1902-02-21

PUBLIC'ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.

Mr. D. C. FRASER (Guysborough) moved:: That the Public Accounts of Canada for the year ending June 30, 1901, and the report of the Auditor General, volumes 1 and 2, for the same year, be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Department of the Secretary of State-Clerical and other assistance, $2,150.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The increase of $180 is entirely due to the statutory increase of $30 each to the lower officers.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: Is the increase general or has the deputy recommended more increases than you have granted ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Speaking generally all those recommended by the deputy ministers in all the departments for an increase are receiving the statutory increase. These increases are being received pretty generally and are only withheld for special reasons.
Department of Printing and Stationery.-Clerical and other assistance, $2,000, printing and stationery, $1,300, sundries, $1,700.


Mr. MACLEAN.: Will the hon. minister give some explanation regarding the policy of the government in connection with this department. I believe that a large sum is now being paid to outside offices for government printing. If that be the case the government should outline a policy. The government should declare whether they have confidence in the Printing Bureau as established, or whether that Bureau is not competent to do the work. In the latter case, is it the intention of the government to extend the bureau, or do they propose adopting year by year the policy, which they condemned in former days, of subsidizing political supporters through job printing ? The expenditure on job printing outside the Bureau is this year much larger ; and the charge is made that the government are securing political support by means of job printing contracts given to newspapers for work which should be done by the Printing Department. In former days such contracts were called subsidizing the reptile press. Can this government be doing that which they formerly denounced ? I am not making any charge, but I am simply asking the hon. minister to say whether the Printing Department has lost the confidence of the government, or if not why should the government pay out so much public money to the reptile press, which is the term by which these gentlemen were wont to describe the newspapers supporting the late government.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I cannot undertake to outline any general policy, but I can tell my hon. friend that at present the Printing Bureau cannot do all the work required to be done.


William Findlay Maclean: Do you purpose enlarging it ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not like to make any rash statement as to what we may do in the future. I am aware that Mr. FRASER.
there is a strong opinion in some quarters that the Bureau should be enlarged and also that there is a considerable question as to whether the Bureau is the most economical place in which to do the printing. I would not care to define any policy just now, but my hon. friend can have a general discussion on the question at a later stage if he thinks one necessary. In any case, if we enlarge the Bureau, my hon. friend will have to vote more money, and he is objecting to the expenditure now.


William Findlay Maclean: We are paying the hon. gentleman to advise us on these subjects and the government ought to have a definite policy. They have been in office six years and do not seem to have any settled policy with regard to public business except to give as much public money as they can to their supporters in the press, or to what they used to call the reptile press. We must conclude that the policy of the government is not to extend the Printing Bureau and not to investigate whether the Printing Bureau is the best means of giving us value for our money, but simply to go on spending as much as $50,000 on job printing given to one newspaper alone. What a contrast between the speech of the hon. Finance Minister today and those which these gentlemen opposite were wont to make in days gone by. It is only another case of broken pledges, and of the worst possible policy beiug adopted.


Mr. SPROULE.: Since we have had of late years such a departure from the custom which heretofore prevailed of having the printing done in the Bureau, the government ought to be prepared to tell us how much printing is done outside so that we may understand whether it is advisable or otherwise to enlarge the Printing Bureau so that it may do our printing work entirely. If our work costs us more than it ought or more than we can get it done for outside, the sooner we know it the better. Until the last few years the work was done by the Bureau and done more expeditiously than at present, and there was a less baneful influence exercised over the press of the country. But this constant departure, during the last few years, and increasing in ratio every year, from the principles laid down by these hon. gentlemen when in opposition, cannot but attract our serious attention. The government should tell us what percentage of the work they have done outside, what the cost has been, and whether they have made up their minds to depart from the usual custom of having the printing done in the Printing Bureau.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: So far as the future is concerned, that is a matter I do not wish to speak about too decisively. But as to the other point raised by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) that is a reasonable one. I shall deal with it. If the information brought down in the Auditor

General's Report does not cover the point, I shall be glad to have a statement made showing the proportion of printing done in the Bureau, and the proportion done outside.


William Findlay Maclean: And the minister should also give us a statement showing which system is in the public interest and which the government intend to follow. Government is government, and should be run on some principle. The principle in this case is, either that we have a Printing Bureau which we intend to maintain at a high plane of efficiency and to have the government printing done there, or else that this is an impossibility and the intention is to distribute the work among the job offices of the country. When the minister gives us the report he has referred to-he has promised it and we will hold him to his promise-he must come here with a policy and he must let us know if he intends to maintain and equip the Bureau as it ought to be or whether he intends to wind it up.


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: The promise I made was that I would furnish a statement showing what proportion of the work has been done outside of the Bureau. I will keep that promise.


William Findlay Maclean: But I want further information. I want some policy announced.' This is an important question and one upon which we have a right to criticise the conduct of the hon. gentlemen opposite who, in this House and all over the country cried aloud about the iniquity of the Conservative administration with regard to government printing. But if they themselves have no policy in regard to the matter, but simply intend to use the government printing to the best advantage from their own party point of view, we should be informed that such is the case.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: As the hon. gentleman has consented to give us the information I think, perhaps, it should be made a little fuller and a little more intelligible than in the form he has suggested. I think we should have the various items of printing, showing where the printing was done and what it cost. This would enable us to make a comparison of that which has been done in the Printing Bureau with that which has been done outside. It may be true that all this is in the Auditor General's Report, and that by going through that very large volume we can gain the information, but we would rather have it in more convenient shape.
Hon* Mr. HAGGART. The hon. minister has promised more than that. He hinted that the work outside had been done cheaper than in the Bureau. What we want particularly is a comparison of the cost in the Bureau and the cost outside. The hon. gentleman could easily furnish that. He
must have had some authority for-I can not say the statement, but the inference that he leaves us to draw from the statement-that the printing in the Bureau would cost more than the work that we are getting done outside.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: What I said was that it is contended that printing was not done more economically in the Bureau and in some cases not so economically. On that point I expressed no opinion. I have no doubt but that the authorities of the Bureau will say that it is done cheaper, and that outside printers will say the contrary.


William Findlay Maclean: Yes, but what does the Minister of Finance say ? He is here to tell the country about these things. He and his colleagues have asked the country to trust them with the management of public affairs on the plea that they would conduct those affairs in the public interest. He should tell us whether it is in the public interest to get the printing done in the Bureau or to give it out on political lines.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: At present, both seem


William Findlay Maclean: The government have political interests pressing upon them, and therefore they think it best to give the work out. The contention is that it is necessary for a Liberal government to maintain its position in the country by the distribution of printing patronage. I am not going to let the hon. minister away from the issue. I will give him another day or a week if he wants it; but I want him to tell the House and the country which system is in the public interest, and which he intends to follow.
Civil Government Contingencies-Department of Interior-Clerical and other assistance including $820 for J. D. Bollard and $515 for T. W. Hodgins, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Civil Service Act, ____ $3,932 50
Printing and stationery .. .. $8,500 00 Sundries	 7,000 00


John Graham Haggart: Why are these grants to J. D. Bollard and T. W. Hodgins given, ' notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act ? '


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. Minister of the Interior (Hon. Clifford Sifton) is not in his place to-day, and I cannot explain the reasons in each case. Generally, however, the purpose is to pay larger increases than are usual under the statute. Perhaps it would be better to let the item stand.


John Graham Haggart: I may as well speak on this as on any other item of a similar nature. The hon. Minister of Finance was not in the House, as I was, when his party was in opposition. But if he

lmd been here he would know that whenever a case came up of any public officer receiving a grant ' notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act,' we would have it discussed for hours and days in this House. But, notwithstanding the professions thus mouthed by every one of these gentlemen during opposition, there is not a single department whose estimates come before us that we do not find a violation of those principles. With this continuous recurrence of exceptions, we might as well do away with the Civil Service Act altogether and appoint these parties and give them their promotion by statutory enactment, for that is what is being done in these cases. A case does sometimes occur, the circumstances of which are extraordinary, making it necessary that this course should be taken. But it is impossible that these extraordinary cases can occur by the dozen and in every department as we will be led to suppose they do from these estimates. Better let the item stand until the minister is here.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: On the general question, I desire to say that the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) is mistaken in assuming that these cases are so numerous as he says. As a rule, no doubt, the provisions of the Civil Service Act work well. But there will be cases, as the House has told us, where the statutory Increase may not be sufficient to recognize the services of a particularly good man. The number of increases to the whole service is small. The hon. gentleman says that there are one or two in every department; but that is not correct. But, even if there were, that would be a small proportion to the whole civil service


John Graham Haggart: You will find it in every department.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, not in every department. But, even if there were in every department one or two men of whom exception was made in this way, that would be an exceedingly small proportion of the whole civil service, and would hardly justify the inference that you might as well abolish the whole Civil Service Act in this respect. There are, perhaps, not more then a dozen cases in the whole estimates.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think it occurs more frequently than the hon. minister is ready to admit. We find it in items 27, 29, 32. 35, 36 and 38. These are but a few picked out hastily.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: But this happens to be the class of items in which they are most apt to appear-these that we are dealing with to-day, and the ones we dealt with yesterday.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But we find this pretty prevalent in these items.


John Graham Haggart: Civil Government Contingencies-Office of the Auditor General.
Clerical and other assistance.. $ 3,700 00
Printing and stationery	 1,250 00
Sundries	 700 00


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How does it come that there is a saving here of $1,000 ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: When we get a decrease, I generally accept it without asking any questions.
Department of Finance and Treasury Board, $7,590.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There are some small increases. We have estimated the items rather closely.


John Graham Haggart: Perhaps the minister will let that stand for a moment, because we want to discuss the overrulings of the Treasury Board, and I do not see any other item as convenient as this.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I have no objection. Perhaps I had better give the information on the point, and then the hon. gentleman can retain the item for the purpose of discussing the overrulings. There are two statutory increases to messengers who are paid out of contingencies now. The messengers now appointed are included in the contingent vote-$60 represents that. The rest represents a general increase in the cost of printing, stationery and small sums.
Item allowed to stand.
Department of Marine and Fisheries, $10,000.


William Findlay Maclean: This might be a proper place to ask the government for some explanation in regard to the negotiations that were conducted between them and Mr. Marconi in regard to wireless telegraphy. Various statements have been made as to the arrangements between the government and that inventor for the use of his invention, and the department has placed certain conveniences at the service of the inventor. The government might let us know what the arrangement is, and what they hope to effect in the interest of the public by such arrangement.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think it would be better that I should bring down the papers and let them speak for themselves. I could give the hon. gentleman the explanation now, but I expect to place the papers on the Table on Monday next, and that will be the most useful way of answering my hon. friend's question. ,


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There were some subjects of controversy between the Dominion and provinces with regard to the fisheries. We had some information about it last year, but it was not very conclusive, and the evolutions of time were to set it all straight.

Has the Minister of Marine and Fisheries any additional information to give us on the subject ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then I understand these civil servants are not required to pass the civil service examination.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Perhaps under another item we will have some information to give. I am not so very sure that the evolution that he speaks of has taken place, and a final settlement been made with regard to the different contentions between the provinces and the Dominion. I am free to admit from the opportunity that I have had of looking into the matter, that there will be very little reduction in the expense of looking after the fisheries so far as the Dominion is concerned, unless there is a very important change made in the relationship between the provinces and the Dominion. If my hen. friend will leave this matter until we come to discuss the items under the head of fisheries, I will be able to give him full information on that point.
Department of Agriculture-Clerical and other assistance, Including payment up to $800 each per annum to two assistant patent examiners, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $10,000 ; printing and stationery, $3,750 ; sundries, $3,250 ; total, $17,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I notice here a little divergence from the usual custom ; you say 1 clerical and other assistance, including payment up to $800.' Heretofore you made the statement of the amount needed for some particular civil servant, of which you gave the name, and then added, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act to the contrary, but in this case you simply ask us to vote the amount, without giving the name for whom it is needed. Consequently, you can use it for whom you like, and also any amount up to the maximum of the sum named.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The explanation is that I have been obliged for some time back constantly to add to the patent examining staff. The system I have adopted is to take the men and pay them out of clerical assistance, on trial. I have made it a rule to take university graduates who have their degree in some scientific course. I think these men are most suitable for this work, and I may say that the results since I have adopted this course have been eminently satisfactory. I find it impossible to keep young men for any length of time at the maximum of the rate which temporary clerks are allowed, and therefore I have asked for two years back-this is the same as last year and the year before-for power to raise those salaries to the extent of $800 before putting them on the permanent list. When they go on the permanent list of course they come under the other part of the civil government vote. But here while they are being paid this $800 they are still on trial.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, being university graduates they are eligible without such examination. .


William Findlay Maclean: Does the minister accord that treatment to graduates of the Military College at Kingston ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: They come under the same category.


William Findlay Maclean: I very much approve of this policy, and I would like to see it extended throughout the civil service of this country. We are educating young men at that Military College, we give them a first class education, and then we let them go out of the country the moment they are graduated, instead of drafting them into the civil service and distributing them all over the country in order to get the benefit of their services. If that policy is extended throughout all the departments, as I believe it should be, the government will receive the commendation of the country. I congratulate the minister on his action in moving along these lines, and I recommend his colleagues to follow in the same way. The Auditor General's Department have long utilized university graduates as experts, and I believe with great success. The University of Toronto has recently created a department of political economy and civil economy, which has proved most useful, and those young men who have graduated from that department have been taken hold of. The board of trade and the Manufacturer's Association in Toronto have taken these young men and given them employment, and they have proved to be a splendid class of employees, or officials I might call them. I hope this policy will be extended. If this country is educating young men in the Military College, and if we find that these young men have been forced to leave the country to get employment, I hope the ministers of the various departments will see their way clear to find them employment so as to keep them at home, and in that way they will do a great deal to build up the militia of the country.


John Graham Haggart: Before that carries I would like to draw the attention of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) to it. The whole of the clerks on whom this expenditure of $10,000 is to be made under these items are exempted from the provisions of the Civil Service Act. It is not as the hon. Minister of Agriculture says at all, for the purpose that he may employ a couple of graduates of a college or something of that kind. All the payments up to $800 and above that may be made under the provision that we are now passing notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Is not that in the explanation given ?
lion. Mr. HAGGART. The lion. Minister of Agriculture asks to have this provision inserted for the purpose of enabling him to make payments to a couple of clerks who are exceptional and who have passed university examinations. Instead of that he could do just the same as they do in the Department of Railways and Canals, where all persons who have technical knowledge, such as engineers, are exempted from the provisions of the Civil Service Act. In this case, the hon. minister exempts from the provisions of the Civil Service Act the whole of the expenditure of $10,000 which he proposes to make.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That is not the case.


John Graham Haggart: Well, that is in the wording.
You see there is a comma before ' notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act.'


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I move to strike out the comma.


John Graham Haggart: That applies to the whole staff.


William Findlay Maclean: The government are saving themselves with a comma.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We do not take advantage of commas.


John Graham Haggart: If you strike out the comma, perhaps it will be correct.
Department of Customs-
Clerical and other assistance, including $1,750 to be paid notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act	$5,625
Printing and stationery,	2,000
Sundries	2,730


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The wording ' notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act,' applies only after the word ' including.'


John Graham Haggart: But it says 'including payment up to $800 each per annum.'


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That applies to only two.


John Graham Haggart: Only two ? Oh, then, I am mistaken.
The Department of Inland Revenue-
Clerical and other assistance	$2,300
Printing and stationery	3,000
Sundries	2,000


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is an Increase of $200. Would the Minister of Inland Revenue (Hon. Mr. Bernier) explain the cause of it ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is no increase. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) will see that there is one item increased and the other reduced so that the net result is the same. It is not an increase; only a readjustment.


William Findlay Maclean: That is good phrase.


John Graham Haggart: Referring again to the vote of the Department of Agriculture, I stated that the exemption from the provisions of the Civil Service Act applied to the whole of the vote. When I read it over I thought that was correct, and upon further examination, I find that I was correct in saying that it applies to the whole of the clerical assistance required. The item reads :
Clerical -and other assistance, including payment up to $800 each per annum for two assistant patent examiners, 'notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act."


John Graham Haggart: 


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the same principle is involved here, and it is a very pernicious one.
lion. Mr. HAGGART. This applies to the whole of them; there is no doubt in this case.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No name is given of anyone, and there is nothing beyond the vote of the money. The money can be expended without reference to the provisions of the Civil Service Act, and it can be given to any person the minister chooses. I remember somewhat distinctly some of the discussions which took place upon this question years ago, the object of inserting this provision was this : Every young man or young woman in the civil service was supposed to be getting a fair salary, and if for any cause it was found necessary to employ them in any capacity other than that which had been their ordinary work, and a vote of money passed this House for that purpose, the name was given so that you might look up and see who the party was, the amount of salary ho was getting and whether he was getting more than he was entitled to; or, if he was charged with doing one class of work and with doing less than he should do in his ordinary avocation, so as to enable him to get the additional salary, you could readily look up the record and see who the civil servant was, how much his salary was at the time, and how much it would be if the addition was made. Then, the name was given in each case. Now, we are departing entirely from that rule. You give no name, we vote the amouut and you can employ any person you choose. I think this is leading to the abuse that we had to correct in 1891 after the long inquiry which we made into the civil service, and it cannot be stopped a moment too early. I think we should have some explanation from the minister.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: If the I hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) will remem-

ber-I have been out of the House for a few moments-there was a general discussion upon this question. Speaking about this particular item, I think that three years ago, in taking the general estimates, I had an estimate in for a first-class clerk at $1,750. It passed in committee, but before the estimates were adopted finally the clerk died. I then stated that I would wait until the main estimates were being concurred in and move to reduce them by the sum of $1,750, and that I would take in the supplementar-ies a vote for an amount without reference to the civil service examination. What I did was, that after the death of that officer I was proposing to get two officers, paying both of them only the amount that had been paid to the gentleman who died. This has gone on from that time to this, not with any desire to hide the names of the persons receiving the money or anything of that kind. Then, I was unable to get the officers to start at $400. I could not get the officers that were required, but I was able to get two officers who had not passed the civil service examination, and as they were good and competent men I gave them $700 each one year, and next year I increased it to $750.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Who are the officers ? They are not named here.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: One was Mr. Norris, who is now in the outside service, and I forget the name of the other gentleman at this moment. But, this is the way it came about, and perhaps now a second-class clerk, starting at $600, would be better for another year when this provision would be dropped and these officers brought under the civil service list.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It would be better. I think it is a very bad principle, and since attention has been drawn to it, I do not think it would be out of place to change it and adopt the regular system.
Department of Public Works-
Printing and stationery	$4,500
Sundries	5,500


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is for printing and stationery ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Newspapers, postage, telegrams, printing, and so on. There is not a cent for employees.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was going to ask the minister if all this was given to 'La Patrie.'


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: * La Patrie ' does not require any public patronage.
Contingencies-High Commissioner's Office, London, $18,350.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This item contains a special vote to which I
invite the attention of the committee. There is a small increase in the general expenses consequent on the increase of the income tax which has always been paid by this government. There is an increase of $100 for stationery, and for rents, alterations, &c., there is an increase of $1,800.14, explained by the fact that the premises have been enlarged, during the past year. The offices in London were found to be somewhat cramped and additional accommodation was obtained last year in the same building. There is a sum of $5,000 proposed to be granted in lieu of house and furniture. It will be remembered that when the oflice of High Commissioner for Canada was established, a house was bought in London for the High Commissioner and both house and furniture were supplied at the public expense. That system continued for some years. The house was a somewhat expensive one, but the property somewhat deteriorated in that vicinity and the house was never occupied by Lord Strathcona. We came to the conclusion that there was no use in keeping it idle, and so the house was sold. The government no longer owns the house and no longer undertakes to furnish a house in London, and so this appropriation is in lieu of the house and furniture which have hitherto been supplied at the public expense. The High Commissioner, for the time being, has either to buy a house, or he can rent a house and furniture during the term of his incumbency. This is in lieu of the house and furniture which has hitherto1 been supplied at the public expense.


John Graham Haggart: W'ill this be cheaper or dearer than the former system?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Speaking from memory the house cost us upwards of $40,000. It was furnished at the public expense and the furniture had to bo maintained. Whether or not this is an exact equivalent I am not prepared to say. It may be more liberal. There is no doubt that the whole tendency of the expenses of the High Commissioner in London must be to increase. It is a very expensive place. It is a position which I believe the average public man would hardly desire. It can only be occupied, I am afraid, by a man of private means, and we must expect to make a decently liberal allowance to whoever occupies that office.


John Graham Haggart: I suppose Lord Strathcona lives in his own residence in London?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: Of course he does not draw this.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: He will draw it.


John Graham Haggart: I thought this was a provision to carry out the common rumour

that there is to be a successor appointed to Lord Stratlicona.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I can assure the hon. gentleman that there is no foundation for that rumour whatever.
Hon. Mr. I-IAGGART. I am very glad to hear that.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: So far as we know Lord Strathcona has improved in health and strength and the desire of all is that he may be long spared to continue in the office, the duties of which he has discharged with such great ability and credit to Canada.
Some lion. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.
Contingencies-Post Office Department, $60,885.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is an increase here.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Every year the number of savings bank accounts increase, and there is an allowance of If cents for calculation of the interest on each saving's bank account. The number of accounts has increased by 6,000 last year, and this is the ordinary vote to meet that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have seen the rumour of late in the public press that the Postmaster General is getting a large share of his printing done in Toronto, and has transferred it from the Government Printing Bureau for some reason or other unknown to the general public. Can the minister give us some information on the subject. Where is he getting his printing done now, and is there a saving in the cost'!


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: My hon. friend is in error in saying that the printing has been transferred to the city of Toronto. It does happen that one single item of printing for this department was done outside the Bureau, but it was not done in the city of Toronto. However, this is immaterial to the question. It was done in the city of Montreal.


William Findlay Maclean: By whom ?
Mr. LaRIVIERE. The 'Herald' of course.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It was not the ' Herald.' Tenders were invited, or rather inquiries were made to see what was a fair price. It was done by the printing firm of Perrault, I think that is the name. This was one item known as the Money Order Book, and it was sent there because we could not get it done with equal dispatch and cheapness in the Printing Bureau at the time. They complain at the Bureau at times, that their equipment is inadequate and that the accommodation is not as large as it should be. I believe there is something in that, and we may some time or other be called on to Hon. Mr. HAGGART.
enlarge that Bureau. I think the minister is getting more equipment in.
Contingencies-Office of Controller of Northwest Mounted Police, $900.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I notice that in almost all these items there appears the proviso ' clerical and other assistance notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act.' It does not say who is to be employed, but we put the money at the disposal of the minister to use it as he sees fit. It is a pernicious principle and it is more prevalent this year than ever before. The Civil Service Act is old enough to have a fair trial, and if there is anything in it, we should live up to it as closely as possible. It is true there are exceptions to every rule and the House is liberal in providing for these exceptions, but this sort of thing now appears to be the general rule rather than the exception.


The PRIME MINISTER.: As far as the Department of Mounted Police is concerned, I believe there is this redeeming feature for the violation of the rule, namely: That the department is in exactly the same position as it was in July 1896, when we took office.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Prime Minister does not quite apprehend the point I make. Not that there was any change in the department of the Mounted Police, but that almost every item in these estimates contains a sum of money that is required 'notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act to the contrary.' That is, we set aside an amount of money which the head of the department may spend contrary to the provisions of the Civil Service Act, in employing any person he chooses. Formerly when this was done the name of the individual was given, and we could ascertain how much he was getting in the aggregate for the work he was doing. But to-day the names are not mentioned. We only vote the money, and leave it to the judgment of the minister or someone under him in the department to employ any one he likes, perhaps some one in another department who gets a good salary, and who, if he did his duty, would have his time fully occupied there. The result is that we do not know anything about it unless we can find out by looking into the Auditor General's Report.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Perhaps I should say that in a number of eases these words are necessary to enable us to employ messengers who have not passed the civil service examination; and I do not know that it is necessary that messengers should pass it. Perhaps the most useful messenger you could have would be a man of about forty years of age, who could not pass the civil service examination; and in order to employ him it is necessary to insert these words. You might get a boy who-

could pass the examination, but who, after i being a messenger for a year or two, might want to be made a clerk. He probably would not make as good a messenger as the man I have described.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If this refers to messengers, it should be so stated; but it is impossible to suppose that all these cases, or even a large number, are those of messengers.


John Graham Haggart: We have an Act of parliament, and if it is not a proper one we should amend it. I know that, as the hon. gentleman states, sometimes the very best messenger you could get is one who cannot pass the civil service examination, perhaps an old soldier, trained to the service; but in that case his name should be mentioned, if he is employed. There must have been a controversy with the Auditor General whether the voting of a particular sum for a certain purpose without mentioning the man's name could exempt the individual from the provisions of the Act. I would suppose that voting the money would not exempt the individual.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I think this is the same form that has been used for years. There is no change.


John Graham Haggart: Perhaps the point has never been thought of.
Contingencies-Department of Labour, $1,650. Mr. MACLEAN. Will the Minister of Labour say whether it is his intention this session to increase the pay of that large class of labourers, the letter carriers ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I would like to satisfy my hon. friend at the earliest moment, but I am afraid this is hardly the opportune occasion. If he will kindly renew his question at a later date, I can assure him he will have the opportunity.


John Graham Haggart: I notice that the minister at the head of the Department of Labour does not take advantage of the phrase ' notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act,' so that none of this money can be applied to any one who does not come under the provisions of that Act.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: We take our chances of that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I may remind my hon. friend of the vote taken yesterday, a note at the bottom of which said that none of these come under the Civil Service Act. It is said that they are all exempt.


The MINISTER OE FINANCE.: That was with reference to civil government.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It applied to the clerks in the department-all below the deputy head.


William Findlay Maclean: And as we have the Minister of Justice now in the House, and he is a young and energetic man, he can give us
the benefit of his advice and straighten out this tangle, so that We shall not have one minister after another getting up and saying that they are taking their chances. We hope the Minister of Justice gives sound advice, and we shall expect it at the next sitting in regard to these important questions.
Care and cleaning of departmental buildings, $28,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is the usual vote.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: As the Minister of Public Works is not present, I presume this is not the proper place to bring up the question of the rooms in this building. Although we were told last year that there was going to be an important addition made which would afford us more rooms and better ones, we find, when we come back, that there is not much change, apart from adding a committee room and a suite of rooms for some employees of the House. Owing to the absence of the Minister of Public Works, who has to bear the brunt of the abuse in these cases, I think we shall have to take up the matter at some other time.
Administration of Justice-miscellaneous expenditure, Including North-west Territories, $37,000.	'


John Graham Haggart: We are told by the papers that there is some probability of a change In regard to the salaries of the judges, notably the county court judges. I understood the Minister of Justice to say the other day that the government had not arrived at a policy in reference to the judges of the superior courts and the Supreme Court. When this item is being voted it is the time for the Minister of Justice to state what the policy of the government is in reference to the salary of the judges throughout the country.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I do not think the question of an increase in the salaries of the judges has been considered at all. The question that came up the other day was with reference to the retirement of a certain number of county court judges who had reached a period of life when they were not in a position properly to perform the duties appertaining to their office, and the suggestion was that these judges, after they had reached a certain term on the bench, say twenty or twenty-five years, and had attained the age of seventy or seventy-five, should be allowed to retire on full pay. That was the suggestion. We have not got beyond the stage of looking on it as a suggestion. I myself would not be in a position to go further than to say that I do not think a man who has served his country for twenty or twenty-five years and reached an advanced age, should be forced to retire ; without receiving some consideration for ; the services he has rendered.


John Graham Haggart: Does this apply - only to the county court judges ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Up to the present time it is only with reference to the county court judges that the matter has been considered. I may say that a constitutional difficulty exists with regard to the High Court judges. It is extremely doubtful, in view of the terms of the British North America Act, whether a high court judge can be interfered with in any way. The most we could expect to do would be to make some provision that after he has attained a certain age and done service during a certain period he might be allowed to retire on full pay.


William Findlay Maclean: Has not the time come for some radical departure by this parliament in the treatment of our judges. Year by year representations have been made to the previous government, as well as to this one, on this subject without any effect. I hope the new Minister of Justice will give the question his most careful consideration, and put the government shortly in a position to grapple with it. I have no hesitation in saying that our judges are not sufficiently paid and that we have too many.


Mr. COWAN.: Not High Court judges.


William Findlay Maclean: No, but altogether. The number ought to be reduced and the salaries increased, and there ought perhaps to be more liberal treatment given them with regard to expenses. At present we cannot get a lawyer of the best class to take a judgeship in Ontario simply because the salary is not high enough. I have actually heard it stated that a certain judge was in a position to go on the Appeal Bench in the province of Ontario because he had private means of his own and could afford to dispense with the $1,000 allowance for expenses given the other judges. That condition of affairs should not be allowed to continue.
I believe in paying our judges well so as to get the highest class of men for the position. I believe that our judges should be selected among men of 40 or 45 years of age, because then you get men who are in their prime, but in order to get the best men we must pay a better salary. I hope that the day is at hand when the whole question will be courageously grappled with by the government and a progressive policy brought down. I trust that the new Minister of Justice will take this matter up and give it his best consideration next year if not this year.


Mr. WADE.: I am very glad that the bon. gentleman has brought this matter up, especially the matter of the salaries paid judges. In Ontario there are four judges who are paid $6,000 per year each and eleven who are paid $5,000. In the province of Quebec three are paid $6,000 a year and twenty-two


Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.: $5,000 a year, while in Nova Scotia only one judge is paid $5,000 a year and the other six are only paid $4,000. I submit that the character of litigation which comes before the judges of Nova Scotia is more varied perhaps than that which comes before the judges of any other province. Certainly it covers every possible kind of business-mining, manufacturing, lumbering, ship building, agriculture, banking and commerce and insurance. If the judges in Ontario and Quebec are not adequately paid at $5,000 or $6,000 a year-and I agree with my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) in that regard-surely he will admit that the judges in Nova Scotia are much more poorly paid and that their salaries should be increased. Shortly before this discussion arose I was going through the figures, and I find that it would take some $29,000 to level up the salaries of the judges in the other provinces to those in Ontario and Quebec, and I would urge on the hon. Minister of Justice this phase of the question. Something might be urged against any increase to the judges in some of the provinces on the ground that the character of the litigation which comes before them is not as varied as it is in Nova Scotia or Ontario, but no such contention can be made with regard to the judges in the province of Nova Scotia.
As regards the number of superior judges being too great, I do not think that such an objection can hold with regard to Nova Scotia. We have only seven Supreme Court judges there. There might be some objection of the kind raised with regard to the county court judges, but certainly not in the case of the Supreme Court judges. I had intended to bring this mater up at a later stage in the discussion of the estimates, but as we are at the vote now, I take this opportunity of giving expression to my views and will refer to the subject again.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. When I first came in to this House, and on the very first occasion when I addressed the Chair, I did so in favour of increasing the salaries of the judges. That was over thirteen years ago, and I am still of the same opinion, but I regret that although I have exerted myself in bringing up the subject before the House every session, nothing so far has been done. Speaking of my own province, we have in Manitoba but four Superior Court judges. They preside over the Court of King's Bench in criminal as well as in civil cases, and they also form a Court of Appeal or Review, so that these judges in Manitoba have to do all the duties which in the other provinces are assigned to special judges. In Ontario as well as Quebec there are several courts, and the judges of each court are confined to. the work of that court alone, but in Manitoba our four judges have to do the work both of the Court of First Jurisdiction and the Court of Appeal. This is not the case in the province of Quebec or Ontario or the province of Nova Scotia, of

which the hon. gentleman who last addressed the Chair has spoken, and yet our judges are on the same footing as the judges in Nova Scotia with regard to salary. The Chief Justice gets only $5,000 a year and the puisne judges only $4,000 per year each, which is entirely inadequate and out of proportion, considering the excessive cost of living in the western province and the amount of work they have to perform. Their labours extend over the whole of the province of Manitoba where we have three large districts. The result is that in order to keep up with the work, these judges are sometimes subjected to such a strain that their health is undermined through over work. It is unfair to expect men of their ability-and our judges in Manitoba are men of high ability-to do the work they do at such a low salary.
To pay salary of judge of Divorce and Matrimonial Court, N.B., $500.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. May I ask the Minister of Justice if we are soon to expect au appointment in the place of Judge Prender-gast who has been removed to the Northwest Territories ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Almost immediately.


William Findlay Maclean: Here is an item for the salary of a judge of the Divorce and Matrimonial Court in New Brunswick. I used that only to bring out the fact that eleven cases are being tried this year in the Senate, in a very expensive way and a very unfair way.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Why unfair ?


William Findlay Maclean: It is unfair to the poor people, and really amounts to class legislation. If we pay salaries for a divorce court in New Brunswick, there is a large section of this community who think there ought to be, in some way, a divorce court for the Dominion.


Mr. LARIVIERE.: Let them go to New Brunswick.


William Findlay Maclean: No, they do not have to go to New Brunswick. The time is coming when this question must be approached. It is very well to try to sidetrack it in this way but we do not thereby remove the trouble. People are leaving Canada for the United States in order to get relief. They may go to New Brunswick also. And yet, notwithstanding all, the Senate, the worst possible court to try cases of this kind, has eleven cases before it this session. I know there is a great deal of objection to the proposal of a Divorce Court, but it is one of those difficult questions which ought to be approached and dealt with by the government.
Administration of Justice-Supreme Court of Canada-The reporter, $2,050.


John Graham Haggart: I notice there is an increase in the general vote for this
court. It has been increasing year by year. It was a respectably small sum at one time.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: The general staff have been allowed the statutory increase of $50 a year, except the messengers, who have been each allowed $30.


John Graham Haggart: How many messengers are there ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Two.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: These officers, I see by the estimates of last year, received the statutory increase last year also. Exception seems to have been made of this court, among the civil servants. Nearly all were denied the increase last year, but, on the other hand nearly all the officers of this court received the increase both last year and this year. I do not object to the increase, if it is given to the others. But, to refuse it to so many of the others and give it to all these officers suggests that the injustice is being done to the many, or that more than justice is being done to these.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: When the permanent head of the department reports that a civil servant is entitled to the increase, for my part I have endeavoured to conform to that recommendation.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I know that that is the contention this year. But that has been strongly opposed in other years, and it has been contended that, notwithstanding the recommendation of the deputy head, it was left to the wisdom or justice of the minister to grant the increase or not as he pleased. And, last year, the judgment of the ministers was that, in most cases, the increase should not be given. To grant the increase generally in one branch and to withhold it generally in others could hardly be defended on grounds of justice.


John Graham Haggart: Before we pass the estimates of the Supreme Court, I would like to have a little discussion with the Minister of Justice concerning the statement he has made that he doubts whether we have power, under the British North America Act, to fix the time at which a judge may be superannuated. Surely, that power must rest somewhere. We have all the power that the British parliament has, there being no reservation under the British North America Act. If a British parliament is all powerful with regard to the judges of Great Britain, we surely have power to say at what age our judges shall retire. When men arrive at a certain age, frailty overtakes them, as a rule-there may be individual exceptions. Surely, when we are paying the salaries, We have the power to say at what age a man shall cease to perform the duties as a judge for which the salary is paid. What the people of this country complain about is not that the salaries of the judges are too large but that 1 there are so many judges and such a multi-

tude of appeals. In no country in the world, except the United States, and partially, Great Britain, can a litigant, wlieu he goes into court to obtain civil justice be delayed so long as in Canada. I am sorry the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) is not in his place today. When he was in opposition he advocated this principle. He drew the attention of the Minister of Justice of that time again and again to the number of appeals and to the delay of justice in Canada. As the hon. gentleman used to ask then, why cannot we adopt the simpler system that they have in Switzerland, or the form of procedure that they have in the German empire, or that of France, or the new procedure of Great Britain ? Why should a poor litigant be delayed in this manner when he seeks a simple answer to a request for justice from the courts of the land ? Have fewer judges. Pay them well. There is a favoured corporation which exists in this country and to the members of which more prizes, more good offices are open than to all the rest of the people in the community put together. It is a close corporation. Of course it is open to every young man who accepts it as a profession.' But how few are in a position to do so. It is virtually a close corporation. And, while the people of this country are proud of the integrity of the judges, proud of their incorruptibility as well as, generally, their intelligence in the administration of justice, they feel that there should be a simpler course of procedure, fewer courts and fewer judges. I congratulate the Minister of Justice on the accessions the Supreme Court of Canada has recently made. I am glad to see that the government have appointed two distinguished members of the House, and I believe they will bring to that court the intelligence and ability which ought to characterize the members of the Supreme Court of the country. I am glad to say that, though they have been opponents of mine in this House. I believe they will bring to that court at any rate that incorruptibility which is as necessary almost as intelligence. I say this though, the appointments are following precedents which the Postmaster General has condemned, of taking members from this House, though I may differ with him upon that subject. But I am glad to see that two gentlemen for whom I have so high a respect as the late Minister of Justice and the late Minister of Marine and Fisheries have been-might I say hoisted, or sent upwards, to the honourable position which they now hold as judges of the Supreme Court of Canada.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: A good many years ago when I was a younger member of this House, a Bill was introduced to do away with the Supreme Court. Perhaps I did not know as much about courts then as I do now. But I hold the opinion which has just been ex-Hon. Mr. HAGGART.
pressed by my hon. friend from Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart) that it was thought then that the courts were rather used for the benefit of the rich man than of the poor man, because when a case was entered you never knew when it would be finished, and unless a man had a very long purse he might expect 'to be outdone by his opponent. I might cite one or two cases that went on year after year in that way. But the argument made against the Supreme Court was something like this, it was contended that it was very expensive for litigants to go to the highest court in the empire, that is to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and therefore there was a strong necessity for a Supreme Court in Canada where most of those cases could be taken and finally decided. That was the reason the court was established; but it was afterwards found that that object was not fulfilled by the Supreme Court, and a Bill was introduced to do away with it. On that occasion I remember distinctly that the late Rt. Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald opposed the Bill strongly, and held that while there were many things about the Supreme Court that he thought were not just what they ought to be, he still held it was on its trial, and that we ought to let it continue, It was held that there were two lines especially in which that Supreme Court would be advantageous, namely, that it would secure finality in many cases coming from the provinces, and that it would be able to settle constitutional questions that might be submitted to it. I have watched with a good deal of interest the conduct of these cases since then, but I have not found as time went on that there has been much improvement. There is an increasing number of cases being taken to the Privy Council in England. That high court seems to be the aim of every litigant who is able to carry his case there. Instead of securing finality, it appears to me that the Supreme Court is only another stepping stone that the litigant has to pass before he gets his case finally settled and one that adds to the expense. It seems to me that there ought to be some stringent rule laid down to govern the selection of cases that are allowed to be taken from the Supreme Court to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I think a large percentage of the cases in which application is made to carry them to the Privy Council, should not be allowed, and that we should have some rule laid down by which a majority of those cases would end in the Supreme Court here.


Mr. HACKETT.: I want to say just one word with reference to a statement made by the Minister of Justice that there is a constitutional difficulty standing in the way of superannuating the judges of the Supreme and higher courts of Canada. In this country when a man goes to law, he expects to get justice in the courts, and

every thing depends upon the honesty and integrity of the courts of justice. Now I want to say here that in my opinion the judges, not only of the Supreme Court and of the other higher courts of Canada, but also of the lower courts, are men against whom not one word can he said in respect of their honesty and integrity. But I chiefly rise for the purpose of expressing my gratification on the accession the Supreme Court of Canada has recently made in the persons of Sir Louis Davies and the Hon. David Mills. They have long been political antagonists of mine. I want to say of Sir Louis Davies that I have known him for thirty years, ever since he was a young man, and I have always found that he was a gentleman of high convictions of honesty and truth which he was ready to carry into any position which he filled in this House or elsewhere. I rise to say this of that gentleman, and also to say that our people in Prince Edward Island look upon his elevation to the Supreme Court as a compliment to their province. We are a small portion of this great Dominion, but I am glad to recognize that the government of Canada has shown that though we are small in numbers we have produced men of great ability. We are proud that they have taken a gentleman from our province and raised him to the honourable position of a judge of the Supreme Court.


Mr. McOREARY.: I would like to call the attention of the Minister of Justice to one or two facts in relation to the west. I do not know whether he has yet received from the bar of Manitoba a resolution recently passed to the following effect:
Moved by Mr. Aikins, K. C., seconded by Mr. Pbippen :
That as there is now a large and increasing population in Manitoba, the North-west Territories and British Columbia, and in view of the rapidly growing importance of these provinces, it is in the opinion of the bar of Manitoba, due to that portion of Canada lying west of Ontario that there should be appointed from such territory at least one judge to the Supreme Court of Canada, and the bar of Manitoba respectfully urges that the government of the Dominion of Canada make such amendment to the Supreme Court Act as will enable such additional judge to be appointed.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I Intended to bring this up at a later date, but as the matter is now up for discussion. I may properly mention it to-day. Most lawyers in this House will agree with me when I say that the legislation of Manitoba, the Territories, and British Columbia, is very dissimilar to that of Ontario, and especially to that of the Maritime Provinces and Quebec; and some of the litigants who go to the Supreme Court have complained bitterly, not that the judges of the Supreme Court were not men of ability, but that they were not in touch with the laws of the western portion of Canada, and consequently they considered their cases had not been dealt with as well as they might have been had there been on the Bench a judge who had some knowledge of the laws of the western provinces. Now, the lawyers from Manitoba are to a great extent acquainted with the laws of the Territories as well as those of British Columbia, in fact one half the bar of British Columbia is composed of gentlemen who have been members of the bar of Manitoba, of gentlemen who have graduated in Manitoba. I think the late Chief Justice of British Columbia graduated in Manitoba, and if I mistake not the present Chief Justice did also. The lawyers in Winnipeg are pretty well acquainted with the laws of all of western Canada, even to the coast; and I submit that the Minister of Justice might now consider whether some amendment should not be made in that Act by which members from Manitoba or the west might be appointed to the Supreme Court Bench. I think he will agree with me when I say that we have just as able men in the west as we have in the east. In fact we see now that one of the most important acts of legislation passed in Manitoba has recently been adopted by the great and intelligent province of Ontario, I refer to the Prohibition Act, which is to be a copy of the Manitoba Act.
Before I sit down I will take this occasion of saying that I endorse the statement made by my hon. friend from Provencher (Mr. La-Riviere) with regard to salaries. I notice in looking over the salaries that $6,000 and $8,000 are paid to several judges in Ontario. As I have said, we have just as able judges in Manitoba and the Territories as any in the east; besides we all know that the expense of living up there is 25 or 50 per cent higher than it is in the east, higher than it is in Ottawa or Quebec. I know that if you engage a hack to take you from the station to your hotel in Manitoba, it costs you a dollar, when such a service would cost 25 cents here. My experience lias been that it costs from 25 to 50 per cent more to live in Manitoba and the Northwest Territories than it does here. Our judges in Manitoba and the west are as able as the judges are here, and why should they not be paid, the same salaries or even 25 per cent more ? I submit that an injustice is being done in our western provinces. It may be argued that we are not numerically a large province. That is not a good argument. We ought to have the best men that Canada can procure in a new country which is rapidly filling up with people and they would be amply paid. Next year we expect to have between 50,000 to 100,000 people coming from the American nation across the boundary, and a great deal will depend on	how our courts are established
and maintained as to the impression which will be made on the minds of those people who settle in that country. Ameri-

cans as a general rule have a very great respect for our courts and our judges, and it will be well to maintain the courts in a manner which will merit such respect. It behooves the hon. Minister of Justice and parliament to take proper steps to see that the best men are appointed to the Bench and that they are paid the highest salaries that it is practicable to give them. I also notice that you have five or six judges in other provinces to one in Manitoba. We have only four judges of the Superior Court when we should have seven or eight, and they will still have too much work to do. I know that Judge Dubuc, one of the judges of the Manitoba Superior Court, is practically laid up from overwork, over study and overtravel. I know also this, and* I state it as a fact, that if we were to ask for a judge to be put on the Superior Court Bench, of the six or eight senior members of the bar of Manitoba not one would accept the $5,000 salary that is offered and go on the Bench. I have spoken to five or six of these gentlemen. I know that their practice is worth much more than $5,000 a year. I would ask the hon. Minister of Justice to carefully consider these matters.


The MINISTER OP JUSTICE.: have too many judges in this country. I am not going to dispute that point, but my hon. friend must remember that we are not responsible entirely for the judicial system of this country. It is an anomalous system that we have; the creation and control of courts is within the jurisdiction of the local legislatures. All that we have to do is to appoint the judges that the local legislatures declare are necessary for the proper administration of justice.


John Graham Haggart: That is only for the county courts.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It is applicable to all the high courts. If you will look at the British North America Act you will see that the constitution of the courts is under the control of the local legislatures. As a matter of course, the appointment of the judges remains with us, but the necessity for judges is a matter that is under the control of the local legislatures. Therefore, we are not entirely responsible for the number of judges in the land. On the contrary, I say in the words of Sir John Macdonald-than whom there was no more competent man to discuss such a question-when the point was raised by the Hon. Edward Blake; I say in the words of Sir John Macdonald, that it would be a serious responsibility for this parliament to assume. If the local legislature has decided that it is necessary to appoint a judge in the interest of litigants, it would be a serious responsibility for this parliament to assume the right to refuse to do that which the local legislature asks us to do. After all, we have to bear in mind that we represent here practically the same electorate that the members of the local legislatures represent, and that if that electorate speaking through the local legislature, declares that a court ought to be constituted in a certain division, or that a judge ought to be appointed, it would be a serious matter for us to refuse to acquiesce in the desire of the local legislature.
As to the multitude of appeals, there again, I speak feelingly. Perhaps I should limit my observations to my own province, and I can say that in my province there is a multitude of appeals which I think are entirely unnecessary. But there again my hon. friend must address himself to the local legislature. We have no remedy; we cannot give any redress; we cannot interfere at all. That is a matter of procedure which is governed exclusively by the local legislature.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If we had never established the Supreme Court they could not appeal to it.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is another question. The question of the appeal to the Supreme Court is a matter for which this parliament must assume the responsibility, but, speaking deferentially of course, and after some experience of the Supreme Court, I say it would be rather a disappointment to me at all events if the Supreme Court of Canada were abolished. The Supreme Court has rendered good service, and if you bear in mind that the com* mercial law of this country, and generally that part of the legislation under the control of this parliament, is uniform throughout Canada, it will be seen to be important that this parliament should have a court to construe its own laws. It is important I say that this parliament should have control over the court that is called upon to construe the laws we enact here, so that we may have some sort of uniformity in our jurisprudence in respect to laws which are uniform throughout the country. There is a class of laws peculiar to each province, but tEere is on the other hand legislation applicable to the whole country, and with respect to that it is proper we should have a court that would construe that legislation so that our jurisprudence will have uniformity. In that respect the Supreme Court is a valuable body. My hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Haggartl has spoken of the judicial system they have in England. I speak with deference on that, because the system is not very familiar to me, but it strikes me that in Ontario and Nova Scotia the Judicature Act is practically adopted, and in those two provinces they have substantially the same Judicature Act they have in England.
I am reminded by the Prime Minister of something which 1 should say in respect to appeals to the Supreme Court. There is one question we must consider, and that is a question which is entirely under our control. That is, as to whether or not, with respect to the appeals to the Supreme Court, we should say that these appeals should be limited to that particular class of legislation I spoke of a moment ago; namely, the cases arising under the federal laws. There is a question as to whether that ought not to be done. That is a question which I think ought to be very seriously considered by all of us. I do not think that we ought to be hasty in our legislation in that regard. I know that so far as the province of Quebec is concerned, although they are called upon to administer a system of laws which is perhaps not very familiar to all of the judges, still there are cases in which we are glad to have appeals to the Supreme Court, notwithstanding that their system of law is not the same as exists elsewhere. With respect to the general question it would be worth our while to consider it. I think it is a very valuable suggestion, and one that ought to be looked into, as to whether we ought not to limit the appeals to the Supreme Court to cases which arise under the federal laws.


John Graham Haggart: The Minister of Justice tells us that it perhaps would not



be just to retire a judge at a certain time of life, and that at all events it is not the constitutional practice followed in England. 1 know tbe system that prevails there, and it was a question with me as to whether we had the power to do it. I contend we have the power if there is no constitutional principle against it. As to the appeal from the Supreme Court to the Privy Council, X am glad to hear the present Minister of Justice announce doctrines which are entirely different from those held by his leaders when they were in opposition. When the Hon. Edward Blake introduced the Supreme Court Act he said that the power of limiting the right of appeal was under the British North America Act and that when a question went to the Supreme Court we could by an Act of this parliament prevent it going to the Privy Council.


The MINISTER OE JUSTICE.: Mr. Blake never made such a statement.


John Graham Haggart: I beg your pardon. I listened to it and I heard the reply of Sir John Macdonald and his suggestion which was incorporated in the Act.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Mr. Blake knew too. much to make such a statement as that.


John Graham Haggart: I remember that Sir John Macdonald stated that a little bird whispered in his ear that an Act which deprived Her Majesty of a certain prerogative would be disallowed. The Minister of Justice tells us that it is the inherent right of every subject to appeal to the foot of the Throne. I rather think, that is a prerogative of the Crown itself. The prerogative of the Crown is to hear the appeal, and it rather appertains to the Sovereign and not to the subject. That is the way it should be put.


Mr. BELCOURT.: What is the difference V


John Graham Haggart: We have no right here to interfere with the prerogative of the Crown. When preparing the Australian constitution it was insisted that there should be embodied in it a provision similar to that in our original Supreme Court Act, and they held that the decision of the Australian courts should be final. The contention was made that in the Australian Act, when the King and parliament of England consented to it, the fact of their consent did away with the prerogative as far as it referred to Australia. If the parliament of Canada had a short Imperial Act passed, and if the King assented to it, no appeal would go from the Supreme Court to the Privy Council, because the consent of the King would take away this prerogative. I rose in order to state to the Minister of Justice what my recollection was of the matter under discussion.


John Graham Haggart: Then, as to the question of our jurisdie-iton over procedure, the power virtually rests with the government by its refusing to appoint a judge or refusing to pay him, or by delaying his appointment for a long time in order to allow of a consultation between the Dominiou authorities and the provincial authorities as to the necessity of it. But ' when the provincial authorities establish a court and we appoint a judge to it, we virtually become a party to the establishing of that court and the mode of procedure adopted by it. Equal power lies with us in consequence of having the power of appointing a judge and paying him. I will admit the statement of the Rt. Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald as to the convenience of leaving the matter to the different provincial legislatures ; and I will admit that Sir John Thompson, with some qualms of conscience, instead of fighting legislatures which were perhaps hostile to him, or forcing them to come to an agreement, did the same thing as a matter of convenience ; but I contend that in the having the appointment and payment of judges, we have equal power with the provincial governments over the procedure of the courts.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am obliged to my hon. friend for his correctiou of my statement as to an appeal to the Privy Council from the Supreme Court. He must bear with me, because unfortunately my knowledge has to be obtained from books, not having had a long parliamentary experience, and my knowledge of the Supreme Court is taken from the statute, which I will read to my hon. friend.


John Graham Haggart: What is the date?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: 38 Victoria, the statute which created the court:
The judgment of the Supreme Court shall, in all cases, be final and conclusive., and no appeal shall he brought from any judgment or order of the Supreme Court to any Court of Appeal established by the Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland, by which appeals or petitions to Her Majesty in Council may be ordered to he heard, saving any right which Her Majesty may be graciously pleased to exercise by virtue of her Royal Prerogative.
That Is the original statute, which was introduced by Mr. Fournier, and of course it is in contradiction to the hon. gentleman's words.


John Graham Haggart: I will get the debate on the question.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: As to the appointment of judges, if my hon. friend will read the British North America Act again, he will see that the appointment of judges is determined by that Act, and we have no right to interfere with it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the Minister of Justice could give us a statement of the percentage

of cases which have reached the Supreme Court and have been appealed to the Privy Council, I think it would be useful. Then, there is the question whether we could not prevent or limit the appeals in some way ; but if that could not be done, I think the question might naturally be considered whether it would not be wise to do away with the court. The aim of the court In the first instance was to save appeals to the Privy Council ; but it has not resulted in that after a fair trial, and therefore I think it might properly be a matter for consideration whether it is worth while to retain the court. If the number of appeals could be reduced by confining them to a certain class of commercial cases, the court might be made more useful.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It is in our power to limit the appeals in the way my hon. friend has suggested. That is matter to be considered.
The Exchequer Court of Canada, $11,135.
Hon. Mr. HA6GART. When this court was established, we thought we were only going to appoint a judge ; but we have a whole staff of clerks and messengers, a registrar and so on. If I remember rightly, the Exchequer Court was appointed for the purpose of inquiring particularly into claims against the Crown arising out of contracts or out of cases in which fiats were issued by the Governor in Council. I understand that in some recent cases, in which disputes have arisen relating to contracts in some of the departments, notably the Department of Railways and Canals, instead of going to the Exchequer Court, they have been going to arbitration, the minister choosing one arbitrator, the contractor another, and the two arbitrators choosing a third. I do not know how they got around the statute.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: The contract provides for it. It makes the chief engineer the sole arbitrator.


John Graham Haggart: Not since the appointment of this court.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Under the contract.


John Graham Haggart: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. There is no provision for arbitration. It is necessary, before a payment is made to a contractor, that a certificate should be granted by the chief engineer, who is made the sole judge as to whether the contract is carried out or not.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: All disputes under the contract.


John Graham Haggart: The appointment of the Exchequer Court judge was for this reason, that a contractor might have an equitable claim and the chief engineer might refuse to grant him what was evident justice.in the case. Then they might apply to the Exchequer Court and have a trial of the case. If I remember rightly, the Ex-Si
chequer Court was created for the trial of these cases in order to relieve the department of any charge oi* being smirched or of making arrangements by which contractors might get an unfair advantage of the government. The hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt) says now : Oh, the party has no right to go to the Exchequer Court at all.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I did not say that.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman said that under the clause of the contract, which provides that the sole arbitrator shall be the chief engineer of Railways and Canals, the party could not go to tiie Exchequer Court.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to repeat what I said ? I pointed out that one of the last clauses in all the contracts between the department and the contractors provides that the chief engineer shall be the sole arbitrator of all matters in dispute between them arising under the contract. Under that clause the arbitrators are asked to report to the chief engineer, and the chief engineer finally gives his certificate.


John Graham Haggart: I understand the hon. member for Ottawa now, and the interpretation he puts on the clause is a most extraordinary one. For the purpose of protecting the department, the chief engineer is made the judge of the efficiency of the work and is appointed sole arbitrator. The hon. member for Ottawa appears to contend that because the chief engineer is the sole arbitrator, he may consult three other arbitrators, he may make them the custodians of his conscience, and allow them to decide what the contractor is entitled to, and then certify to their report as required by the contract. I say that the clause in the contract has no such meaning. It was inserted to relieve the ministers of the different departments of the judicial jurisdiction, but it certainly was never intended that the chief engineer could relieve his conscience by referring the decision of disputes to other arbitrators. Nor was it intended to take such matters out of the jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court. I would ask the Minister of Justice whether, in the case of claims of contractors against the Department of Railways or the Department of Public Works, it is the intention of the government to go outside the Exchequer Court and refer them to arbitrators, and then have the arbitrament of these arbitrators certified to by the engineer of the department ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: By the Exchequer Court Act, as I recollect it, claims against the Crown are referred to that court for consideration. These claims are referred to it, on a petition of right, whicli is granted on the fiat of the Governor General. In addition to that, the minister himself may refer a matter to the Exchequer Court

directly without any petition of right at all. References of that sort are frequently made. These are the proceedings which may be taken under the Exchequer Court Act, and such proceedings would fall to some extent under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice. But what my hon. friend brings to the notice of the House is the reference to arbitrators of differences between the crown and a contractor. With these the Department of Justice has nothing to do at ail, and in order to answer my hon. friend it would be necessary to understand the terms of the contract between the parties. If the contract provides that disputes or difficulties may be referred to arbitration, the minister is within his right in granting the reference. But if there is no such provision, then the minister who made the reference must answer for his conduct. I know nothing about it.
My hon. friend from Lanark (Mr. Hag-gart) has drawn attention to the number of officials connected with the Exchequer Court. Let me tell him that since the change of government in 1S96-since my connection with the Department of Justice- we have not added one official to that court. We have taken the court as we found it and have maintained it in the condition in which it was previous to 1896.
To pay L. A. Aud'Btte portion of present salary over and above his statutory salary, representing annual increases from Jan. 1, 1891, to July 1, 1896, amounting to $275, together with $50 for 1901-2, and $50 for 1902-3, making a total of $375.
Mr. SPItOULE. What was the salary of Air. Audette before ?
The A1INISTER OF JUSTICE. The statutory salary of the registrar is $2,000, but it appears that when he entered upon his duties it was stipulated that his salary should increase, by annual increments of $50 each, to $2,400. This $325 is to provide for this annual increase which has now run his salary up to $2,325. He will have $75 more to get in order to reach the amount at which his salary was fixed by the original agreement. This is an unsatisfactory way of dealing with this gentleman's salary. If it is intended to fix it at $2,400, we should not have to come down each year, as has been the practice hitherto, and ask for this annual increase. My intention is to introduce an Act amending the Exchequer Court Act and fixing Air. Audette's salary at a certain sum so as to get rid of this annual vote.


Air. PRINGLE.: I find that there is a provision in the Act fixing the salary of the registrar at $2,600. I do not know whether it has been repealed or not. Or it may be a provision with regard to the Supreme Court. I may be in error as to that.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: That refers to the Supreme Court.


Charles Fitzpatrick: 


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: It follows almost immediately after the Exchequer Court, and provides that the Exchequer Court) shall have and possess concurrent jurisdiction. It then goes on to the distribution of business.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That is the Supreme Court.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: I was not quite sure, having just taken the Act in my hand.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There seems to be a very unusual principle in this. If I understand it is practically going back ten years to vote an increase in a man's salary.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No, it had been added on each year. The only addition this year is $50. The additions started in 1891, but we are" not responsible for them before we took office.
All-. SPROULE. But we are voting $375.
The A1INISTER OF JUSTICE. We vote the amount each year, with an increase of $50.


Mr. HENDERSON.: This item does not seem very clear. Mention here is made of increases from 1891 to 1896, and then for this year and next year. Did he get increases for 1897, 1898 and 1899 ?
The A1INISTER OF JUSTICE. I think for one or two years after 1896 he did not get the increases; but the increase has gone on as I have explained, and each year the amount of the previous year is voted with the additional amount of $50. The original salary is $2,000. My hon. friend will see, by reference to the Exchequer Court Act. sec. 9, the salary is fixed at $2,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And this vote for editor and publisher is for the same party as the vote for registrar ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: As editor of the Exchequer Court work-yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Altogether what does the salary amount to ?
The A1INISTER OF JUSTICE. $2,650.


John Graham Haggart: I wish to settle that question of the introduction of the Bill by Hon. Air. Fournier. I thought I was right in my recollection of it. The Bill that was passed was introduced by the Hon. Air. Fournier. That gentleman stated at the time that the clause in reference to the appeal and the exercise of the prerogative was left oft. He said that, had he consulted his own feelings, he would have inserted a clause which would prevent an appeal to the Privy Council-evidently he thought he had the right to do so. Aly memory extends further then the thought. I can remember when Sir John Alacdonald accused the friends of hon. gentlemen opposite of stealing his Bill. He said that

his Bill which had been introduced in this House had been pigeon-holed and afterwards was stolen. The measure was introduced four times before the Bill proposed by Mr. Fournier was passed. The first intention evidently was as was the whole tenor of the discussion led by Mr. Blake, who introduced the Bill, to cut out the appeal from the Supreme Court to the Imperial authorities.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: As far as possible.


John Graham Haggart: Sir John Macdonald pointed out the difficulty, that this was an attempt to limit the prerogative. I remember the dispute perfectly well. And, when this clause appeared in this Bill, I remember, Sir John Macdonald said that a little bird had whispered to him that the Bill would be disallowed. When Mr. Fournier introduced his Bill, he still stuck to his idea that, while, in some cases they might act wisely in an appeal to the Privy Council yet, in the majority of cases, the reasons were against that appeal, and he thought there ought to be inserted in the Bill a clause to prevent the appeal to Great Britain. Finally the Bill passed, as stated by the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick). But I was not wrong in saying that the intention of the Bill as introduced was to cut out the appeal to Great Britain.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: In referring, as I did a moment ago, to the salary of the registrar being fixed at $2,600. I was quite right in this respect-that clause 70, of the Act states that the registrar of the Supreme Court appointed under the Act should also be the registrar of the Exchequer Court. But I understand that that has been amended by the Exchequer Court Act.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There are two officials now.
Administration of Justice-Yukon Territory. Additional salary of judge, $1,000.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I will ask that the items under this head be allowed to stand. It is probable that there will be a complete re-organization of the salaries of the officials of the Yukon. Pending final conclusion as to that, I would like to have it stand.
Item allowed to stand.
Dominion Police, $30,000.	[DOT]
Mr. PRINGLE Do I understand from the Minister of Justice that there is likely to be a re-organization with regard to the county courts of the different provinces ?


William Findlay Maclean: The minister was speaking of the Yukon officials.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: But we are passing over the estimates for county court judges.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: We are not discussing these. We have just passed the Supreme Court, and these that we have come to are statutory items.
Legislation-House of Commons-salaries, $70,550.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would the minister give us some information about the new appointment he has made of Black Rod, whether he has changed the salary, and what necessity there was for continuing the office? There were great objections made years ago from the opposition to that office. They thought it was one of the useless offices. But it appears their views have changed in that respect as in many others. Will the right hon. gentleman explain?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I do not know whether the views of my hon. friend have changed. If they are the same as he formerly held he must be in favour of continuing the office) of Black Rod. Whether we have acted rightly or wrongly, we have continued the office. The new appointment, Mr. St. John, I think is a very acceptable officer, at all events his appointment seems to have been received with great favour. The former incumbent received a salary of $1,300, and was entitled in addition to his lodging, fuel, light, and the services of messengers. All these perquisites have been abolished. Mr. St. John has no room except one for his office, and he receives a salary of $1,800.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I feel much as Mr. Blake did when he was asking for a judgment of the Privy Council. He said he was not so much concerned to know what their judgment was as to know the reason for their judgment. I was not so much concerned to know that the right hon. Premier had followed the course of his predecessors, as I was to know why he had changed his mind, and why he had reached the conclusion that what he thought was wrong at one time is right now.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I suppose the reason is advancing years. I am afraid I am getting more Conservative.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I see there is a reduction of $300; how did you accomplish that?


Mr. SPEAKER.: Since the estimates have been prepared one of the chief clerks has applied for superannuation, which has been granted, and which will take place in a short time. It is therefore proposed to reduce the item by $1,200, and I move that this item of $70,550 be reduced to $69,350. On page 32 of the estimates the committee will find a detailed statement of the salary of each clerk.


John Graham Haggart: What is the necessity for appointing a new first-class clerk, or making provision for one who is going to be appointed?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Nobody has yet been appointed, because tlie gentleman who has been superannuated is still on the staff, but it is intended to replace him by another clerk. The work winch he is now doing is absolutely necessary, namely, the translation of French documents into English.


John Graham Haggart: I suppose this new appointment is not for the purpose of making special provision for some one, or for the purpose of rewarding some clerk.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: As I have just explained, the clerk who is to be superannuated is doing work that is absolutely necessary, consequently we need to appoint another clerk to replace him. There is no political patronage exercised in the House of Commons.
Item as amended, agreed to.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If I am correct in my information the number is the same now as it has been for several years past.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Yes, there is no change in the number. There are twenty-eight.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What I wanted to know was whether there had been a decrease or an increase. I often heard, especially from Mr. McMullen, who has been translated to the other House, and from the lion. Postmaster General in former years, reference to the fact that the sessional clerks were so numerous that they were stumbling over each other. If the same number is employed still, and I do not think there is much more work to do, I am afraid that argument, like many others that were addressed to the House and the country in the past, was not of much value.
Expenses of committees, clerks, etc., $25,650.
sessional and extri


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Could the minister tel us how many sessional messengers there arc now ?
r>Jir;,SPEAKER- 1 tllink there are 48. Rut they do not come under this item, they will come under the item of expenses in connection with sergeant-at-arms. I may say there has been a reduction in the number of messengers since I have been Speaker.


David Henderson: Will Mr. Speaker give us some idea of what the duties of those sessional clerks are, and what privileges members have in asking them for services ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The sessional clerks are appointed to do the work of the House generally, not for the service of members.


David Henderson: I do not see how forty-eight men can be kept employed in doing work for the House. I have no idea what the character of that work is. Forty-eight men ought to do a very large amount of work. I was under the impression and I think other members have been, that these sessional clerks were available at times if we wanted to obtain a copy of some document that was brought down for the House.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: That is right, the hon. gentleman may call upon the sessional clerks for copying all documents of the House. But \ thought the hon. gentleman asked me whether they could do the private work of members.


David Henderson: I did not intend that at all.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The work that is to be done by the clerks is the general copying of documents and if hon. members want to have documents, for instance, returns, copied, they may use the sessional writers for that.


John Graham Haggart: 


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The number of sessional clerks has not been increased since I have filled the office of Speaker. I am informed that it has been increased since 1896. I may add, concerning the sessional writers, that the persons who are in the post office are sessional clerks.


David Henderson: Could the hon. the Speaker give us an idea of the number of sessional clerks, messengers and pages employed at the present time ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Yes, the sessional clerks are twenty-eight in number.


David Henderson: I thought forty-eight.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: No, those are the messengers. There are seventeen pages, six servants and eighteen charwomen.


Mr. WILSON.: How many messengers ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Forty-eight.
Mr. HENDERsON. I merely adverted to this because I had the curiosity a short time ago to look up the number employed in the legislature in Ontario and I found there were 154 in 1898, and I wondered whether they were more extravagant than we are here.
Salaries and officers of the library, $17,130.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is an increase of $320. Have you any more appointments, or is this a statutory increase ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is one proponed change in the library and I am not sure that we have carried out here what we intended. There is no change except that one of the officers, Mr. Todd, is to be given the rank of a chief clerk instead of a first-class clerk.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That would give him much more salary ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That would give him no increase of salary, but

it would give him rank with the right to advance in future years.
Books tor the general library, including binding, etc., $12,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: IVho selects these books?


The PRIME MINISTER.: The librarians, Messrs. Griffin and Descelles.
Printing, binding and distributing the laws, $7,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is being done with the revision and consolidation of the statutes that we voted some money for last year ?


The MINISTER OE FINANCE.: Nothing has yet been done.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has there been any appointment made for the work ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I noticed that one Mr. Cameron had been appointed some time ago.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No appointment has been made, but the matter will be considered in a very short time.
Legislation-general printing, printing paper and binding, $110,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I see there is a reduction in this of $15,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I will have to ask the hon. gentleman to let that stand as I have not the information.
Contingent expenses in connection with voters' list, $8,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is in connection with the voters' lists from year to year.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I see you have an increase of $2,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, I will get the information if the hon. gentleman will let the item stand. I have no information. If there is no objection this can be passed.


The PRIME MINISTER.: We are now at the end of this branch of the estimates, and as we have done a good day's work we might perhaps adjodrn. We will consult the wishes of hon. gentlemen opposite.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Adjourn.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Very well.
Some resolutions reported.



REPORT PRESENTED).

[Stage Direction]
Annual Report of the Department of Agriculture-Hon. Sydney Fisher.
On motion of the Prime Minister, House adjourned at 6 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, February 24, 1902.