the responsibility of the correctness of his figures.


George William Fowler: Does the minister say that $100,000 was not paid out to architects?


William Pugsley: I do. The hon. gentleman knows that included in the amount were moneys paid to the engineer in connection with the works at St. Andrew's rapids for engineering work, and also the amounts paid as prizes tor competitive plans.


George William Fowler: The amount paid to the engineer was a very small proportion of the whole, and I fail to understand the distinction which the hon. gentleman draws with respect to the prizes, which were payments to architects for plans, whether competitive or otherwise. They were plans for a new building that was to be erected by the government, and it was felt that the chief architect was not equal to the job, and therefore prizes were offered to other architects. I think the sooner the minister remodels his architectural department the better it will be for the country. It is one of the most outrageous things the way that branch of tne Puolic Works Department is managed.
Montreal military buildings-new stores building, $10,000.


William Pugsley: This is in tne same position as the item for the Montreal barracks. I am asking for a revote, and the purchase of the land will be made when the money is received from the city of Montreal. The contract has not been let, and will not be let until that arrangement is made.
Montreal new postal station S3- site and building, St. Catherine street, $20,000.


William Pugsley: This is for the completion of postal station B.


Albert Edward Kemp: What does that building cost, including the site?


William Pugsley: Incluuing everything, the cost will be $126,036.25.


Albert Edward Kemp: Is it expected that this will finish the building, and when will it be occupied?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I visited it on Sunday last.


Herbert Brown Ames: When will it be completed ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is completed; the men are working in the office.
Montreal, new postal station, Pointe St. Charles, $21,875.


Albert Edward Kemp: What will the site cost ?


William Pugsley: It has not been purchased, we expect to close for the site shortly.


George Eulas Foster: Have you no idea of the probable cost ?


William Pugsley: This is a revote. There has been difficulty in getting a site and plans will not be prepared until the site is obtained.


Herbert Brown Ames: What did Mr. Perrault receive on the buildings he constructed ?


William Pugsley: 5 per cent.


Herbert Brown Ames: On the extras too ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


George William Fowler: What was It expected that this pneumatic system would cost ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I think nearly half a million dollars ; we abandoned the scheme.


Albert Edward Kemp: To what account is the loss on that pneumatic tube system, which a merchant would call dead stock, charged ?


William Pugsley: When the money is paid out so much is charged and when the land and the pipes are sold that will be credited.


George William Fowler: Are you using the motor cars that were in use some time ago ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: No, we are not using motor cars although we may later on. They can only be used in the summer.


Albert Edward Kemp: In Toronto they were used all the year round.
Montreal, eastern postal station, $25,000.


William Pugsley: This is to purchase a site in St. James division of Montreal for the erection of a public building for n branch post office in the eastern part of the city. There has been a request by the Postmaster General for this as being very much needed for postal accommodation. This will be station ' C '.


George Eulas Foster: What will it cost ?


William Pugsley: Mi\ PUGSLEY. It is in the same position as the other, no plans have been prepared.


George William Fowler: Will it be better or worse than iSt. Charles ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Of course the people of the eastern portion of Montreal claim that they are as much entitled to a line postal station as those of the west. My hon. friend (Mr. Ames) knows how important Ste. Catherine Street has become ; it is now so to speak the boulevard of Montreal. From a postal point of view, we thought we should divide Montreal into three stations, the central post office, section ' B ' in the west and section ' C ' in the east. That other station at St. Charles will serve some of the suburbs that have been annexed or will be shortly.


Herbert Brown Ames: Does this come next to the Iloclielaga district ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I think the new postal station ' C ' will be built on the confines of St. James and St. Maurice divisions. It will be quite a distance from Hoenelaga.


Mr. CLEMENTS.: What class of pipe is it that is stored on this lot which you purchased for the purpose ?


William Pugsley: We did not purchase a lot for it, it is the ordinary cast iron pipe, 10 inches in size.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: The minister will agree that pipe deteriorates in value every day unless it is under thoroughly good cover and there must be a sufficiently good demand in Canada for pipe of that size for the government to dispose of it.


William Pugsley: We have been endeavouring to sell it and have received certain offers which we have not thought satisfactory. We are holding for a somewhat higher price.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: How much did the lot cost on which this shed is put ?


William Pugsley: It was bought some years ago, and I have not the figures in hand.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: What did the shed
cost ?


William Pugsley: A very small sum. We had the material on the lot and used that material. The cost was trifling.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The lot was not purchased for the purpose of storing the pipes. We purchased the lot near the Bonaventure station in order to have a station of our own near the railway. Before the new annex to the general post office was built, the newspaper part of the post office business took up too much space in the building. The bags containing the newspapers were sent to the central office, and there was al-

ways heaps of bags blocking the street and Fortification lane. We decided to have a special place of our own near Bonaventure station for our newspaper business. The different newspapers, the ' Star,' the ' Gazette,' ' La Patrie ' and others would send their bags to the station and they would be taken by the railways just across the street.


Herbert Brown Ames: Does the hon. minister say that this lot on Imperial avenue is to be used as the location of a station 7


Rodolphe Lemieux: No. The lot near Bonaventure station was got for that purpose. When we got the addition to the post office, that station was np more needed. So, we were left with the original lot on our hands. The Grand Trunk wanted the lot for some railway purpose and we exchanged the lot for the present one which is used for the storage of pipe. I do not pretend to know the conditions of the exchange.


Herbert Brown Ames: That is exactly the point I am trying to bring out. If we found the lot opposite Bonaventure station could not be used for the purpose originally intended, and the Grand Trunk wanted it, why did not the government sell the lot to the Grand Trunk for what they paid for it? Why did they exchange and get a lot on the side street, and now decide that they have no use for it and simply hold it ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend knows that if we get in exchange a value similar to that we should get in a sale, it is equivalent to a sale. The government has lost nothing.


Herbert Brown Ames: Would the hon. minister (Mr. Lemieux) rather have a real estate in Montreal or money in the treasury ? Which is the more liquid asset of the two ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: With the boom there is in real estate in Montreal, land there is as good as hard cash.


Herbert Brown Ames: I think the hon. minister will find it rather hard to dispose of the Imperial avenue property on the basis of value equal to that of the lot opposite Bonaventure station.


George William Fowler: I am afraid the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) does not understand the business methods of this government. In this case, they have simply done what they have always done. They always do the -wrong thing; never by any chance or accident do they do the right thing, the thing that any business man -would do. The Grand Trunk wanted this lot opposite Bonaventure station

naturally they wanted it to enlarge their premises. Having a lot in an undesirable portion of the city from a business standpoint, and. desiring to get rid of it, they went to the government which is an easy mark-for its friends-and proposed an exchange, and, of course, the government got the worst of
it. Probably the land they gave to the Grand Trunk was worth anywhere from three to five times that which the Grand Trunk gave to the government. That is the only way for this government to do business ; it is the way they have always done it. Instead of selling the lot as a business man would have done, they exchanged it for the property on a side street, which, I fancy, will be on their hands as long as they want a place to store pipes.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: What is the approximate value of the pipe held in Montreal by the department ? Also, what did the government pay for the 10-inch pipe ?


William Pugsley: I shall be glad to obtain that information for my hon. friend. He can understand that we are not dealing tonight with 'the question of the pneumatic system, a matter which was disposed of some time ago.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: So long as the minister will bring dow7n the information I am satisfied.


William Pugsley: I will get a complete statement of the cost and of the present situation.


Herbert Sylvester Clements: And I would advise the government to dispose of that pipe for thel best price they can get. The sooner they get out of it the better.


William Pugsley: I agree that we should dispose of it, but at a fair price.


Richard Blain: On page Y-43 of the Auditor General's Report, I find an item in connection with the postal station on St. Catherine street :
Thomas Parent, clerk of works, 274 days at $3, $822.
Wrhat special qualification had this gentleman for this office ?


William Pugsley: He was employed in 1900. I have no definite information on this point to-night, but I am told that he was an experienced builder.


George William Fowler: Perhaps the minister could tell me what official in his department made the negotiations for the exchange with the Grand Trunk of these two lots that have been referred to.


William Pugsley: I cannot give that at once, because it was done quite a while ago and before I came into parliament.


George William Fowler: Will the minister bring down that information ?


William Pugsley: I shall be glad to do so.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: To verify the statement I made some time ago to the Postmaster General that in the smaller offices he does not give any rent allow-ance,* I would refer him to appendix D of his report. He will find there such offices as Havelock, Hawk

Lake, Hawley, Hawthorne, and so on, and in none of these is there any rent allowance.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is included in the salary.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But the salary in these cases is $18.75. How much would the hon. gentleman allow for rent ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is more than that for salary, surely.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then, the hon. gentleman's report is no use.


Rodolphe Lemieux: These post offices may have been opened after part of the year had passed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The report gives forwarding allowance, salary based on the revenue of the previous year, $18.75, in a number of these cases.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is for part of the year only. These post offices may have been opened late in the year. In the salary are included the rent allowance and the fuel allowance.
Montreal-new examining warehouse, $405,000.


Mr. PUGS  LEV@: This is to make provision for the balance due on the purchase price, which was $402,000. An agreement for the purchase of this property was arrived at some time ago for the sum of $402,000, but the payment is not to be made until the 1st of May. We expect probably that the time will be extended to 15th July. We agreed to pay $10,000 in cash, and the balance with 5 per cent interest. This amount will make 5 per cent interest up to 15th July next. The property was purchased upon the urgent representation of the collector of customs, Mr. White, at the port of Montreal, and Mr. McDougall, the Commissioner of Customs. Their opinion was that this was an ideal site for the customs building, and an opportunity arose to acquire the property. It consists of 07,800 square feet. It has a frontage of 495 feet on the north side of McGill street, and is substantially a lot of 400 feet by 140. There are a number of old buildings on it. The property is the old Grey Nunnery property, and is situated nearly opposite the new Grand Trunk offices. Mr. White's opinion was that the opportunity to purchase this land ought not to be allowed to pass. The question was forced to the front by reason of the lire which occurred when the examining warehouse was injured. It is supposed that this will be used for a custom house as well as an examining warehouse. We have not decided when we shall start to build.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: $10,000. you say, was paid to secure the lot. Has the government become bankrupt that it had to pay in instalments?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 


William Pugsley: This $10,000 was required to be paid by Governor General's warrant, and the collector of customs secured the lot by making this payment on the option.


Albert Edward Kemp: Is the property revenue producing at the present time?


William Pugsley: There are eight tenants on the property, paying a rental of about $4,800.	[DOT]


Herbert Brown Ames: Can the minister give us an assurance that the work of erection will be undertaken at an early day? Since the fire in the Montreal custom house this work has become imperative, and we would be glad to know that the plans will be made and the wo-k commenced soon.


William Pugsley: I cannot give any assurance to-night. We are spending a good deal of money in the city of Montreal, and having acquired the land at a large expense, we think we have done pretty well. I am not able to say when the new building will be commenced.


Herbert Brown Ames: When the government determine to build, will an opportunity be afforded to architects to submit plans?


William Pugsley: I cannot say.


George William Fowler: I thought all these plans for public buildings were prepared in the depai'tment. We would like to have an assurance that in this case they will be prepared in the department.
Mr. FIELDING, One hon. gentleman wants competitive plans, and another wants them made at Ottawa.


William Pugsley: I cannot give an assurance to both.
Mr. FOWLER, In the interest of the country I would like to have that assurance from the minister to-night. Will this expensive staff of his prepare these plans?


William Pugsley: I may say to the hon. gentleman that the practice of the department is to prepare the plans in the department, and I have no reason to supnose that that practice will be departed from in this case.


George William Fowler: The practice is quite otherwise.


William Pugsley: With some few exceptions.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That proves the rule.


George William Fowler: It is delightful to have the minister with a wave of his hand say ' with some trifling exceptions,' when we are paying out $100,000 for architectural assistance. I hope the Minister of Public Works will insist that the Architectural Department shall be something more than an Architectural Department in name only and that it shall actually do some work for the

country. It seems to be more ornamental than useful.


Albert Edward Kemp: I have totalled up the expenditure which it is contemplated to undertake in connection with new post office facilities in Montreal, including the addition to the post office, station B, station 0 and the Point St. Charles station, and it makes altogether $1,126,272. Adding to that the new examining warehouse site, which has cost $405,000, you have a total of $1,531,272.


William Pugsley: Montreal has got to be a very important city. Last year the revenue from customs duties was $11,433,595, and from excise $4,496,431. The exports were $70,000,000 and the imports $73,000,000.


George William Fowler: Does the minister mean by that that the city of Montreal did all this? How much of it was contributed by the country around ?


William Pugsley: Do you desire to vote against this item?


George William Fowler: I think it is a poor piece of business to spend over $400,000 to buy a site you do not propose to use.


William Pugsley: I did not say that.


George William Fowler: You said that you did not propose to use it now.


William Pugsley: I said I could not give any assurance when the work would begin.


George William Fowler: You are not proposing to use it or you could give that assurance. You are renting it for $400 a year which does not represent one per cent upon the value. The taxation upon it will be heavy.


William Pugsley: There does not happen to be any taxation.


George William Fowler: Well, that is very fortunate. If there were it would absorb the whole amount of your revenue.


Richard Blain: I would like to ask the government for some information in regard to the amount of $25,000 which was paid in connection with this new pneumatic tube system. An architect was employed to prepare plans for the building that it was intended to erect, and the government have paid that architect more than $7,000 for the preparation of plans that were of no value to the government or anybody else. The government have purchased tubes and have paid large amounts of money for them.


William Pugsley: How do you know they were purchased in the United States?


Richard Blain: I think that Sir Wm. Mu-loclc said in the House they were purchased in the United States or in the old country.


William Pugsley: My information is that they were purchased in Glasgow.


Richard Blain: Well, they were not made in Canada anyway. The department, after proposing to adopt a pneumatic tube system and after paying out a large amount of money, abandoned the whole scheme both in Montreal and Toronto. One would have supposed that when a new system was being adopted it would have been sufficient to have experimented with it in one city rather than in two.


Rodolphe Lemieux: But the old rivalry.


Richard Blain: The hon. Postmaster General has stated that the' total expenditure in connection with this pneumatic tube system if completed would have been nearly half a million dollars.


William Pugsley: I am going to bring down a statement in regard to the pneumatic tube system showing what it cost and the quantity and value of the property on hand.


Richard Blain: I would like my hon. friend to produce before the committee at some future date a statement of the total expenditure of money for every purpose by this government in connection with the adoption of the pneumatic tube system in Toronto and Montreal.


William Pugsley: That is what I promised to do.


Richard Blain: At the same time showing what the government have on hand for the expenditure and what they propose to do with these tubes.


Albert Edward Kemp: I see by the Auditor General's Report, V-43, ' F. St. Germain, commission on valuation of property, $116.' I would like to inquire what property that was.


William Pugsley: I presume that would be the lot of land that was purchased.


George William Fowler: The Bona venture station lot?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Albert Edward Kemp: What would be the value of that property?


William Pugsley: In the vicinity of $25,-
000.


George William Fowler: Who did the buying of this $405,000 property?


William Pugsley: Mr. Wright.


George William Fowler: What pay did he get?


William Pugsley: He was employed by the collector, not by my department.


George William Fowler: Did the collector of customs in Montreal, on his own initiative without the instruction of the department buy this land ?


William Pugsley: The collector of customs being of opinion it was urgent this

lot should be bought, communicated with the commissioner of customs and the commissioner of customs authorized him to get an option upon the property and he employed Mr. Wright to do so. My information is that there was no arrangement as to what commission Mr. Wright should get or as to -whether he should get any commission. Mr. Wright has made a claim for commission which I have not recognized as yet.


George William Fowler: How much ?


William Pugsley: I think it is in the vicinity of $2,000.


George William Fowler: It is strange the collector of customs should take an option upon this lot on his own responsibility and pay $10,000 on the option.


William Pugsley: Not on his own responsibility. After he had made the preliminary arrangement the commissioner of customs came to me and requested me to approve of the option and I did.


George William Fowler: And this $10,000 was paid by Mr. White, collector of customs, out of his own privy purse ?


William Pugsley: It was paid by him, but I do not know out of what purse he paid it.


George William Fowler: Was it paid by the minister ?


William Pugsley: A few days afterwards it was.


George William Fowler: Never mind the number of days ; did Mr. White, collector of customs, pay this $10,000 out of his own pocket ?


William Pugsley: I do not know that. I believe he paid it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: To the best of my recollection, Mr. White was authorized and he authorized a special agent. The object was not to let it be known who was to buy the property, because the moment it was known that the government was purchasing, the government would have gone up. Mr. White rendered service in that way and it was quite creditable on his part.


George William Fowler: I have not as yet condemned the transaction, because I do not know what it is. It is laudable curiosity on my part, because it seems strange that a private individual should pay $10,000 to secure an option for the government. Did the collector provide the money himself.


William Pugsley: All I know is that when the commissioner of customs told me that Mr. White desired to purchase the property, I told him I could not supply the money because there was no Governor General's warrant. The arrangement was authorized Mr. PUGSLEY.
however, and Mr. Wright secured the option and a few days afterwards the Governor General's warrant was made out and the money transmitted to the Customs Department.


George William Fowler: Was there need for great haste ?


William Pugsley: There was.


George William Fowler: Was the property in the market ?


William Pugsley: Yes, and others were after it.


George William Fowler: The property had been offered for sale ?


William Pugsley: I believe not.
Nicolet public building, $10,000.


Herbert Brown Ames: This Nicolet building has been in course of construction for the last two years. In 1907 $204 and in 1908 $136 or in all $340 was spent in advertising for tenders which is 2i per cent of the total cost, or as much as the architect's fees.


William Pugsley: It is hard to please hon. gentlemen opposite ; if we don't advertise we are criticised, and if we do advertise we are criticised.
Mr. FOWLER, building cost ?


William Pugsley: over $20,000.
Mr. IfOWLER. works ?


William Pugsley: Mr. FOWLER, occupation ?
How much has the The total cost is a little Who is the clerk of Mr. Rivet.
What was his previous


William Pugsley: He was a practical builder, I understand.


George William Fowler: Do you find that in your notes or are you making it up.


William Pugsley: You should not suggest anything of that kind.


George William Fowler: How many days did he work there ?


William Pugsley: I cannot say.


George William Fowler: How long did his job last ?


William Pugsley: The contract was let on June 26, 1906, and it was to be completed October 30, 1907.


George William Fowler: It is quite a graft this inspector business.


William Pugsley: Don't say anything
nasty at this early hour of the morning.


George William Fowler: That is not nasty.


William Pugsley: When you mention graft it is very annoying.


George William Fowler: I quite understand it is
to the hon. gentleman. What do you pay this inspector a day ?


William Pugsley: Three dollars.


Richard Blain: I want to direct the attention of the minister to the precaution Mr. Hyman took when he appointed these inspectors. Mr. Hyman wrote a letter to those who nominated the inspectors which will be found in ' Hansard ' 1906, page 6730 :
In recommendations for inspectors, foremen or clerks of works, to have charge of the construction or authorized to oversee and inspect the erection or repairing of public works, it is imperative that the party recommended have a practical experience and be capable of thoroughly understanding plans and specifications and of seeing that they are properly and correctly carried out. Attention to this matter will obviate delays which have taken place through men being recommended who, on inquiry, were found not to be qualified for the work and. therefore, could not be employed.
The hon. minister at that time said :
A copy of that letter is sent in every case when recommendations are made.
Hoes the hon. minister carry out the policy laid down by Mr. Hyman ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Richard Blain: Will the hon. minister lay on the table the letter addressed to this gentleman and his reply at the next meeting of the committee ?


William Pugsley: All I can do Is to give the hon. gentleman the form, which is a printed form on which the blanks are filled in.


George William Fowler: Not only is this a printed form, but it is a mere form. It has no practical effect, and is not intended to have any practical effect. The only object of having this form of letter is to bring it down to this committee when the matter is under discussion. It is sent out or course, but the man who receives it pays no attention to it, and probably throws it into the waste-paper basket, fine hon. member for Peel must know that.


Herbert Brown Ames: In making calculations for public buildings for the coming year, does the hon. minister calculate on the same length of working day as hitherto ?


William Pugsley: I know of no difference.


Herbert Brown Ames: Then, am I to understand that the Bill introduced by Mr. Verville for an eight-hour day will not be allowed by the government to pass?


William Pugsley: That would be a farfetched conclusion.


Herbert Brown Ames: The minister has just stated that the length of the working day would be the same as hitherto.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is the hon. gentleman in favour of an eight-hour day?


Herbert Brown Ames: It is quite evident that the government is not in favour of it.
Plessisyille-public building, $2,000.


William Pugsley: This is a revote. There was an appropriation of $3,000 last year, of which $2,800 was paid for the site.


George William Fowler: What is the size of the village?


William Pugsley: Its population in 1901 Was 1,300.


George William Fowler: How large is the site ?
Mr. PUtxSLEY. It is a corner lot, 50 feet by 100 feet.


George William Fowler: From whom was it
bought?


William Pugsley: From Mr. Beausoleil.


George William Fowler: What is the total cost ?


William Pugsley: The plans are not yet prepared, but it is supposed that it will be about $25,000.


George William Fowler: What is the postal
revenue?


William Pugsley: It was $1,327.30 for the nine months.
Quebec citadel-drill shed for school of gunnery, $10,000.


William Pugsley: This is a revote. This drill shed has been urged by the Minister of Militia and Defence since June, .1905. He regards it as most important that the service should be provided with it. The minister states that there will be accommodation for at least one of every type of gun used in Canada for instructional purposes. He also says that in winter instruction cannot be given for artillery work unless all guns for instructional purposes are kept in premises which are heated. The minister has urged this very strongly, and it is proposed to proceed this year with the building.


George William Fowler: What is the total cost ?


William Pugsley: 


Richard Blain: As the Minister of Militia should be here to explain this item, I think that it had better stand.


William Pugsley: We had better finish Quebec.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: There, should not be so much delay at the beginning of the session. From November 22 to December 17 we did not earn enough to feed a cat and here we

are sitting at 1.30 in the morning and the minister is not satisfied with that.
Quebec .citadel-Governor Generali quari ters, repairs, furniture, &c., $2,000.


William Pugsley: This is to make provision for some renewals, repairs, &e., to the Governor General's quarters in the citadel. The chief item is painting, $1,020.


George William Fowler: At whose request are they made ?


William Pugsley: A request is made to the Public Works Department by the controller for His Excellency stating what repairs and improvements are needed.


George William Fowler: Is this on account of the festivities.


William Pugsley: NO, some further expenditures will be required which will be provided for in the supplementaries.
Quebec drill hall-addition to building and levelling ground $9,000.


William Pugsley: This is to raise the roof of the armouries and to extend the drill hall on some land which has been expropriated to afford much needed accommodation to the new corps to be formed, the present accommodation being entirely insufficient.


George William Fowler: We want information about this. Some people think that we have a sufficient number of these corps in the country. Is this cavalry, infantry or artillery ?


William Pugsley: I cannot give the information.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am sure it is infantry.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We are dealing with so many armouries to-night that the Minister of Militia should be present to give information about them. We receive only partial information, valuable information is not furnished ; we are going it blind.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Who was the owner of the land expropriated ?


William Pugsley: ' The name is not given in my note. The property is situated on Grande Alice.


George William Fowler: Perhaps the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Morin) could supply the name ?


Jean-Baptiste Morin: I know the man's name very well. That is why I ask you. He made a good many thousand dollars in a few weeks. And he is not the member for Dorchester, you can bet on that.


Richard Blain: If there are middlemen in this transaction, I think that should be explained.


William Pugsley: There are no middlemen.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: 


George William Fowler: What was the cost of the land ?


William Pugsley: It was $20,220.64. The land expropriated was 9,240 square feet. There are to be two additions to the building, one on each end.


George William Fowler: Did you buy land on both ends ?


William Pugsley: I think not.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Can the minister give us the name of the man who expropriated the land ?


William Pugsley: Three valuators were placed upon the property, but whether in connection with the expropriation or not I am not aware. They were Alex. Gauvreau, F. Turcott, and L. P. Sirois.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Three Tories. The man who owned the property, to blindfold the government, got three Tories to put a value on it, so as to hide the thing a little bit.


William Stevens Fielding: These Tories are always getting us into trouble.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: It was a trick. He knew that if Grits did the trick they would be blamed, so he got three Tories to do that kind of work.


Richard Blain: How much were they paid?


William Pugsley: This was four years ago, and I have not the figures at hand.


George William Fowler: This was bought in 1904. At what time in 1904 ?


William Pugsley: December 6.
Ml-. FOWLER. Oh, that was carrying out a pre-election pledge.


William Pugsley: How was that ?


George William Fowler: It was done just after election.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: That man did not need an election ; he is in the Senate.
Quebec examining warehouse-alterations, fittings, &c., $1,500.


William Pugsley: This is to put in an electric lighting system in the examining warehouse, as requested by the Customs Department in 1907.


George William Fowler: What does it cost to make the change ?


William Pugsley: 

Quebec immigrant buildings-additions, renewals, repairs, &c., $7,500.
Mr. PUGSLEY'. This is for work to be undertaken during the fiscal year.


George William Fowler: Is this let by contract ?


William Pugsley: No, it is a number of small amounts and done by day's work.

Quebec immigrant hospital for trachoma and kindred diseases in Savard park-reconstruction of building destroyed by fire, $5,000.


William Pugsley: The total cost of this work is $90,000.


George William Fowler: This is for the immigrants brought in by the government. The $5-a-head immigrants, I suppose. Is the contract let ?


William Pugsley: Yes, the building is finished.


George William Fowler: Who had the contract ?


William Pugsley: Messrs. Jinchereau & Lamonde for $05,000.


George William Fowler: How do you get it up to $90,000 ?


William Pugsley: There were a number of items. That made the total expenditure up to November 30, of $71,750. Then there is an amount due on contract, $7,018; wiring, $777: call bells, $285; sidewalks, fencing and water service, $1,400; furniture. $1,000; contingencies and superintendence. $3,030.


George William Fowler: I thought these people suffering from trachoma were sent back to the country from which they came.


William Pugsley: They cannot be sent back immediately, and even when they are deported, we have to treat them like human beings while they are awaiting deportation.


George William Fowler: Who was the clerk of works at the hospital?


William Pugsley: Mr. E. M. Talbot, the architect, was the clerk of works.


George William Fowler: The Auditor General's Report differs from the statement of the minister. I find that not only was there an architect, Mr. Talbot, who got a commission of $911, but there "was a clerk of works. Leo Yermette, and other clerk of works, D. J. Mullarkey.


William Pugsley: Mr. Mullarkey was sent from the head office here.


George William Fowler: We were told yesterday by the minister that this work was well inspected because Mr. Mullarkey was sent down as clerk of works. Now we have in this case an architect and we have two clerks of works. Mr. Mullarkey is paid $4 per day. So, the minister is badly informed. This only gives a partial account of the services of the clerk of works. The service is from July 1 to December 27. Let us see what further services were rendered by Mr. Vermette. Was there any further service?


William Pugsley: Not in my memorandum. You may have it in the Auditor General's Report. We have a resident
agent at Quebec and I suppose he was employed by him.


George William Fowler: Then who is Talbot ?


William Pugsley: An architect.


George William Fowler: Did he draw the plans ?


William Pugsley: No.


George William Fowler: What did he do ?


William Pugsley: He superintended the construction of the work.


George William Fowler: What did Mr. Yermette do ?


William Pugsley: He was engaged at $2 per day. I presume he was under Mr. Talbot.


George William Fowler: And what did Mr. Mullarkey do ?


William Pugsley: Mr. Mullarkey would be sent to make an inspection.


George William Fowler: But it was all inspected.


William Pugsley: Mr. Vermette appears to have been paid $2 per day. Mr. Mullarkey is employed in the department and he is an expert in concrete work although well qualified to inspect all buildings. He is sent out here and there by the chief architect to inspect work which is in progress of construction and that is the way he did in this particular case. I understood that when we were discussing some other items the department were commended for having an expert of this character to inspect works from time to time.


George William Fowler: No, that is not what was referred to at the time when that was spoken of ; it was another matter altogether. It was not in connection with Mr. Mullarkey. The minister stated that before these progress estimates were paid a gentleman went down from the department to inspect as to the progress estimates and that was commended as being a proper thing to do. Here we have an architect employed in connection with this work. Did Talbot draw the plans ?
Mr. PUGSLEY'. They were drawn in the department.


George William Fowler: All he did was to inspect ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


George William Fowler: Would the minister bring down information as to how much was paid to Mr. Talbot, Mr. Vermette and Mr. Mullarkey in connection with this detention hospital ?
Quebec military buildings-main store building at Dominion arsenal, $21,000.


Herbert Brown Ames: This is an item in regard to which there is a wonderful lack of information. The minister who is supposed to

give us information on military matters lias not been here to-night, and it is unfortunate that when an item of $20,000 or $30,000 is called we cannot get the information which we require.


William Pugsley: This item is to make provision for the construction of a main stores building at the Dominion arsenal. The land was purchased on the 6th of October, 4906. It is situated at the corner of Carle-ton and Arsenal streets.


Richard Blain: Will the hon. gentleman give us a list of the papers in which the advertisement was inserted ?


William Pugsley: I could not this evening but I would be glad to do so if the hon. gentleman thinks it important.


Richard Blain: What is the policy of the department in that regard ? Is all the advertising given to his political friends or is the advertisement inserted in the principal papers in the district ?


Herbert Brown Ames: Who was it purchased from and at what cost ?


William Pugsley: From A. Grenier at a cost of $3,000. The building will be three storeys, built on stone and cement foundations with a frontage of 91 feet on Carle-ton street and 53 feet on Arsenal street.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: cost ?


William Pugsley: Mr. FOWLER, [DOT]drawn ?


William Pugsley: at Ottawa.
Mr. FOWLER, works ?
What is to be the total $50,587.82.
Where were the plans The plans were prepared Who is the clerk of


William Pugsley: The supervising architect is Rene Lemay.


George William Fowler: Aud there is no clerk of works ?


William Pugsley: I have no memorandum of that here.


George William Fowler: There is nothing there about Mr. Yermette ?


William Pugsley: No.


George William Fowler: There is something about Mr. Yermette in the Auditor General's Report. His salary is $2 per day and there was $64 paid to him.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was this work let by contract ?


William Pugsley: 


Thomas Simpson Sproule: of the contract ?


William Pugsley: Yes.
What was the amount $34,777.


William Pugsley: The general rule is that we select a number of the leading newspapers in the district where the works are to be advertised. I think I am safe in saying that the newspapers selected are friendly to the government.
iMr. BLAIN. In every case ?


William Pugsley: Not in every case, but in the great majority of cases. We are careful to see they are newspapers of large circulation, so as to give full publicity to the advertisement.


Richard Blain: Then I am to understand that in no case is an advertisement inserted in a Conservative newspaper?


William Pugsley: If the hon. gentleman desires. I will be very glad to bring down a list of the newspapers in which this advertisement was inserted.


Richard Blain: What is the policy of the uepartment in this respect?


William Pugsley: The policy of the department is to advertise as widely as is thought necessary to give full publicity to the call for tenders.


Richard Blain: If a work is being done in a town where the Conservative newspaper has the largest and widest circulation, is the advertisement inserted in that newspaper?


William Pugsley: Such a case has not yet been brought to my notice in the short time I have been minister as a Tory newspaper having tue largest circulation, but if such an unusual thing should occur I would consider the matter.


Richard Blain: In my own town the Conservative newspaper has the largest circulation.


George William Fowler: And the total cost ?


William Pugsley: $50,587.82, but that includes the cost of the site, heating, electric wiring, fixtures, sidewalks, fences and elevator.


Richard Blain: There is an item of $332 for advertising. Will the minister explain that ?


William Pugsley: That would be advertising for tenders in the various newspapers.


Herbert Brown Ames: 


William Pugsley: What is the name of your town?


Richard Blain: I do not propose to take these flippant jokes from the minister. It is all very well for him to joke over these large expenditures, but it is a serious matter. The Conservative paper has the largest circulation in my own town, it is so in the adjoining county and it is so in South Simcoe.


Haughton Lennox: Two or three of them.


Richard Blain: I could name them by the hundreds in the province of Ontario.
Mr. SPROULE, You may mention Owen Sound, Meaford and Collingwood.


Richard Blain: The hon. minister has not been very much in Ontario.


William Pugsley: No. I hope to be more.


Richard Blain: I hope so, and I hope the minister will treat these expenditures more seriously. Then we are to understand that the policy of the department is that these advertisements are not to be inserted in Conservative newspapers.
Mr. CAltVELL. Cut it short.


Richard Blain: The hon. gentleman was cut short in the elections in his province the oilier day.


Mr. CARVELL.: That is ancient history.


Richard Blain: It is not, as the hon. gentleman will find when he goes back for election. Is it the policy of the Minister of Public Works to advertise for tenders in the largest newspapers regardless of their policy ?


William Stevens Fielding: That has always been the policy in the past ?


Richard Blain: It has not been the policy of this government in the past.


William Stevens Fielding: Or the other governments.


Mr. GRAHAM.: Is it the policy of the Ontario government ?


Richard Blain: The hon. gentleman was a member of the Ontario government, and he ought to know.


George Perry Graham: I am speaking of the Whitney government.


William Pugsley: Would I offend the hon. gentleman (Mr. Blain) if I asked him whether he was in favour of this item or not ?


Richard Blain: The Minister of Public Works might try by asking me the question. I hope he will not deal with these questions in such a flippant manner.


William Pugsley: I was curious to know if the hon. gentleman objected to the item.


Richard Blain: I want to know if any of this $500 was paid to any Liberal-Conservative newspaper.


Alexander Johnston: Not very likely.


Mi. BELAND.: If that is for a public work in Quebec, I can say that it was advertised in the Quebec * Morning Chronicle.'


Alexander Johnston: We will have to see aoout that.
23G


Mr. DUNCAN ROSS.: I hope it won't occur again.


Richard Blain: I want the hon. gentleman to bring down a list of the newspapers in which this was advertised.


William Pugsley: I shall be pleased to.


Richard Blain: And I shall also ask him to announce the policy of the department in this matter at a future sitting.


William Stevens Fielding: I hope my hon. friend (Mr. Blain) will, in the meantime, look into the policy of some few years ago, because it would strengthen his case very much if he could show that under the Conservative government any Liberal newspaper got an advertisement.


Richard Blain: Whenever wrong-doing by this government is pointed out, the Finance Minister flies to a comparison with the old administration. He thinks it is right to advertise in party newspapers alone because the Liberal-Conservative government did it in days gone by. Surely that is not a sufficient answer. What I say is that where there is a Conservative newspaper which has the largest circulation in a town where work is going on, the department should advertise in that [DOT] newspaper.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend really must not expect us to be too good. We are rising to great heights of virtue, but I am afraid we cannot get as much superior to the former government as the hon. gentleman wishes us to be.


George William Fowler: The hon. minister seems to think that there are no towns where Conservative papers have a larger circulation than Liberal papers. I could point to towns in the province from which he comes where that is the case. The Conservative newspapers in New Brunswick enjoy by far the largest circulation among the mass of newspapers in that province. Why was it found necessary to pay $332 for advertising for these military buildings when the advertising for the immigration building cost only $85 ?


William Pugsley: I cannot tell that. There may have been a wider circulation given.


Mr. CROCKET.: Were the advertisements confined to the Quebec papers?


William Pugsley: No. They would take in the Montreal dailies, and possibly the Ottawa dailies, besides the weekly papers in the district.
Quebec east public building, $30,000.


George William Fowler: What is this for?


William Pugsley: The post office at St. Roch's.


George William Fowler: What did you pay for the site?


William Pugsley: 


$23,400, REVISED EDITION COMMONS
George William Fowler: What is the total cost of the building?


William Pugsley: It has not been erected yet.


George William Fowler: How was the land purchased?


William Pugsley: By arbitration.


Herbert Brown Ames: From whom was it bought?


William Pugsley: From three different owners. As it was done very recently, I have not the names here.


Herbert Brown Ames: Who were the arbitrators ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. McCarthy, the engineer at Quebec, was the one acting for the government.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the building expected to cost when completed?


Rodolphe Lemieux: About $50,000.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What was the price the owners asked for the land?


William Pugsley: I do not know what the owner asked, but he is dissatisfied -with the award.
Sherbrooke drill hall, $20,000.


William Pugsley: This is for a drill hall at Sherbrooke on a site which has been already acquired. The contract has been let for the sum of $82,500.


Mr. STANFIELD.: We have passed four or five items for militia buildings, and I think the Minister of Militia should be here to explain them. The Minister of Railways told me yesterday he did not think there would be enough money to put up a new station at Truro. I protest against these expenditures when there are other places where buildings are more urgently needed.


William Pugsley: The building is to be of brick with stone lintels, resting on a stone basement. The frontage is 157 feet on Bellevidere avenue.


Richard Blain: When will this be completed ?


William Pugsley: The contract is to be completed by November 7, 1909.
St. Henri post office-improvements, $1,200.


William Pugsley: This is to provide for a fire-escape ladder and the construction of a granolithic sidewalk and also a basement.


John Stanfield: Does the government pay the whole cost of the sidewalk ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


John Stanfield: The minister said the other day that the rule was to pay only one-half.


William Pugsley: I do not think the rule can be uniform ; in some cases the town Mr. PUGSLEY.
has the local improvement system and then they assess the owners of the property. The government, although not legally bound to do so, usually pays its share. The usual course is for the government to pay the whole cost of granolithic sidewalks around its own buildings.
St. Hyacinthe public building-improvement, repairs, &c., $2,500.


William Pugsley: This is to provide for a number of repairs and improvements, including a fire escape.


George William Fowler: Some friend of the government must be making fire escapes and selling them for these various public buildings.


William Pugsley: I understand that since that very deplorable accident in Montreal in which a number of lives were lost, a municipal by-law has been passed requiring fire escapes to be placed on all public buildings.
St. John's military buildings-stables for cavalry, $25,000.


William Pugsley: This is to make provision towards the erection of stables for cavalry at the military buildings there. The work is under way, the contract has been let and the total probable cost is $37,188. The stables will accommodate some 85 horses.


Albert Edward Kemp: How many cavalry are there at present.


William Pugsley: About 75.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think we should have an understanding that, when we are dealing with so many buildings for the Militia Department, we shall expect the Minister of Militia to be here to give us information as to the needs which are said to justify these expenditures.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman got every information.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. minister gave us no information on that point. He simply told us that this building was to accommodate 85 horses. He has not told us anything of the strength of the force at this place or anything to show why the building is needed. Somebody must have asked for the building and 'must have asked for it on some data.


William Pugsley: I gave the number of horses and men.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In a number of cases, my hon. friend (Mr. Fowler) has asked questions, but got no information.


William Pugsley: I told the hon. gentleman this was for 85 horses and that the force there consisted of 75 men.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That was in this case, but in others in which the hon. gentleman

(Mr. Fowler) inquired, he got no information. We should have this information from the Militia Department. I do not know whether the minister (Mr. Pugsley) is sincere, or whether he is depending on jollying the House along. I think we should be treated more seriously, and I think we are entitled to all the information.


William Pugsley: What information would the kon, gentleman like with regard to this building ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am speaking of these items generally.


William Pugsley: But take this item.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I will take what items I like. On this page that we have been going over, we have a vote for a quarantine station, and about that we got a little information. There is a vote for an immigration building, and we got'very little information about that-the minister could hardly be expected to give it. There was a vote for the Montreal barracks, nut no one representing the Militia Department gave us information about that. The Militia Department is spending very large sums of money and the country is beginning to get a little restless, regarding this expenditure as extravagant. On the vote for Montreal post office we got practically no information. Here was a vote for another militia building in Montreal and we got practically no information in regard to that. Then we took up the Quebec drill hall and got no information about that, then another military building in Quebec, about which we learned very little. There was a vote for the drill hall at Sherbrooke, and we were referred to the honourable member for the riuing tiur. "Worthington), who happens not to be in his place and who, in any event, is not charged with responsibility of giving information to the House.
Mr. PUGSLEY'. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) says he gets very little information about these votes, but will he tell us what information he wants with regard to this vote.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I say that with regard to all these we are entitled to information from the Minister of Militia as well as from the Minister of Public Works, because the demand for these buildings comes from the Militia Department.
Mi-. PUGSLEY. If the hon. gentleman will tell me what information he wants


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am talking about all these votes, and I am not going to be put off in that flippant way by the Minister of Public Works, and I want him to understand that.


William Pugsley: You don't want the information; you want an excuse for talking against it.
236J


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not talking against time or trying to kill time. The way the minister has acted for the last two or three hours would indicate that he is not sincerely endeavouring to do the duties devolving upon a minister in this House, and I think I have the right to speak about it. When we are voting $6,000,000 or $7,000,000 to be expended for militia purposes every year, we are entitled to know what the money is to be spent for. When it is proposed to spend $80,000 or $90,000 for the militia building, as in these cases, we want to know why the building is needed and how it is to be used. It may be said that the Minister of Public Works cannot be expected to give this information, I admit that. But for that very reason, the Minister of Militia should be here to give us the information we require. If a vote relating to the post office comes up, the Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) is here to give us information. And, when we are voting money to put up these expensive buildings for the Militia Department, I think we shall expect and demand that the Minister of Militia be here to give us information.


William Pugsley: Does the hon. gentleman want information about this building at St. Johns ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many men and horses compose the force there ?


William Pugsley: There are seventy-five men and eighty-five horses.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much is this building going to cost ?


William Pugsley: The estimate is $37,188.79.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The country should know that for eighty-five horses and seventy-five men it is going to cost about $40,000.


George William Fowler: This is only for the horses, not for the men.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then, the information given is not correct.
Mr. PUGSLEY'. In what respect ? This building is for stables for the cavalry. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) asks how many horses are kept and how many men are in the force, and I tell him eighty-five horses and seventy-five men.


Oswald Smith Crocket: , How 'long have the cavalry been stationed at St. John ?


William Pugsley: About three years.


Mr. J. DEMERS (St. John, P.Q.).: Translation.) Mr. Chairman, I may say in connection with the item under discussion, that is the erection of stables for cavalry at the military school of St. John, that this school has 75 men in training, which involves the

use of 85 horses. These stables were built for the reason that the Militia Department has none at ail there.
There was formerly at St. John a school of infantry, but some three years ago the department decided to establish a school of cavalry at that place, and of course stables had to be provided. These are beautiful stables. I am astonished that only about $35,000 all told, will have been spent by the government on that contract. St. John's military school is an old institution dating as far back as 1876, and I believe these stables were absolutely necessary to maintain its efficiency.


George William Fowler: I want to say something respecting the necessity of the Minister of Militia being here when these estimates are going through. We have in this list of Quebec buildings seven that belong to the Militia Department, and the Minister of Militia is not here to give us any information with respect to the necessity of these buildings. The Minister of Public Works cannot give us the information. He draws largely on his imagination, he looks at the paper and says the first thing that comes into his mind.


William Pugsley: What does the hon. member want to know about this item?


George William Fowler: I want to know what necessity exists for this building that requires such a great expense. I think that the present stables at St. John's are quite sufficient for these horses without spending nearly $20,000 for new stables.


Albert Edward Kemp: What is the total number of troops at this station.


William Pugsley: About seventy-five.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What accommodation has been provided for these horses since the corps has been established at St. John's ?


William Pugsley: There was an old drill shed which was converted into a temporary stable for the horses, pending the erection of new stables.


George William Fowler: Have you a clerk of works there ?


Marie Joseph Demers: Evariste Gagne is clerk of works, a carpenter?


William Pugsley: He is paid on the basis of $3 per day, and is employed for about nine months.


Albert Edward Kemp: Where are the stables located ?


William Pugsley: On the east side of the Grand Trunk Railway.


Albert Edward Kemp: Are they located inside of the old breastworks that were blown up about a century ago, or are they between the barracks and the river ?


Marie Joseph Demers: 


William Pugsley: On the ground of the fort.


George William Fowler: Of these military grounds?


William Pugsley: Yes.


George William Fowler: The government own the site ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


George William Fowler: How many acres of military grounds have you there?


Marie Joseph Demers: 12 x 8 acres.
St. John's public buildings, $10,000.


William Pugsley: This is a revote. It is for the purpose of continuing work in connection with the erection of a new public building for post office purposes and, I presume, for customs purposes as well. It is a building 03 x* 44 feet, two storeys, basement and mansard.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What is the cost?


William Pugsley: The total estimated cost, including everything, is $43,910.


George William Fowler: 


William Pugsley: tenderer.


George William Fowler: Mr. PLGSLEY.
Mr. FOWLER, inent?
Who has the contract ? J. J. Collins, the lowest
Who drew the plans? Mr. Benoit.
Outside of the depart-


William Pugsley: Yes.


George William Fowler: How did that happen ?


William Pugsley: I am not able to give the hon. gentleman an explanation just now.


George William Fowler: What did he get ?


William Pugsley: Three per cent for drawing the plans and 2 per cent for supervising the work, or 5 per cent in all.


George William Fowler: That would give him $2,100. Cannot the architect say how it was that he had no time, with his twelve assistants, to draw the plans?


William Pugsley: He cannot remember the circumstances just now.


George William Fowler: W'ill the minister kindly loou this matter up and give us the information?


William Pugsley: I will try and have the chief architect rake up his memory. "


Richard Blain: There is an item $321.12 for advertising. Perhaps the minister can explain this. What papers were these advertisements put in?
Mr. PUGSLEY'. There would be no objection in the world, if the hon. gentleman

desires it, to bringing down a list of the newspapers containing this advertisement.


Richard Blain: Then I do request that the list he brought down.


William Pugsley: I will have it brought down.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What will be taken up to-morrow ?	.


William Stevens Fielding: The motion for Supply will be renewed, and in Committee of Supply we will continue the estimates of the hon. Minister of Public Works.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 3.05 a.m., Wednesday.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, April 29, 1908.