1903-06-02

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 189) to incorporate the Canadian Telephone and. Telegraph Company..-Mr. Birkett-by Mr. Taylor.
Bill (No. 190) respecting the Queen's College of Kingston.-Mr. Harty-by Air. Logan.

Mr. T. CHASE CASGRAIN (Montmorency).: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are proceeded with, I desire to call the attention of the House to a matter that is both serious and of a pressing nature. The rumour has circulated from time to time -in fact it was announced to the House- that a commission would be appointed to

3S66
investigate the granting of concessions in the Yukon Territory, and, amongst others, the Treadgold concession. Since then the rumour has been consistent that Mr. Justice Britton, of the High Court of Justice of Ontario, has been appointed a commissioner to make inquiry into these matters. It is also stated that a gentleman who is a civil engineer will be associated with Mr. Justice Britton to conduct the inquiry, and that Mr. Lacombe, a member of the legislature of Quebec, will be, or has been, appointed secretary of the commission in question. I shall put myself in order by moving at the end of my remarks that the House do. now adjourn. This morning the papers announced that Mr. Justice Britton has actually left Kingston on his way to Dawson. Now, it seems to me that this is a most extraordinary way for the government to treat the House. Here we are in session ; this matter was discussed in the House the other day ; the announcement was made, as I said a moment ago, that a commission would be appointed to investigate; and now, all at once, we learn, not from the ministry, but through the public press, that the appointment has actually been made and that Mr. Justice Britton, with another gentleman, will carry on the investigation. It seems to me that it was the duty of the government, first of all, to inform this House of the appointment of the commission, of the names of the gentlemen who would be charged with this difficult and important investigation, and also to submit to the House-as I think was almost promised some time ago-the terms of the commission under which Mr. Justice Britton and the other gentlemen would act. This matter is of a grave nature, and I take it that the members of this House have a right to know what were the instructions to be given to Mr. Justice Britton. These instructions should have been submitted to us, so that we could have seen whether or not in our judgment they were sufficient and covered sufficient ground. .
Now, this matter is of more importance than the ordinary mortal would believe at first sight. Not wishing at all to refer to a debate which has already taken place in this House, let me simply call attention to the fact that the principal denunciation of what took place in the Yukon in regard to these hydraulic concessions was brought to the notice of the government by the government's own friends. When the member for the Yukon went before the electors the very first questions which were put to him were whether he would have the Treadgold concessions cancelled, and whether he would have the other, or the hydraulic, concessions cancelled also. Let me read to the House-because they will bear repetition-some of the questions which were put to him at the time when he went' before the people as the government candidate in the Yukon. One of the questions was this :
Will you agree to advocate for and insist upon the cancellation of the Treadgold concessions ?
Will you pledge yourself to advocate and insist upon the punishment and exposure of officials both in Dawson and Ottawa by whose fraud or culpable negligence or inefficiency those concessions were granted in the first instance, or are now continued in force after the same by their terms should be cancelled ?
Will you support the appointment of a commission of five persons of whom two shall he nominated by the premier, two by the leader of the opposition and one by yourself to inquire into the administration of the Yukon country, both local and federal in all departments and report ?
I believe the member for the Yukon was not present at the time in Dawson city, or near Dawson city, and he could not answer these questions ; but a gentleman well known to this House, a high official of the government, the Gold Commissioner for the Yukon, Mr. Congdou, wrote in answer to the questions as follows :
Dawson, November 4, 1902. Sir,-I beg to say that your questions were received and forwarded to Mr. Boss at too late a date for it to be possible for him to have answered them by this time. I know the views of Mr. Ross as well as any one can and have no doubt he will advocate the course of action you suggest in your questions.
Now let me call the attention of the House further to the fact that it is requested in these questions that there should be punishment and exposure of the officials, both in Dawson and Ottawa by whose fraud or culpable negligence and inefficiency these concessions were granted ; and to this the member for the Yukon, by his agent, by his friend, by his right hand man in that territory, answered that he would see to it that this commission was appointed, not a commission of one man or of two men, but an absolutely Impartial and independent commission, the members of which were to be appointed by the premier, by the leader of the opposition and by the member for the Yukon himself. Now, Sir, that is not all. When the member for the Yukon was nominated by the Liberal convention, here are the resolutions which were put to him :
.Resolved that the government be requested Immediately to make careful examination and obtain reports upon the subject with a view of cancelling forthwith the Treadgold concession, and undertaking such supply as a national enterprise.
Resolved, that in the opinion of this convention many of the concessions now held were obtained by fraud and Imposition ; that it Is in the interest of this territory that such concessions should be annulled, and to that end that inquiry should be set on foot to ascertain the circumstances of such fraud and Imposition, and action taken by the Attorney General of Canada in the premises.
And the member for the Yukon, in a letter in answer to the resolutions which
3S67

3S68
were passed at that convention nominating him, wrote as follows :
With this in view I shall advocate the reduction of fees, &c. .	.	. the thorough investigation of the charges of fraud made in respect to the manner in which certain concessions are alleged to have been obtained, and if such fraud is established the immediate commencement of such proceedings as may be required to vacate the grants, and the enforcement of strict compliance vyith the conditions embodied in all crown grants In the Yukon.
And furthermore, at a meeting of the Liberal club, held at Dawson, this resolution was passed :
That an inquiry may be set on foot to ascertain the circumstances under which the leading hydraulic concessions were obtained, in order that action may be taken by the Attorney General of Canada in the premises.
Now, Sir, it will be seen that, not members of the opposition, not gentlemen in any way connected with the party which we represent in this House, but the very friends of the government allege that the Treadgold concessions and the other concessions were obtained by fraud, by false representations, and that the government was, as it were, imposed upon by certain parties, and they asked that a thorough investigation be made of this fraud, not, as I said before, by any body who would be open to the least bit of suspicion, but by an independent and impartial tribunal. Sir, I do not wish to say anything in disparagement of the character of Sir. Justice Britton. We knew him here in the House, he was a very estimable member of the House, until some time after the last general election, when he was appointed to the bench, either in 1900 or 1901. Now it seems to me that Sir. Justice Britton was not a fit and proper person under the circumstances to be charged with this most important inquiry. He comes, as it were, from the very hotbed of politics, he is fresh from the political arena ; and although he may be upright and honest, he is like every one of us, a man, and he must have his political leanings. Now I ask, is it fair to Sir. Justice Britton himself, is it fair to those who have brought these accusations of fraud and misrepresentation against the government, against officials of the government, and against ministers themselves, is it fair that an inquiry of this nature should be put into the hands of Sir. Justice Britton, and that Sir. Justice Britton should be put into this position, that he is between the fulfilment of his duty which lie will swear to accomplish, and his political leanings ? Because, Sir, although, as I said before, he may be perfectly honest, he may be perfectly upright, he cannot fail, like every one of us, to have his political leanings: and having been associated so long with bon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, having been a devoted supporter and partisan of theirs, having been appointed only lately to the bench, is it possible they can have in him that confidence Mr. CASGRAIN.	.
they would have in such an independent and impartial tribunal as was suggested to the member for the Yukon by the Liberal convention. Why, Sir, it is well known-and this is not in disparagement of the character of Air. Justice Britton, I take it-it is well known that when he was a member of this House during the last parliament and a part of the present parliament, the government had no more ardent and no more active supporter than the judge himself. When an investigation was asked for and a committee a [.'pointed to investigate matters pertaining to the administration of the affairs of the country by the government, for instance, into that question of military rations for South Africa, and I believe also in the question of the West Huron and Brockville elections, Air. Justice Britton was appointed by the government as the best man they could probably get to defend the government in those two matters.
That is not all. If we look at the ' Hansard ' what do we find '! AVe find that upon these very questions of the administration of the Yukon, Mr. Justice Britton expressed bis opinion on several occasions. AVe all know that when a judge has expressed his opinion upon a matter that afterwards comes before him, or upon a matter similar to one which afterwards comes before him to be adjudicated upon in his official capacity, the judge recuses himself by his own motion, or if he does not, he is recused by the parties interested. On tile 13th of April,
1899,	my hon. friend for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) moved an amendment to the Address to His Excellency with regard to the maladministration of the Yukon. Air. Bertram, who then sat in this House, moved ail amendment to the amendment expressing satisfaction at the prompt action taken by the government with respect to this maladministration. Air. Justice Britton, then a member of this House, voted in favour of the amendment of Mr. Bertram. Again on the 28th of June, 1899, Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper, the senior member for Picton, moved a resolution with respect to the maladministration of the Yukon. A vote was taken on the 29th of June. It is true that Air. Justice Britton did not vote on that occasion, but he was paired for the government with a member on this side of the House. On the 31st of May, 1900, the senior member for Pictou moved another resolution respecting the maladministration in the Yukon, and Air. Justice Britton spoke upon the motion in opposition to the arguments which had been given to the House by the senior member for Pictou. At this time also lie did not vote, but he was paired again for the government. On the 28th of June,
1900,	the junior member for Pictou (Air. Bell) moved a resolution upon the same question, and again Air. Justice Britton spoke in defence of the government upon this resolution, and voted with the government against the resolution.
3S69

Now, Sir, it seems to me that under the circumstances the choice of Mr. Justice Britton as a commissioner to investigate these serious frauds which are charged by supporters of the government is an unfortunate choice, unfortunate for this House, unfortunate for the country and unfortunate for Mr. Justice Britton himself. I would like to know what the terms of the commission are under which Mr. Justice Britton is acting. Have counsel been appointed to conduct the investigation, because we all know it is a complicated matter, it is a matter which requires a good deal of study and preparation, and such an involved case as this, without saying anything against gentlemen who do not belong to the legal profession, is a matter that should be placed in the hands of counsel so that a prepared brief could be made up and an effort made to get at the bottom of facts as to the manner in which these concessions were granted. Where is this commission going to sit ? We have seen it in the papers that Mr. Justice Britton is leaving Kingston for Dawson and that he expects to get there in twelve days. I remember that some time ago a challenge was thrown down to us here by the hon. Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mulock) to go before this commission, make our accusations and try and support those accusations with evidence. Are we to leave our duties here while this House is in session and go to the Yukon at our own expense ? Are we to lose our time and not to perform the duties which are imposed upon us as members of this House and go to the Yukon to conduct this investigation or to lay our charges before the commission ? What opportunity is given us of conducting an investigation into these very serious matters ? It seems to me, that, parliament being in session, that this House being now met for the discussion of the affairs of the country, the proper course to have taken would have been to appoint a parliamentary commission to investigate these matters. If a parliamentary commission had been appointed during this session we could certainly have brought witnesses down from the Yukon territory at less expense than it would have cost us to go up there and conduct the investigation. And besides, as I mentioned when I read the questions put to the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Ross), this alleged fraud was committed not only in Dawson but also here in Ottawa. Then, it becomes, of course, the duty of Mr. Justice Britton and of this commission to sit also in Ottawa, but iif this commission is to sit in Dawson and Ottawa also, certainly, that is another argument in favour of the appointment of a parliamentary commission which could go fully into this matter and report to the House, so that the House during this session would see whether or not any charges which have been brought against the government and the ministers are well founded and whether or not any of the hydraulic concessions
were, as the resolution of the Liberal Club said, obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. Let me tell the House that there are ugly rumours afloat about the granting of this concession. I am not repeating anything that is not said on the street every day. I am not repeating anything that is not said in the corridors of this House, and it is constantly repeated that large sums of money have passed between the grantees of this concession and certain gentlemen in authority. These are questions which should, in the interests of this government be investigated also. If these rumours are not true, if these rumours are ill-founded, then, so much the better for the credit of the government and tile credit of the country. I stand here as a member of this House wishing that the government for the credit of the country shall wash its hands completely of these accusations which have been brought constantly and persistently against the members of the administration. I beg, Mr. Speaker, to move the adjournment of the House.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wil-rid Laurier).: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend (Mr. Casgrain) were not so credulous as he has shown himself to be, and if he had exercised a little of the judgment with which Providence has endowed him, he would not have made the statements which he now makes. My hon. friend has been caught by a rumour and he has risen simply because he has read in the newspapers that Mr. Justice Britton has left for Dawson City. All I have to say is that if he has read this rumour he should have taken the trouble to verify it before saying what he has said, because I can inform him that there has been no communication with Mr. Justice Britton except to ascertain whether or not he is agreeable to serve upon the commission. Nothing has been done with Mr. Justice Britton up to the present time except simply to ask him whether or not he is willing to serve as a commissioner to go to the Yukon to inquire into the matters which have been referred to the commission. My hon. friend says now that there are rumours now going on the streets that large sums of money have been paid to high officials of this country, and he expresses the hope that the government will wash its hands of these accusations. The government will not appoint a commission simply to investigate rumours. If the hon. gentleman will take the responsibility of these rumours by making a statement upon the floor of the House and asking the judgment of the House upon it, the government would be prepared to appoint a commission to investigate his accusations. But the hon. gentleman is not serious, surely, when he tells us that we should appoint a commission simply to investigate wild rumours. I am about the corridors of this House as much as the hon. gentleman is, I am about the corridors every day in the week. I have not heard of these rumours. Perhaps they have been heard by those par-

3S72
ties only who are interested in hearing them. So far as I am concerned, I have not heard these rumours. If any member of the House of Commons will take it upon himself, according to parliamentary usage, to give voice to such rumours, then he shall have all the investigation that he wants. In regard to the charges made by the hon. gentleman against Mr. Justice Britton, 1 think he must himself admit that they are equally uncalled for. One of the best members of the Ontario bench at the present time, I think is Mr. Justice Britton. Mr. Justice Britton is human, as my hon. friend has said. He may have had his political leanings and he had in the past, but is my hon. friend prepared to say that because a man has had political leanings he will not be an upright judge ? That would be a severe indictment against the bench of Canada, because men on this side or on the other side who have been appointed to the bench have had their political leanings, but still, I do not think that the bench of Ontario has ever been charged with political partisanship. I know that men have been appointed to the bench from the Liberal side and from the Conservative side who have in their day had strong political leanings, but I have never known of a judge who ascended the bench against whom the charge of partisanship has been laid. Though Mr. Justice Britton, when he was here, may have had political leanings, still, I am not prepared to say that Mr. Justice Britton would not be a most admirable man to perform the duties which he has to perform. Mr. Justice Britton has had large experience in the province of Ontario as a drainage commissioner ; he understands, therefore, something of hydraulics, he understands something of the questions which are to be investigated in the Yukon, and that is one of the reasons why we selected him to perform the duties which he is to perform. It is true that while Mr. Britton was here he voted on a motion which was made charging maladministration in the Yukon. When Mr. Britton gave that vote at that time, I do not know that he did not give the very vote which he should have given as events have developed. We have heard a good deal about maladministration in the Yukon, but these charges are now proved to be futile and worthless, to have nothing in them, and if anybody has to recant or apologize for the vote which he gave on that occasion, it is not those who voted as Mr. Britton did, but rather those who voted in favour of the motion against which he voted. I have nothing further to say in defence of the character of Mr. Justice Britton. I do not believe that there is a single man who ever appeared before Mr. Justice Britton since he has been on the bench, who will be ready to countenance the charges made against him by my hon. friend. As I understand, everybody in the province of Ontario is satisfied with his judicial spirit, with his impartiality, with his efficiency, and I have reason to believe that he Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
will perform the duties of this commission as ably as he has performed his judicial duties. It is quite proper that before Mr. Justice Britton proceeds upon his mission, the terms of the commission should be laid upon the Table of the House. The commission shall be laid before parliament before Mr. Justice Britton proceeds to Dawson, and before he takes charge of the matter. We shall not avail of the invitation to invite the advice of parliament as to what should be the character and terms of that commission. We shall proceed according to parliamentary rules and usages. We are responsible to parliament for whatever we do. We exercise our duties to the best of our judgment, and when we have put them in concrete form we submit them to parliament and it is for parliament to pass upon them. If, when we bring down to parliament the instructions given to Mr. Justice Britton, they are not satisfactory to my hon. friend (Mr. Casgrain) it will be for him, if he chooses, to move that other instructions be given, but we are not prepared in advance to say that we should consult parliament as to what instructions should be given in this investigation. For these we are responsible. Unfortunately they cannot be brought down for a day or two, and the reason why they are not brought down to-day is that the gentleman we wanted to associate with Mr. Justice Britton has given us notification that it would not be convenient for him to serve upon that commission. I do not know that I have to say more than this at the present moment. The commission will be brought down in proper time, and if it is not satisfactory to my hon. friend it is open to him to move any kind of motion he wishes in connection with it. Just now I have only to protest against the assumption of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Casgrain) that a man whose record has been most honourable up to the present time,/ is not fit to discharge the duties with which he has been intrusted.


Mr.   R.@: Ij. BORDEN (Halifax). The House might be very much impressed with the earnestness of the right hon. Prime Minister, if we had not had some illustrations of the same earnestness on some somewhat similar occasions heretofore. Nothing could have been more delightfully earnest than the right hon. gentleman when he got up to tell the House some years ago how desirous he was that there should be a thorough and sweeping investigation into the West Huron and Brockville elections ; and when he assented at once to sending these matters to the committee, the right hon. gentleman was eloquent on the subject-the purity of parliament must be preserved; no stream could be pure that was polluted at the source and elegant phrases of that kind. And the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) was not far behind him. And then, when we went to that

3S74
committee, this gentleman against whom no charge had been made by my hon. friend (Mr. Casgrain) but in reference to whom only certain facts have been stated-this gentleman was one of the men put forward on that committee to fight the battle of the government and to protect the men who were being charged as be|ing criminals. He is one of the men who voted in that committee that my witnesses, whom I brought there, should not be heard until the criminals themselves had first been put upon the witness stand. I have nothing to say against Mr. Justice Britton, except that he was a very intense partisan on all occasions in this House; a very intense partisan indeed; a man whose character led him to be such; a man of very intense opinions. I do not know that I am saying anything to his discredit in that, because there are a great ' many intense partisans on both sides of the House here to-day; but I do say that it is a remarkable thing that Mr. Justice Britton who has just only left the arena of politics, should have been selected, and that the government should have seen fit to appoint him, before every other judge in Canada, for this'particular purpose, especially when as pointed out by my hon. friend (Mr. Casgrain) he had been present during four debates on the maladministration of the Yukon; he had spoken in two of those debates, and he had voted or had been paired on every occasion when a resolution was proposed to the House, and on every such occasion he had voted against any such investigation as was demanded from this side of the House.	*
Now, these are not charges against Mr. Justice Britton; they are simply facts that no gentlemen in this House can controvert. Under the circumstances, I join with my hon. friend (Mr. Casgrain) in regretting that the government saw fit-having so wide -a choice among the judiciary of Canada-to select Mr. Justice Britton for this particular occasion.
This matter has been brought up, and it has been discussed in parliament, and my right hon. friend says that the government would be prepared to grant any investigation that is demanded from this side of the House when charges are laid. Did we not lay charges from this side of the House once before, and did not my right hon. friend call upon his followers to vote them down, and were not they voted down, and was not the investigation that was proposed refused, although the hon. gentleman on this side who made the charges stated from his seat in parliament, that he would consider it his duty to retire from public life, and would consider himself incapable of holding any office in the gift of the Crown, unless he made good the charges he read before the Speaker of the House. And yet my right hon. friend stands up and says that if any lion, gentleman will make charges, 122
that is all that is necessary, and an investigation will be granted at once.
The right lion, gentleman promised most definitely to bring this commission down not later than to-day. He said it would be brought down yesterday, but not later than to-day, and he tells us now that it has not been brought down because one of the commissioners has not consented to act. Is there any particular reason why we should not see the terms of the commission. Cannot the commission be brought down in blank, so that we can rend the terms of it and understand whether there is any proper provision made for safeguarding the rights of the public. My right hon. friend must remember that very serious things have been said against this condition of affairs in the Yukon. I do not desire him to take the statements in the independent press; I do not desire him to take statements from people who are interested in any way as political partisans on the Conservative side; but I ask him to take the statements made by his own friends in the Yukon; by Liberal conventions; and I ask him to realize then, if he can, that this is somewhat a serious situation so far as the standard of public life in this country is concerned. For example, we have a convention of the Liberals of the Yukon in which the statement is made :
That the commissioner should be requested to represent to the government that in the opinion of this meeting the insertion of such features in the Order in Council can only have been procured by gross misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment.
Further on
Resolved, that in the opinion of this convention many of the concessions now held were obtained by fraud and imposition. That it is in the Interest of this territory that such concessions should be annulled and to that end that an inquiry should be set on foot to ascertain the circumstances of any such fraud and imposition and action taken by the Attorney General of Canada in the premises.
It is the political supporters of my right hon. friend who are voicing the sentiments of the Yukon in this way. It is not any independent opinion; it is the opinion of those who are supporting this government; business men in the Yukon who sent the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Ross) to represent them in this House. And the hon. gentleman from the Yukon (Mr. Ross) iri adopting this platform used this language :
I have received a copy of the platform adopted by the convention which honoured me by its nomination as a candidate for the House of Commons. I freely subscribe tq every measure suggested therein.
And further, the question was put to him :
Will you pledge yourself to advocate for and insist upon the punishment and exposure of officials both in Dawson and at Ottawa by whose



fraud or culpable negligence or inefficiency those concessions were granted in the first instance or are now continued in force after the same by their terms should be cancelled.
And the answer given by the gentleman (Mr. Congdon) who is now the commissioner in the Yukon was, that Mr. Ross freely subscribed to everything stated in that platform. Under these circumstances, especially as a strong voice from the Yukon demanded that there should be an independent commission appointed, a commission in which the government, the opposition, the people of this country independent of the government or opposition should be represented, it might well have become the government and my right hon. friend to submit to the House in the first place, as he did in the case of the judicial investigation into the electoral frauds, the terms of the commission, in order that they might be discussed in the House, and that such steps might be taken as would insure a prompt and thorough investigation into these alleged frauds which have been referred to by the right hon. gentleman's friends in the Yukon. There is a precedent for that course in the proposal for the judicial investigation into the electoral frauds. In that case my right hon. friend brought down the commission before it was issued, in order that it might be discussed in this House. It was discussed in this House; suggestions were made, in some of which the late Minister of Justice, the late Hon. David Mills, acquiesced, and the commission was amended in accordance with those suggestions. In view of the gravity of the charges made on all sides in this matter, some of which have not been mentioned in the House, though I have no doubt they have come to the right hon. gentleman's own ears-at all events, they have appeared in the public prints in the Yukon- I say it might well have become the government to bring down the terms of the commission and have them discussed, as was done in the case to which I have referred. However, the right hon. gentleman lias seen fit to adopt another course ; he has seen fit to appoint a commission of his own choosing. What precautions are to be taken in the terms of that commission for safeguarding the public interest I do not know; because, although the commission was promised us to-day, we have not yet had an opportunity of perusing it. But, in view of the facts already brought to the attention of the House, the rumours, the more than rumours-the statements made in the public press of this country in regard to this matter-I think the right hon. gentleman lias not taken the wise course in neglecting to take the House and the country into bis confidence in regard to the terms of this commission, before he settled them and before he appointed commissioners for the purpose of making the investigation. Therefore, I think that my hon. friend from Montmorency was perfectly justified in Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
bringing this matter to the attention of the House to-day, and that it would have been far better if the government had pursued in this case the same course which they pursued in the case to which I have referred.


Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).: I rise merely for the purpose of saying that I entirely concur in what has fallen from the lips of the hon. leader of the opposition, and particularly in the suggestions made by my hon. friend from Montmorency. The right hon. leader of the government is, I think, mistaken in saying that my hon. friend from Montmorency made a charge against Mr. Justice Britton. He made no charge of any kind at all ; but what he desired was that the ordinary rules of administrative, decency should be followed . in this case as in every other. There is no question that in litigation, at all events in t our province, Mr. Justice Britton would be debarred from sitting in this case, having on many occasions previously expressed an opinion, not exactly, perhaps, on the particular question involved, but on questions akin to it, and that he would have excused himself for that reason from sitting on the case. Under these circumstances, it seems only right and proper that my hon. friend from Montmorency should have conveyed to the government his sense, which is the sense of many other members of this House, of what is decent and proper in connection with this investigation. The right hon. leader of the government treats lightly the accusations which my hon. friend from Montmorency brought to the notice of this House. It may be that my right hon. friend is not aware of all the rumours, as he contemptuously calls them, which were circulated in respect to this affair ; but I am perfectly convinced that if the right hon. gentleman were more in touch with what has been stated for weeks in regard to this matter in all the cities of the Dominion he would see that it is far too important a matter to be investigated by a man who has so recently occupied the position in politics which Mr. Justice Britton occupied. I am very pleased to hear from the right hon. gentleman that there has been as yet no acceptance by Mr. Justice Britton* of this important mission ; and I feel convinced, from my knowledge of that hon. judge, that taking all the circumstances into consideration, he will refuse to act on this commission, as I think it is his duty to do. There is another point which I think deserves to be brought to the attention of this House, and that is that Mr. Justice Britton, or whoever is going to investigate this matter, is to begin bis investigation in the Yukon. Now, the Yukon is the country which has been aggrieved by this nefarious transaction, and it may be proper that that transaction should be investigated on the spot; but unless that investigation is made primarily here, and unless we have the opportunity of hearing, before those charged with the investigation, the people

concerned in the transaction, most of whom are to-day in England, the real facts of the case will not be brought out. Because it must be not unknown to the hon. gentleman sitting on the treasury benches that serious charges have been made before the public-that it has been stated time and again by responsible men-and there is not a member of this House, I am sure, who will not corroborate what I say-that these concessions were only obtained by the payment of sums of money, as the hon. gentleman from Montmorency has said, to persons occupying high and controlling positions. The sum has been mentioned. It has been stated that a document was signed in connection with that transaction, and that that document is to-day in the city of London. Everybody knows that, and I demur to the proposition of my right hon. friend that a man is obliged, when he hears these rumours current in the public, when time and place and circumstances are stated-when it is stated, for instance, that my right hon. friend himself, when he was in England, was made aware of certain circumstances connected with this matter


The PRIME MINISTER.: I deny that absolutely.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: So much the better, Mr. Speaker ; but I say that has been stated, and I demur to the proposition that we are here for the purpose of bringing accusations.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Do it, then. Do it, then.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We are here for the purpose of conveying to the House the sentiments of the public and what is stated by the public. I deny that my function is to go around finding accusations against ministers or against my hon. friends on the opposite side of the House. But when we hear these things stated constantly and continually, I say it is our duty, as representatives of the people, sitting here in the interests of the people, to bring these statements to the notice of the House and government : and it is then for the government to have the facts fully investigated. That is my interpretation of the duties devolving upon us, and I demur entirely to the proposition that when we make the House acquainted with matters charged not only by the Liberal Association of the Yukon, but-in the public press, it is our duty to make an accusation when we have no personal knowledge of the facts ; but it is the duty of the government in the presence of the public to have a full and complete investigation. That is my proposition. I venture to say that unless we have just such an investigation by men entirely disconnected with politics-and when I say that, I am casting no reflection on Mr. Justice Britton, for there is not a man whom I held in higher esteem when he sat in this House, but he has been too recently in the political arena for his judgment to give satisfaction to the public in a matter 122}
of this kind-I say that unless we have such an investigation, public opinion will not be satisfied. That is the ground I take. Unless we have the statements under oath of the men who engineered this concession, unless we have the explanation given by these men of this transaction, the public will not be satisfied.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: I only wish to make one reference to what the hon. gentleman has just said. The proposition advanced by the hon. gentleman is an amazing one to come from one who has had so much parliamentary experience. He says that if rumours are abroad reflecting on the integrity of any member of the government, and a member of parliament informs the House that rumours of this character are in circulation, the duty devolves on the government of appointing a commission for the purpose of having the matters investigated concerning which these rumours are circulated. Let me ask my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier and the hon. gentleman beside him if, in all their experience in public life, they have ever known of any such principle having been laid down before, or, if laid down, having been acted upon. Is it conceivable that the duty of gentlemen in opposition is to gather up all the garbage they can find and then constitute themselves into channels for spewing that out into parliament ? And when they do undertake such a task, are we to be told that it is the duty of the government to appoint a solemn tribunal in order to find if there is any warrant for these slanders ? Why, the government which would adopt any such course, would simply make itself contemptible in the eyes of the whole people. It would not only make itself contemptible but ridiculous, and would take up all the time it should devote to the discharge of the public duties in pursuing investigations of this character. One hon. gentleman after another gets up and says that there are rumours in London and in every city in Canada, that this or that minister has been conducting himself in a discreditable manner. They do not pretend to go into particulars, they simply state that they have been informed that certain discreditable things have occurred. They do not even say that they believe their information but that there are people who do believe it. If that principle were to hold, what would this parliament be doing ? Why, every member of the House who approved of that sort of proceeding, who revelled in scandal, who wanted something to do, would take up some yarn and seriously retail it to parliament and then ask parliament to appoint a commission.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Why did you appoint a commission ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I shall tell my hon. friend in a moment. But I want to know whether a
3S79

3SS0
more absurd and more startling proposition ever emanated from any responsible member of parliament ? I for one do not think that any member of this House, outside of my hon. friend, would seriously desire to commit himself to any such a declaration. Now, I shall tell the hon. gentleman why a commission was appointed. No commission was appointed or intended to be ail-pointed for the purpose of holding any investigation into rumours which lion, gentlemen have brought here and which they say are in general circulation. No such commission is contemplated, but simply a commission for the purpose of deciding whether or not the method which the government has adopted for solving the problem of mining in the district is the best method that could be adopted. If lion, gentlemen opposite want to do any nosing around to see if they can get hold of something or other on which they can hang some reflection, they are at liberty to do so, but if they want any importance to be attached to their statements, they will have to take the responsibility of saying that they believe, at all events, that somebody has done wrong before they can ask, with any confidence or any reasonable degree of justice, for the appointment of a commission of investigation. Therefore I say that there is no good sense in the hon. gentleman's proposition.


Mr. IV. K.: , NORTHRUP (East Hastings). I listened with delight to the remarks just made by the hon. Minister of Railways, as I always do to all liis- statements. His speech was both eloquent and forcible, but it reminded me of the words of the old song : Like the flowers that bloom in the spring, it had nothing to do with the case. It was all very well for the hon. gentleman to call upon members of this side to make charges and assume full responsibility for matters of which they have no personal knowledge, but we were told that the government! have appointed a commission. It was not we who asked the government to appoint a commission, but the government who announced that they had appoirfted one. From the lips of the right hon. the Prime Minister, we had that information, and accepting it as true, it cannot be out of place for hon. gentlemen on this side to endeavour, to the best of their humble ability, to assist the government in making that commission as efficient as possible. There are two possible objects of a commission. One is to disclose the truth and the other is to suppress it. Surely we are not to suppose that hon. gentlemen opposite have gone through the farce of appointing a commission in order to deceive themselves and the country and suppress the truth ? Surely they cannot complain if we charitably assume that, in appointing a commission, they honestly desired to ascertain the truth ? If that be' the case, they cannot object if we make a few suggestions regarding certain features of this commission. I would be Hon. Mr. BLAIR.
sorry to say a word against the hon. Mr. Justice Britton. No member of the bar of Ontario would support me if I were to say a word against his ability or integrity, but when we remember that Mr. Justice Britton who committed himself with regard to these charges when he accepted a seat in this House, we may assume, without any disparagement of his ability or integrity, that should his decision not be in conformity with the preconceived ideas formed by the general public, they will conclude that justice has not been done. And, Sir, we ail know that it is almost as bad to have the public, or a large section of the public, believe that injustice has been done by the bench as it is actually to have such injustice done. Now, in the province of Ontario we have had a little experience of commissions. We have had commissions and commissions. We bad a commission in the western part of the province appointed as this apparently is, a commission of judges, to investigate certain election matters. No provision was made for a prosecutor, no provision was made for the purpose of arranging to bring the charges home to the parties accused, no provision was made to have witnesses brought-simply one counsel appointed for the commission. From one end of the province to the other, Conservatives and Reformers all know that the only result was to bring not only commissions but the bench itself into discredit, because of the failure, in fact, the complete travesty of justice that was exhibited. AVe have had a second commission, a most important one in Toronto, the sittings of which have just been closed. Perhaps it would not be out of place, as the report of this commission is not yet down, to say that everybody thinks that that commission, composed of two of our most eminent judges, endeavoured to the best of their ability to elicit the truth no matter who might be hurt. In that case, we had those who were prosecuting and those who were defending, both appointed by the government, as though it were felt by them that the public, after all, ivere the people most interested, and that if counsel was appointed to assist one side, counsel should be appointed to assist the other side; if witnesses were wanted, it should not be left to the parties who might be making the charges to go to the expense of bringing those witnesses to prove a thing which, after all, was in the public interest. So, I venture to think that the right hon. premier would make similar provision to that of our recent Ontario commission and have counsel for the prosecution as well as counsel for the government, and give counsel for the prosecution power to bring witnesses and pay them and do whatever might be required to be done. I venture to say that when the commission made its report the public would have confidence in that report. I have here the remarks made by the hon. Postmaster General (Hon. Sir AA'ii-liam Mulock) as to the scope of the coin-
3S81

mission in this case now under discussion. In giving liis views as to the scope of that commission, the hon. gentleman said :
I would also say to my hon. friend who tells us that he is so desirous of investigation that I am sure he must well know that It has been long the fixed intention of the government s;o hold isueh an investigation. The hon. gentleman must remember that, when the election was held, promises were given to the people of the Yukon that there would be a commission to inquire into the whole administration of that territory. There has been no opportunity since that date until the present to send in commissioners. I doubt if navigation is more than open, even if it is yet open. When the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Ross) returns to Ottawa-he is at present in British Columbia, I understand-and we can have the benefit of liis advice, it is our intention ito fully carry out the representations made to the citizens of the Yukon to have a full investigation into all charges or suspicions that hon. gentlemen may be good enough to mention or entertain in regard to any matters connected with ithe Yukon administration. I give that public notice to my hon. friend, so that, in addition to the advantage he has had of ventilating his views on the floor of this House, he will have an opportunity to make good, if he can, any of his charges or suspicions before a tribunal where newspaper extracts and letters will not be the only evidence, but where gentlemen will have the privilege of pledging their oaths to the truth of all they say.
It will be a matter of interest to tliis House, when the commission has actually been laid on the Table-and I presume some day it will be-if any of us live to that interesting day-to compare the utterance and the promises of tlie hon. Postmaster General with the statements just made by the hon. Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Blair). I am afraid that it will puzzle the ingenuity of even the right hon. the premier to reconcile the promise on the one hand and the statement on the other. I have no desire to go into the merits of the case, but surely it would not be out of place to remind lion, gentlemen''opposite, when they so glibly call upon gentlemen on this side to make charges assuring us that there will be an investigation, of the tone and feeling on the other side of the water. It is but a short time since a British minister of the Grown, a gentleman against whom nothing was charged, but who simply happened to be a director in a company whose transactions had not been altogether creditable-though nobody, not even his enemies suggested that he had any knowledge or connection with these matters-yet, even of the company in which he was found it was deemed necessary, because of the pressure of public opinion, for him to resign his seat, which) he promptly did. If that spirit were to be shown here, if lion, gentlemen read the newspapers in the Yukon, read the resolutions of the Board of Trade of Dawson, read even the utterance of their own political friends assembled in convention, I am sadly afraid there would he at least one vacancy behind my right hon. friend the premier before the present session
is much older. We trust to that, hon. gentlemen opposite, in bringing down the commission which we looked forward to with hope and expectation, will help to realize the good opinion which we wished to have of them by allowing us to assist them in making tliis as perfect an investigation as can be made. For. surely, laying aside partisanship and viewing this simply as a Canadian, in view of the charges made in the British newspapers, in the newspapers of Dawson, by the Board of Trade of Dawson, by the vote lately taken by the elected members of the Yukon council, and by the statements made in this House this afternoon, there is no man who has pride in his birthright as a Canadian, who does not feel that, in tlie interests of our country, and as a defence of its fair fame and honour, these charges sliouid be either proved or disproved at tlie earliest possible day.
Motion (Mr. Casgrain) to adjourn negatived.



ATLANTIC FAST LINE.

Sir. II. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: I would like to ask the hon. Slinister of Trade and Commerce (Right Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) whether or not he has anything to communicate to the House with regard to the tenders for the Fast Atlantic Service ?
The S1INISTER OF-TRADE AND COMMERCE (Right Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright). I expect to be in a position to do so within a day or two.



RAILWAY ACT, 1903.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 21) to amend and consolidate the law respecting railways-The Slinister of Railways and Canals.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: There were three or four sections that were held in reserve until they might be considered and sections drafted. The first of these is clause (e) of section 2. It may be remembered that an hon. gentleman from Slanitoba suggested that there were in his province political divisions which were not called counties, and that it might be desirable to add some words to meet such cases. I propose to insert, after the word ' division ' in the seventeenth line, the words ' to that,' so that it will read ' or like division to that of a county.'


Hon. Mr. TISDALE.: If there is any division except that of a county in any province, would it not he better to use the name given to that division in the province itself?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: There are divisions like counties, but they are not called counties, they are called municipalities.


David Tisdale: Then why not use the same technical name that is used in the province to designate the division ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: This amendment I propose will sufficiently meet the case.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Now, in the same section, in clause (k), I propose to strike out the word ' passage ' in the thirty-third line and insert the word ' public.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. LANCASTER.: I think clause (m) also stood over. The minister was going to consider what I said about giving that jurisdiction to county judges, because it would be a great saving of expense.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have considered that, and I think there would be no objection to it.


Mr. SPROULE.: In clause (k), which reads :
The expression ' highway ' includes any public road, street, lane or other public or communication other than a farm crossing.
It seems to me there might arise cases where it would be desirable to give the commission further power. For instance, a farmer might wish to subdivide his property and sell 50 acres of it. Now, the party who buys that 50 acres would also require a crossing over the railway, and the company are not always willing to give it, in fact sometimes they have refused to give it. It seems to me this commission ought to have authority to look into such cases and adjust them. There may be other cases where a portion of a lot is surveyed out for villa purposes, and another crossing is necessary over the railway. Also the railway has refused to allow travel over its road except by the farmer who owns the farm, and only for the purpose of doing work on that farm. This was done at West Toronto junction. Such cases are likely to arise, and we should provide that this commission shall have power to adjust such difficulties.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think the law already sufficiently provides for what the hon. gentleman mentions. If he will turn to section 19G of this Bill, he will find that every railway company is required to make crossings for persons across whose lands the railway is carried. If the company refuses, it can be compelled to do so by the commission.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The company claim that they are compelled to make only one crossing for a farm. If a farmer sells 50 acres off his farm, the company may refuse, and has refused, to make another crossing for the convenience of the new owner. Now, this clause (k) in the interpretation section, only provides for a public road or communi-Hon. Mr. BLAIR.
cation other than a farm crossing. I think the commission should have power to consider the right of a farmer to have more crossings than one.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We have no provision in the Bill, except section 19G, to deal with such cases, and that section makes it incumbent upon the railway companies to give the farmers a crossing. I do not know that we should require that the company should be compelled to give every person a crossing who wants it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Let me state an instance that came under my own notice. The front portion of the farm was sold as far back as the railway, but the farmer reserved along one side of the line sufficient width for a road to the rear of 50 acres of his farm. It is doubtful whether the railway will consent to give him another crossing, because it is claimed that they gave him one crossing at the centre of the farm. He has reserved the right of way alongside the line fence of the farm, but part of the farm, because the balance of his farm is on the other side of the railway. I think he should be entitled to get a crossing.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The right of way is reserved ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Do you mean that the person who owns the land behind owns the right of way ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That on one side he only owns enough land to give him the right of way, and that on the other side is a large portion of his farm ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The object would be to make connection between the two ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I am inclined to doubt whether this section will cover that point, but 1 will consider it. I do not think we could alter the case by amending clause (k) of section 2.


David Tisdale: Section 190-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Section 190 does not meet the case.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I admit it does not meet the case, but that is a proper clause to amend when we come to it, and before we get there we can think it over. I realize that what the hon. gentleman complains of is entitled to consideration. I beg to move :

That subsection (m) of section two be amended by inserting after the word ' superior' the words ' or county.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 4,
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS moved that section 4 be amended by striking out the last three lines of the section and substituting the following :
Such of the provisions of the special Act of the provincial legislature as are inconsistent with this Act and in lieu of any general railway Act of the province.
Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: Before passing from that section, I would like to call attention to these words in the third line : ' by any special Act of the parliament of Canada.' Does that refer only to Canada since the British North America Act was passed, in 1867 ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, but we have another clause that provides for railways incorporated prior to that time.


John Graham Haggart: How do you apply this Bill to the Grand Trunk Railway Company, which received its incorporation before 1867 ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Section 306, which is not repealed, declares the Grand Trunk Railway to be a railway for the general advantage of Canada, and, therefore, it is subject to this Bill.


David Tisdale: The difficulty that tlie hon. member for Lanark (Hon. Mr. Hag-gart) points out is this : In the old Act we named every road. The danger is that by cutting all that out and by attempting to cover the ground by a general clause we are rendering it open to question whether a railway such as the Grand Trunk Railway, which got its incorporation from the old province of Canada before Canada was confederated comes under the operation of this Bill. It is just one of those things that we have to watch very carefully. The old way may seem longer and more cumbersome, of naming the roads, but if we do not get our general language right, we may not cover the ground that is intended to be covered by these words.


John Graham Haggart: Is the hon. minister perfectly clear that the words ' by any special Act of the parliament of Canada' apply to legislation passed by the two old provinces ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not think they do apply.


John Graham Haggart: I am sure of it.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Section 6 is adopted.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I propose to strike out the citations of the Acts as we go along.


Robert Laird Borden: Do you think it wise to take them out ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We always do.


Robert Laird Borden: I think it is a very great advantage when you consolidate an Act to have the references at the end of a section to show where it came from. That subject was pretty carefully considered at the last revision in our own province and the references were put in. Where a statute was taken from the statutes of Great Britain, or of Ontario, or of our own proviuce, the reference was put in. It frequently facilitates the work of any one who undertakes the construction of an Act, because he is able to know whether or not it is taken from any other enactment upon which there has been a judicial decision. I think that unless there is some objection you should leave the citations in.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We might consider that point.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the hon. Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) know what course is .being pursued in respect to the present consolidation of the statutes ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: We are indicating the source. It is very convenient.


Robert Laird Borden: I think it is very convenient.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: We have revised several of the most important statutes and we have followed that course. It is of very great convenience to the profession to be able to go back and find the origin of a statute.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Has the Minister of Justice in his mind that they should be struck out as we go along.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: They should be continued. Where you proceed as in the case of the state of New York and in Quebec by numbering the sections consecutively, they omit the reference, but for convenience it would be better to follow the old system and give the reference.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: In one of the western states, opposite the section they give every judicial decision upon it.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: That has been suggested but that is going too far.


Robert Laird Borden: It is absurd.

On section 7,


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The suggestion was made yesterday by the hon. member (Mr. Ingram) that where electric railways were doing 'a freight business and charging tolls for the carriage of freight they ought to be included in the Bill. On consideration I have decided to propose an amendment to be inserted at the end of subsection one of section seven, which will bring such railways within the scope of the Act. This section provides that they shall be exempted, and I propose to add the words :
Unless such railways or tramways carry freight traffic and charge tolls therefor.


Mr. BARKER.: If they carry freight will they be considered as works for the general advantage of Canada.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, I think so. If there is any doubt in the hon. gentleman's mind I will add some words to make it clear.


Samuel Barker: I simply wish to know whether if they carry freight they shall be considered works for the general advantage of Canada.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes, in crossing or connecting.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 10,


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I propose to strike out the words in brackets
Or in his absence the deputy chief commissioner.
and to substitute
And the chief commissioner when present shall preside.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 12,


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I propose that this section shall read
Each commissioner shall during the term of his office reside in Ottawa in Canada or within five miles or within such distance thereof as the Governor in Council may at any time determine.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 21-staff of board,


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I propose that the following be inserted as the first subsection :
The Governor in Council may, from time to time or as the occasion may require, appoint one or more experts or persons having technical or special knowledge of the matters in question, to assist in an advisory capacity in respect of any matter before the board.


Robert Laird Borden: It is not intended to give them any voice in the proceedings beyond advising ?


Robert Laird Borden: 


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: They are not to be members of the board, but simply advisers, like 'assessors in the courts.
Section, as amended, agreed to.	[DOT]
On section 24,


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I propose to have the words ' orders and ' inserted after the word ' make.' The clause would then read :
The board may make orders and regulations- -with regard to the matters covered by these various subsections.


Samuel Barker: Are the words of this section broad enough to cover electric railways, just one car through the streets of a city or its suburbs ?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Yes.
On section 24, subsection (a),
Limiting the rate of speed at which railways, trains and locomotives may be run in any city, town or village, or in any class of cities, towns or villages described in any regulation ; and if the board thinks fit the rate of speed within certain described portions of any city, town or village, and allowing another rate of speed for another portion thereof, which rate of speed shall not in any case exceed six miles an hour unless the track is properly protected.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: 1 propose to strike out nil the words after ' thereof ' in the thirty-third line. This would leave it to the discretion of the board what the rates should be. I do not think it right for us to limit their discretion too much.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not think we ought to go quite so far as that. These commissioners are given very wide powers under the Act; but this is a matter which involves such dangers to the travelling public in different localities that, I think, it would mean that the commissioners would be assumed to do what it would lie almost impossible for any commissioners to do satisfactorily. It has been the law for a good many years under the present Railway Act that there must be some general limitation to speed in cities, towns and incorporated villages. The section of the present law which this is to replace says :
-which rate of speed shall not in any case exceed six miles an hour, unless the track is properly fenced.
Now. there have been a great many decisions in our courts under that section. Not to take up unduly the time of the committee, I would say generally to the minister, that these decisions have not been at all such as the railways can complain of. They have been against the protection of the public more than some of us representing the people here, and more than most of the people, think they ought to have been. We

shall go still further if you take all limitation away anil allow these commissioners to say what shall be the rate of speed at every crossing throughout the whole Dominion of Canada. With no limitation whatever they might have as many rates of speed as there' are crossings. The minister will probably say :	We must expect them to
be reasonable and be governed by some regular rule. Bait It seems to me it would be better to carry out something like the old clause. If the minister thinks, for instance, that the limit of speed must be raised, that, living faster than we used to do,, we should travel faster and be allowed to cross streets at a higher rate of speed in cities, towns and villages, I would be ready to consider whether it would be well to make the figure eight or ten miles an hour instead of six. But to say that this commission shall have no guiding rate at all, no standard that it shall be allowed to make any rate it sees fit at any crossing, that it is not bound to make them alike or consistent with one another, would be very much against the interest of the travelling public. Of course, there is no question about railways being liable to damages if they do not use ordinary caution. But damages do not pay for lives. There have been a good many accidents at these crossings at the older points in Ontario. At Grimsby, not very long ago, three young people from eighteen to twenty years of age were cut off in an instant while crossing Depot Street. They were returning from church and went behind a freight train which had just passed when an express train going the other way at a very high speed sent them into eternity in an instant. It is true that their people are entitled to recover damages for the loss of their lives; but that is not the point-the point is to avoid killing people. The Act is not provided as a means of enabling people to get money for the loss of life, only because the railways are responsible, and as the way to make them careful is to make their carelessness cost them money.
But that is no real quid pro quo, that is no real compensation to anybody for the loss of those that are dear to them. The travelling public who cross a railroad must be made safe as well as those who travel on the railroad at a high rate of speed. We have heard a good deal lately in regard to the safety 'of the travelling public on trains. But there is another class of the travelling public that has to use the highway when trains happen to be passing, and they have just as much right to be protected, and the commission for that purpose ought to be restrained in some way. If the ministers were to make a change of that rate from six to eight or ten miles an hour, I would not have so much to say about it; but I protest against striking out the last words of this section and permitting the commission to allow a railroad train to run at any rate of speed the commission may see fit. I do not think this commission will
go to every village, town and city in the country to look at the different crossings, and unless they do, they cannot be certain as to what is the proper rate of speed for the train to make in such town or city. All railroad crossings are not equally dangerous, they are dangerous according to the lay of the land, and to other local circumstances. Sometimes a train comes into view all at once, at other times a train can be seen coming for half a mile. Therefore the danger is not at all the same at all the crossings. I submit there is no way of deciding as to what rate of speed is safe at any crossing unless you see that crossing itself, and see the geography, the hills, the hollows, the levels, the buildings, the trees and the state of the land. Therefore it would be a mistake to allow the commission to give the companies power to run at any speed they see fit unless they do so under certain restrictions. To give the commission power to let them run at any rate they like, without any guide or restraint, is asking the commission to do what is practically impossible ; they could not do it unless the trains were limited to a comparative low rate of speed of six or eight miles an hour. Unless the minister thinks that trains should be allowed to run much faster than that, he ought to make this Bill read so that the commission should be guided as they are under the old Act.
While on this section I would like to point out that the words in the first line ' limiting the rate of speed at which railway trains and locomotives may be run in any city, town or village,' those words ' railway trains and locomotives ' are rather inapt in view of the language of the Act. He has amended the first line by making it read that the board may order and make regulations limiting the rate of speed at which railway trains and locomotives may be run. I want to point out that the word ' trains ' in his interpretation clause has a much wider signification than the words ' railway trains and locomotives.' I suggest that he use the word 'trains' instead of 'railway trains and locomotives,' because the word ' trains ' in the clause (cc) of the interpretation section includes any engine, locomotive or other rolling stock. Now any rolling stock, whether it be railway trains or locomotives as described in this section 24, ought to be governed by the section, and the word ' trains ' would make it cover all other rolling stock such as electric railway trains or single cars. The words ' railway trains and locomotives ' have no extended meaning in this Act, they are not described in any interpretation clause. Therefore, in reading section 24 we really seem to be given to railway trains and locomotives their ordinary meaning, whereas if we use the word ' trains ' it will include engines, locomotives and other rolling stock, the word 'trains' would cover everything that passes over the road. I would also point out that in the

present Railway Act, where the words ' railway trains and locomotives ' are used, they have not the same meaning in the existing law as in the Bill before us. Therefore, to make this section effect what it is designed to effect, that is to protect people at crossings by giving the commission power to regulate the speed, it must mean anything that crosses in the shape of an engine or anything that is used upon a railway. We should either say ' railway trains, locomotives or any rolling stock,' as suggested by the hon. member for East Elgin, or else give the word * trains ' the meaning it has in the interpretation clause.


Mr. INGRAM.: This is a very important part of the Bill, because the railways throughout the country are doing their utmost to increase their rate of speed in order to compete with each other. The public generally want to travel at a very high rate of speed. I want to point out that if we frame a law confining railways to a speed of six miles an hour in villages, towns and cities, then the railways cannot run at the speed they are scheduled to run at the present time. There are no railway rules and regulations made in this country that can be carried out to the letter. Every railway in this country is violating from day to day the regulations that we have laid down for them. No railway in this country can be run by the regulations that are in existence to-day. I want to point out that if the public want railway trains to run at a high rate of speed, then it must be proper to increase the rate at which they should pass through cities, towns and villages. There is no use in framing regulations that will be a farce, because they will be a farce if they are violated. In the next place I want to say that if we are going to restrict railways to a speed of six miles an hour, when an employee is put on an engine for the purpose of taking a train through to its destination within a time which will require a rate of speed far exceeding the rate which we lay down, then if an accident occurs in the city, town or village, it is not the poor employee who should suffer but the railway company itself, because it is the railway company that gets the benefit of the increased rate of speed. At present, whenever a railway accident occurs in a city, town or village, the employee is 'brought forward at the coroner's inquest, the rules and regulations are produced by the company, and if it can be shown that the employee has exceeded the rate of speed laid down in the rules - and regulations 'he is made to suffer for the accident. That is unfair to the employee, because unless he has made the rate of speed required by the company, they say to him :	We don't want your services any
longer, and we will get somebody else. For my part I am opposed to putting this imposition upon the railway employees. If a


Edward Arthur Lancaster: company and the traveling public get the benefit of increased speed I see no reason why the employee should be made to suffer. I think if this rate of speed is entirely too low in view of the clamour in this country from the public for an increased rate of speed on railways, I 'feel more like increasing the rate to twelve miles an hour than making it six miles an hour. We have a large number of railway crossings that are not properly protected. It will properly be a subject for parliament to consider whether railway crossings in thickly settled districts, or in towns and villages, are properly protected in order that this increased rate of speed may be brought about. These are things that parliament may deal with, and I do not want to shoulder the blame on the innocent party.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) has not quite understood my contention. I am not objecting to the railways running a mile a minute if they want to, if they properly protect their crossings by watchmen and gates. The hon. Minister of Railways has struck out the rate of speed mentioned in this subsection : ' which rate of speed shall not in any case exceed six miles an hour, unless the track is properly protected.' I am perfectly willing that the rate shall be as fast as they want it if the track is properly protected, but they must protect their crossings with watchmen and gates so that people going along will be warned that the train is coming and be compelled to stand still until the train has passed, just as is now done in the most thickly populated parts of large cities. I want to put myself right and to point out to my hon. friend that he is wrong in his understanding of my contention upon this matter. I am not undertaking to say that he is wrong in what he was saying, but he is wrong in his statement of what I am contending for. I am not objecting to railways running as fast as they choose as long as they are protecting their crossings. This Bill says that the rate of speed shall not exceed six miles an hour unless the track is properly protected. The words in the old Act are ' properly fenced,' but I think the words ' properly protected ' are better, because a judge will decide the question with reference to whether they have watchmen and gates to protect these crossings when the train is going along. It matters not at what rate of speed they run as long as nobody can'get hurt. I am quite willing, if the speed of trains is required to be increased in the interests of the country, that it shall be increased, but if the railways are going to get permission to increase the speed they should be willing to go to the necessary expense to employ a few more men, a few carpenters to make gates and a few more watchmen, costing a few dollars extra, to properly protect their tracks. There may be some tracks which are properly protected almost by nature.

There will be some tracks in regard to which the railways will not have to go to so much expense in protecting as others. But if they are to be allowed to run at any rate of speed they choose all we ask is that the tracks shall be properly protected. The hon. minister strikes out the words ' which rate of speed shall not in any case exceed six miles an hour unless the track is properly protected.' Then the door is to be wide open for the commissioners, entirely unrestrained, to allow the railways to run at any rate of speed, and they are given to understand by virtue of this change in the law that they are not required to place any protection at these crossings. One of the commissioners is to be a lawyer, and we must assume that the commission will be composed of intelligent men. They will probably know what the old Act was and it will be drawn to their attention that the old law required the rate of speed to be not more than six miles an hour unless the tracks were properly protected. When they know that this has been expunged, when they know that parliament has seen fit to strike this out, if the crossings were not properly protected, they would be apt to say : We are not supposed to bother our heads about the question whether there is protection or not. I think it would be quite right that they should say that, because parliament has not required that the railways should protect their crossings. If the minister were to make the rate of speed eight or ten miles an hour, I would not quarrel with it so much. Perhaps eight or ten miles an hour is not an unreasonable speed, because there is a case pending in the Supreme Court now against the Grand Trunk Railway where the rate of speed was twenty miles an hour. The jury thought it was an unreasonable rate of speed at which to go through the village of Forest, and the question is now before the Supreme Court on the appeal from the Court of Appeal of Ontario, which decided in favour of the relatives of the people killed. It is not quite free from doubt what would be held to be a reasonable or an unreasonable rate of speed, but if the minister were to change It to eight or ten miles an hour, I would not have so much objection as to striking out the limitation altogether, and thereby to say that the commissioners need not bother themselves about whether the crossing is protected or not. If you leave it as the Bill was drawn you will require protection, to be provided at crossings where they exceed six miles an hour. ' I think that would be right. If they do not have their crossings protected they must not go faster than six miles an hour, but if they want to run faster than six miles an hour, thirty-five, or forty, or fifty, or sixty miles an hour, they must have watchmen and proper protection at each crossing so that people will know that the train is coming. I think the section as drawn is better and more in the
interests of the people than if the amendment prevails.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The hon. member, I think, perhaps, has not fairly grasped the whole scope of the Bill. This present section with which we are dealing is very similar to the clause in the present Act and is professing to deal with the rates of speed when trains are running ' in any city, town or village, or in any class of cities, towns or villages, prescribed in any regulation.' It is not dealing with the general rate of speed. It does not touch the speed at highway crossings or is not intended to. That is dealt with elsewhere. The question in my mind is whether or not it will be desirable to limit the number of miles or the rate of speed in this section. When you are declaring the jurisdiction of the railway commission, it is a question whether it would not be a proper thing to enact that practically this should be left in their discretion to a degree. The discretion which the board would be enabled to exercise in such cases would be, not the discretion to allow the trains to be run at any rate of speed which the railways might wish, not even to exercise a discretion to allow trains to run at what would be an abnormal rate of speed going through any district, but the rate of speed limited in the Act. If you turn to section 227 you will find that it is provided that:
No trains shall pass in or through any thickly peopled portion of any city, town or village, at a speed greater than

In the present Bill it is six miles an hour. On further consideration, I would say that six-miles an hour is too slow a rate.


Andrew B. Ingram: I can walk as fast as that.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think it should be higher. My own idea would be that is should be ten miles. Perhaps it should be twelve. It is a matter that I have no very strong view about either way. We have enacted that the rate of speed shall not exceed that in these particular classes of districts. The discretion of the commissioners comes in here. They may say that circumstances are so exceptional and of such a character that trains should not run up to the rate of speed laid down by the Act, because the Act says that they shall not go at a greater rate of speed than that. A discretion should be exercised, and I think it should properly be left to the commission to say whether the rate of speed might not be reduced.
On subsection (e) of section 24,


Andrew B. Ingram: Would that mean that if they provide proper screens in the opinion of the commissioners, they will be removed from any liability under the law.


Samuel Barker: That must be the effect of it.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: A great many fires have occurred because the best class of nettings are not used.


Robert Laird Borden: I doubt if the language would necessarily take away the liability.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I propose to amend subclause (f) by adding the words
Requiring the company to use or exempt the company from using upon the railway or any portion of it within such time or during such period as the board may deem expedient.


Andrew B. Ingram: What becomes of the Bill of the member for Wentworth (Mr. Smith) which the minister said in the committee he would consider. The minister does not specify that the latest equipment shall be applied to these cars.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: When we come to the proper stage in this Bill I propose to insert, if not all. many of the clauses in the Bill of Mr. Smith of Wentworth, just exactly as he has proposed them.


Mr. MONET.: 'Do I understand from the Minister of Railways and Canals that if the commission does not think fit to order the railway company not to use the most modern invention, then if the company causes damage to any private property it would not be held responsible. Why should we not take charge ourselves of that part of the law.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: That is what I propose. I propose that the board shall have power under subsection (e) to require the use of the most modern appliances.


Dominique Monet: Suppose the railway commissioners would not think well to give such instructions to railway companies. In case of Roy, the Privy Council held that the plaintiff suffered damages, but as the railway company had fulfilled the obligations of the Railway Act they were not responsible. I suppose the company could not now say under this Bill, that a government commission was given power to tell them what to do, and if the commission did not order them to do something they would not be responsible.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I do not think that would follow.


Dominique Monet: In the case of Roy, the Privy Council held that as the company had fulfilled all the obligations of the Railway Act they could not be held responsible for damages. I presume that if the company was not ordered by the railway commission to do certain things for the protection of private property, then they would contend that they were not liable to damages, be-Mr. BARKER.
cause they did not do what they were not ordered to do.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: We propose to do that in this Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to direct the attention of the minister to the language of this amendment. As it reads, it seems to be a rather remarkable provision. I suppose the idea is to provide that within a certain period the railway shall use these appliances ; but the language used does not seem to convey that meaning.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: The idea is that the board shall have the power, at certain places and within certain periods, to require the appliances proper and necessary to use, and that in certain other circumstances the railways shall be exempt from using them.


Robert Laird Borden: Will you not cover the case by simply requiring the company within a certain time to use these appliances V


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think so. I would like to go over the clause again.
Section allowed to stand.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I think the minister has perhaps forgotten the other argument which I made besides the one he overruled, in regard to subsection a ; where the words ' railway trains and locomotives ' are used iustead of the word * train ' which, in the interpretation clause, includes any engine, locomotive or other rolling stock.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I think the word ' train ' would cover everything. I presume that if we were drafting the section anew, that word would be used : but we have just copied the old clause as it was.


John Graham Haggart: In passing over the Act, the minister forgot the promise he made yesterday in reference to section C. referring to the question of scheduling the railways. .


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have that still in mind.


Mr. TAYLOR.: I understand that the hon. minister is not going to take up this Bill 'after eight o'clock, but that we are going into supply. It is within a few minutes of six and too late to take up another clause, and I want to draw the hon. gentleman's attention to what he said on Friday night:


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: I have not been quite clear this afternoon during the discussion, as to whether my estimates were under consideration or whether the Railway Bill was being dealt with. The debate has passed from one theme to the

other, so that it was almost impossible to discriminate as to what was in the minds of the gentlemen who are addressing the House.


George Taylor: You did the most of that yourself.
The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS* Does the committee hear my hon. friend deliberately and coolly state that I occupied the most of the time of the House.
I went over ' Hansard,' and I find that the hon. Minister of Railways occupied 458 lines, the hon. leader of the opposition 313 lines, the hon. member for Lincoln 270 lines, tile hon. member for Kent 212 lines, the hon. member for Guysborougli 220 lines, the hon. member for Cape Breton 90 lines, and the hon. member for South Lanark, the hon. member for Hamilton and one or two others less than this. But 50 per cent more of the space of 1 Hansard ' was occupied by the lion. Minister of Railways himself than by any other person. So I was quite justified in making the remark I did, that he had occupied most of the time himself. He has done much better this afternoon.


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: My hon. friend certainly does excel as a statistician.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Eecess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock. ( SUPPLY.
House in Committee of Supply.
Salaries and contingent expenses of the several ports in the various provinces and in the North-west Territories, $1,059,865.


George Taylor: Has the hon. gentleman the information he promised about the port of Gananoque ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. William Paterson).: The port of Gananoque is doing very well. .'In 1S94-5 the revenue was $17,202.20 and the expenditure was $1,811.77. In 1901-2 the revenue was $20,591.61 and the expenditure $1,795.15. So that the revenues increased between those periods $3,000 and the expenditure is a little less. The hon. gentleman has a port which is very well and economically worked. The expenditure is about 8 per cent of the revenue.


Mr. BLAIN.: What proportion of this $S0,000 increased expenditure over last year will go in the province of British Columbia for salaries, &c.?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: About


Richard Blain: How do the revenues of the two years compare ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Last year the revenue was $2,354,404, and the
year before it was $2,35S,842, or about $4,000 less last year as compared with the previous year.


Richard Blain: How is it that the expenditure is increasing in British Columbia when the revenue is growing smaller ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: We felt that our officers were not paid sufficiently, and we advanced their pay. The cost of living there is very high. There was also an increase of business at Vancouver and Victoria, and we had to get some extra help. There must have been a decrease somewhere else to bring down the total.


Richard Blain: How is it that the revenue decreased in British Columbia and increased in every other province ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I do not know that I would have any means of ascertaining that more than the hon. gentleman himself. Perhaps trade in British Columbia has not been quite as brisk as in other places. Of course, many duties are collected in one province on goods which may be consumed in another. For instance, duties are collected on goods at the port of Montreal which go into all the provinces. Still the returns would seem to indicate that the province of British Columbia has not been quite so prosperous as some of the. others.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The other night we inquired of the hon. Minister of Militia if the government were prepared to lay on the Table the report of the commission on the Martineau matter, and he replied that when the hon. the Finance Minister returned that report would be submitted. Is my hon. friend the Minister of Finance prepared to lay it on the Table now ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We will take steps to have the report printed and submitted to the House immediately.


Mr. ROCHE (Marquette).: Some time ago I brought to the attention of the hon. Minister of Customs a petition for the establishment of a port of entry at Dauphin. As the hon. gentleman is aware, the town of Portage la Prairie, which is the nearest port of entry, is some 115 or 120 miles from the town of Dauphin, and the merchants of the latter are seriously handicapped by having the port of entry so far removed from their district. The town is a very important one, having 1,200 of a population and growing very fast.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: My impression is that I have a report on this matter, but I have it not under my hand. I shall inquire about it and bring it down tomorrow. There are many places claiming to be made ports of entry, and we are doing all we can, year by year, to meet all these demands. I may say that since I have'had charge of the department, 1 have establish-

ed in the North-west Territories ports of entry at Edmonton, Moose Jaw, Medicine Hat," Stratlicona, Banff, Stand-off, Wapella, Whitewood, Qu'Appelle, Wolseley, Mooso-min, Indian Head, Broadview, Grenfell, Qu'Appelle Station, Battleford, Olds. Canmore and South Qu'Appelle. In Manitoba we have opened offices at Melita, Morden, Rapid City, Neepawa, Selkirk, Manitou, Sprague, Mowbray, Stonewall, Gladstone, Minnedosa, Birtle and Yorkton. So that the hon. gentleman will see that we are endeavouring to give facilities as fast as we can.


George Taylor: I have before me the estimates for 1895-6 and 1896-7, and I see that in those times it was the rule to divide the customs estimates according to provinces. For instance, in 1895-6 Nova Scotia required $108,000 ; New 'Brunswick, $88,000 ; Prince Edward Island. $16.000: Quebec, $201,000 :	Ontario, $286,000 ; North-west
Territories, $3,000 ; British Columbia, $60,000. Of course, I give only the round figures. The columns in the estimates show the increase or decrease for each province. Now, the hon. gentleman bulks the whole Dominion in one sum. In the estimates for 1896-7 there is a record giving the total estimates for the outside service for each port, with a comparison of the estimate for the previous year. But now the hon. gentleman comes down this year and asks for an increase of $80,000, without any details given, and he has been increasing for the last five or six years, until now the total increase is about $500,000 a year. We ought to have the details as in the old estimates. He asks a bulk sum this year of $1,059,865, being an increase of $80,000 over last year, with no details given. Why has the wholesome rule of former years been departed from under the direction of the minister ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: This is not a new departure.


George Taylor: It began with the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Paterson) himself.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Yes, I fancy I am responsible for it. But the change was made several years ago, and has been sanctioned by the committee. It is very difficult to estimate exactly what you *need for each province. If, under the old system, we had a surplus of $8,000 in British Columbia, and were short estimated by that amount in the province of Quebec the Auditor General would not allow us to use that $8,000, but we had to have a vote with the sanction of the House. When the amount is voted in a lump sum, we are able to avail ourselves of the vote for any of the provinces. With reference to the ports, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) will find the receipts by ports in the Auditor General's Report, and I think they are also in the Trade and Navigation returns.


Hon. Mr. PATERSON.: 


George Taylor: That is quite true of the receipts, but, in the year 1895-6 and 1890-7, we have the cost for each port. Take Halifax for instance. The vote there was $44,000 for permanent salaries, $2,000 for extra services and $2,000 for office rent and contingencies-total $48,000. But the hon. gentleman has changed it so that he can run the whole amount through, leaving the committee in the dark as to the details. There should be a detailed statement by provinces and ports. As it is now arranged, we could spend the ''whole amount in one province and none in the other, and the Auditor General could find no fault. The House is left in the dark until they see the details in the Auditor General's Report a year or two hence-because we only get the facts up to the 30th of June of the year before, when the expenditure is an old story. But if we had the details down in black and white when we are voting the estimates, we could see in what provinces and in what ports the increases were taking place. Now, with a great flourish of trumpet the hon. gentleman speaks of the larger amount he is collecting as reason for the increased expenditure. But when I ask him to bring down the facts for one specific port, he shows, on the one side an increased revenue, but, on the other side an actual decrease in expenditure. If that is the case in one port, why not in others, and why should there be an increase of half a million dollars as compared with the expenditures of 1895-6 ? Under the present system we cannot tell whether the money is required or not. My own opinion is that the hon. minister is extravagant in asking us to vote such a large sum as compared with that of a few years ago.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: No, I am not extravagant.


George Taylor: The vote looks like it.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: No. The money has to be spent. The men render the service, and you have to pay them. There are quite a number of new ports such' as those I have mentioned in the North-west Territories, and we have new ports in all the provinces. With regard to Gananoque, the port to which the hon. gentleman has referred, that port is not singular in the showing that is made. No matter how small the business is you must pay the officer a salary. In some of the maritime provinces ports the amount is as low as $400. The officer is not fully occupied, but he cannot take up any other occupation. In such a port there might easily be an increase of several thousand dollars without any necessity for increasing the expenditure. In the port of Montreal there has been an increase of about $6,000,000 collected in 1895 to about $10,000,000 in 1902-an increase of about $4,000,000. Yet, the cost of collection there is increased by only about $20,000. But it is plain that there must be

an increase of expense there. The same is true of Vancouver, Winnipeg and all our larger ports. It is in these that the increase of expenditure takes place, and if lion, gentlemen will consider how many large ports there are they will see that the increase I have asked for is not so'large as to he justly called extravagant.
Mr. TATI,OR. It seems to me quite unfair' for the hon. gentleman to say that because he has collected so much more money and has increased the expenditure by only a certain percentage, therefore he is not extravagant. Yet the hon. gentleman dwells on that. And, in the case of Ganan-oque, and, no doubt many other ports, there is the increase in receipts without any increase of expenditure.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I thiuk it is regrettable that the hon. Minister of Customs has changed the old system of keeping the accounts. If his reason for the change is held to be good, we might as -well apply it to the Public Works Department and vote a lump sum to the Public Works regardless to where it is to be spent, leaving the minister to apply it to any works he may see fit. But it did away with the possibility of ascertaining whether the money Is spent economically. If we had the reports we could compare them with previous years and ascertain what work was done at these ports, the number of hands employed, and the amount of collections. We could tell pretty well whether the business was extravagantly conducted or otherwise, now we cannot do it. It may be it would be a little inconvenient to satisfy the Auditor General, but even that is not a sufficient reason for changing the accounts, because it leaves us in the dark in the endeavour to ascertain whether there is extravagance in any particular port.


Hon. Mr. TARTE.: Would the hon. gentleman be good enough to explain some of the changes which have taken place in Montreal ?


The MINISTER OP CUSTOMS.: I do not know that I could give the hon. gentleman nil the changes that have taken place in Montreal. It is a large port. I think no important changes have been made. There have been one or two superannuations, and some vacancies by death have been filled, and some extra men^have been put on as the business has increased. I could give a list of the new officers that have gone on during the year.


Joseph Israël Tarte: I think the hon. gentleman might give us the names of those who have been superannuated. But if he cannot do that I will not insist, but I may ask him later on.


Mr. CLARKE.: The hon. minister surely does not expect to get this item through
without giving us explanations of the increases that have been asked for ? I want to get a whole lot of information about the port of Toronto, about the appointments, about the number of superannuations, the names of those who have been appointed, whether they have passed the civil service examination, and a whole lot of information like that. I think the minister should allow this item to stand until he brings all that information down. We are going it blind if we do not get it. Now in 1896-97 the expenditures in Toronto were $67,687. What are they to be next year ? What is the cause of the increase ? How many additional officers have been appointed ? Who have received an increase of salary, and how long have they been in the service ? How many are in the service, and for how long a time, who have not received an increase, and why have they been overlooked ? These are certainly very reasonable requests.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: With reference to superannuations in Montreal, there has been only one, Mr. Lavoie, replaced by Mr. Menier.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Could the hon. gentleman give me the names of the new men he has employed this year ? If he has not got them under his hand, I will ask him later on. I am in no hurry.


The MINISTER OP CUSTOMS.: These are the names of the new men that have gone on in Montreal :	William Mayberry,
E. Redmond, A. Demers, L. A. Beaulac, H. Lajoie, A. Boyd, S. H. Carpenter, A. Pichaud and John Hamilton. Those are put on for the season of navigation.


Joseph Israël Tarte: These are extra hands?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Yes. Very few changes are taking place. Now about Toronto. In a port where there are two or three hundred employees, I have not myself been put through a course of questioning with reference to each one of these employees before. It is rather new to me, and it would be more convenient if the hon. gentleman would mention any particular cases where he thinks that an injustice has been, done, and I will try to give him the information. But it would take a long time to give all the information in detail that he has asked for. He will find much of it in the civil service list, so far as the permanent employees are concerned, he will see the number of years they have been employed and the salaries they are getting. What we call temporary clerks of course he will not find on the list. But I will be glad to give the hon. gentleman the information with reference to any particular ease. I can give him the names of the new men that have been appointed. All the permanent appointments must have passed the civil service examination. But they are generally appointed as temporary at first, and after they have passed the qualification they are

placed on the permanent list by Order in Council.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It would be interesting to get tlie number of those who have not yet passed the civil service examination. I would like also to know the ages of the new appointments.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: There are 10S at the port of Toronto, ninety-two are permanent and sixteen what we term temporary.


Joseph Israël Tarte: Why was Mr. Lavoie pensioned ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: He had reached a great age, and had been more than thirty-five years in the service.


Joseph Israël Tarte: How old was he when he was superannuated ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I may say to my hon. friend from Montreal, St. Mary's that he was 69 when he was superannuated. At the port of Toronto there are Thos. Armstrong, who is acting as a landing waiter, appointed on April 15, 1SS0 ; James Brooks, packer, salary $500, appointed in 1901 ; E. L. X. Jarvis, messenger, appointed 1S97.


Mr. KEMP.: Has the hon. minister the ages of these gentlemen 1


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: If my hon. friend (Mr. Kemp) will make the calculation himself, he will find the ages. Armstrong was appointed in 1880 and he is acting yet. He only gets $320. Then, James Brooks, who is receiving a salary of $500, was born on March 14, 1840, and he was appointed 9tli April, 1901. E. L. Darby gets $450, he was born September 20, 1879, and he was appointed July 27, 1897. Geo. A. Cl'esman gets $600, born November 29, 1S74, appointed July 10, 1901. W. J. Mc-Cleary gets $600, was horn in 1868 and appointed in 1S99. Geo. Forrest gets $600, was born in 1836 and appointed in 1900, Geo. M. Biggs gets $300, was born in 1859 and appointed in 1900. John V. Horn gets $500, was born in 1866 and appointed in 1901. A. B. Stanbury, appointed 1901, gets $600 aud A. R. Cochrane, appointed 1902, gets $300. And then it follows on.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How many of these gentlemen have not passed the civil service examinations ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: None of them.
Mr. TAYLOR, Some of them are 67 years of age when they were appointed.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: If they pass the civil service examination, and they are known to be good officers, we put them on the permanent list.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How can you do that when the Civil Service Act says that they Hon. Mr. PATERSON.
cannot he appointed if they are over 35 years of age.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: That only refers to the inside service. It does not apply to the outside service. I think hon. members are pretty well satisfied because this was debated the other night, and, Mr. Chairman, you might as well declare the item carried and we will proceed with the next item.


Richard Blain: This is an item in regard to which we can get some information upon another important point. The item is a very large one and there is a very general complaint that there is a large number of officers appointed in the hon. minister's department who have not passed the civil service examination. Perhaps the hon. gentleman would give us a general statement of how many officers are in Iris employ, how many have passed the civil service examination, and how many have been appointed in the last five or six years who have not passed the civil service examination.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Of course, we are dealing with what we call the outside service. The civil government estimate was passed some time ago when I gave the hon. gentleman the information lie asks now in regard to the inside service. There are 445 temporary employees throughout the Dominion and 1,172 on the permanent list. There is a total of 1,617 officers in the outside service altogether.


Richard Blain: How many out of that number have not passed the civil service examination ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The collectors aud subcollectors do not have to pass. None of them have passed. The inspectors do not have to pass.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Are they included in the list of 400 odd ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The collectors are not. The temporary officers, I think as a rule, you will see, have not passed the examination.


Richard Blain: How many are there ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Four hundred and odd.


Edward Frederick Clarke: More than 25 per cent of the service have not missed the civil service examination.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: As I said the other night, it would please me if these officers could pass the civil service examination and go on the permanent list. Temporary officers are at this disadvantage that if they are sick they do not get paid while they are absent as they do if they are on the permanent list, and they are not entitled to the three weeks holidays that the others get. Some of these officers are

just as good officers as those on the permanent list. There are men who were appointed away hack in 1880 and 1882 and from that time down. They have been in the service for from ten to fifteen years, and they are just as good officers and do the actual work of the department as well as if they had pased the civil service examination. They could have passed this examination when they came from school, but now they will not try it. I would like, speaking for myself, if parliament would pass a law that would somehow enable me to put all these men on the permanent list.


Richard Blain: I wish to express my disapproval of that kind of procedure. If we are to have a civil service examination and the employees of the different departments are called upon to pass this examination, I think it is unfair to those who go up for examination and pass that other men who are not called upon to pass the examination are put into positions, and especially when we have a large number of men who hold the proper qualification, having passed the examination, out of employment at the present time. I think the government should either abolish the civil service examination or see to it that the men who are appointed to the different offices in the departments should have the proper qualification under the examination I have referred to.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The trouble is that a great many of these men have been employed for years. In Montreal alone there are twenty-one of these temporary employees and they were thex-e when I came into office. They are not all new appointments. We continue them and we have to continue them as 'temporary except they pass the examination. I agree with the hon. gentleman that it is desirable that they should pass if they can.


Richard Blain: What about the future ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: We are trying to do as well as we can. We are not perfect in the direction the hon. gentleman speaks of.


Mr.   CLARICE@: Are there any of these gentlemen who have been appointed since 1897 on the temporary list who have passed the preliminary examination ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I do not think so. We appoint them as temporary and then they pass. If a man wants to be a tide waiter or a packer he would have to pass the preliminary examination.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The only qualification the government requires now from these officials is the influence of political friends to get them in. They do not have to pass an examination now and the minister appears to be ignoring the Civil Service Act altogether. It is a dead letter in some places.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: No.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It is so far as the port of Toronto is concerned. A number of men appointed there have not passed the pre-liminai'y or qualifying examinations. It is not unreasonable that this item should stand until we know the qualification of these men and their ages and all about them. What part of the $80,000 is to be spent in increasing the salaries of officers, and what officers are to have their salaries increased ? I am told that some of the men now acting as assistants and subordinates are getting as much if not more salary than the gentlemen whom they are assisting. The minister has the information at his finger ends in the department, and we should have it before we can intelligently discuss this very large item of over $1,000,000. The item had better stand until we get the information. If I had nothing else to do I could go to the Civil Service list and pick out those who are in the service of the government, but even that would not give me the temporary clerks because their names do not appear there, and there is a large percentage of them at the port of Toronto. I appeal to the Minister of Customs and to the Minister of Finance if it is not a reasonable request that this item should stand until we get this information, and get it not only with regard to Toronto but with regard to all these large ports : Montreal, Vancouver, Halifax and St. John ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The document I was reading before gave their ages, the date of their birth and so on. I will give the hon. gentleman the officers employed in Toronto. Thomas Armstrong, acting landing waiter, $1 per week day ; A. Calder, acting messenger, $500 a year ; E. L. Darby, acting mesenger at $400 per year ; W. .1. McCleary, acting preventive officei-, $600 a year ; George Evans, acting landing waiter, at $600 per year ; George Forest, acting packer, at $1.50 per working day ; J. B. Brooks, acting packer at $500 per year; D. Fraser, acting landing waiter, $600 a year ; J. V. Horne, acting messenger, $500 per year ; J. M. Biggs, acting landing waiter season of navigation at $50 per month ; A. B. Stanbury, acting preventive officer, $600 a year ; E. H. Ross, at $20 iier month.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What does he do.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: He discharges whatever duties the collector assigns him. I cannot be expected to say what they are.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It seems peculiar to have a civil servant at $20 a month.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I presume he is a boy. There is George H. Cress-man, acting preventive officer at $600 a year; A. R. Cochrane, acting preventive officer. I think that is all. I think I have given all the information that I can, and I may say that in 20 years of parliamentary life I have never heard of such explicit information being asked for or given.


Andrew B. Ingram: Who are the temporary officers at Windsor ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: ,T. W. Yearsley, J. Watson, and P. E. McEwen and the new collector, John Acheson Smith.


Andrew B. Ingram: There are a large number of temporary officers who cannot qualify under the Civil Service Act, but who have certainly proved themselves efficient officers not only at Windsor but elsewhere. I am sure my hon. friend from North Essex who is interested in the officers around Windsor will bear me out when I say that the officers there are good officers. A great many of these officers are temporary, and it is a great injustice to them that they should be kept on the temporary list for years. It makes them subject to the influence, of both political parties and places them in an embarrassing position. The government should take some means to amend the Act so as to enable these old, tried and efficient servants to be put on the permanent list, so that they cannot be interfered with no matter what party is in power so long as they do their duty. Would the minister state what part of the $100,000 which he says he will ask for, is for the purpose of meeting the fees now paid by the transportation companies.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: About $78,000 I think. That $100,000 is not in this vote, but it will, come in the supplementary estimates.


Andrew B. Ingram: How does the minister arrive at that amount ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The transportation companies do not pay the men direct, but the payment passes through the department, and the accountant has knowledge of it.


Andrew B. Ingram: As I understand it, that increase is for the officers whose special duty is to accommodate the transportation companies, and it is not for the officers who are stationed along the border line.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: It is for the same officers who work over hours, and that is to pay for their extra time, which we will pay in future instead of the transportation companies.


Andrew B. Ingram: If you have officers doing day duty and night duty you need not pay them for extra time.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The men do their day duty and they earn their salary and then they are on night duty as well.


Andrew B. Ingram: Why ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: If we had a day staff and a night staff we would have to employ extra officers, and one reason why that has not been done is that the salaries of these officers are small and they are very anxious themselves to get some Hon. Mr. PATERSON.
over time and extra pay for it. I agree with the hon. gentleman that when a man has put in 10 hours of faithful work in the day time, that ought to be enough, but they are very anxious to put in three or four extra hours to get extra pay for it and to supplement their salaries."


Andrew B. Ingram: That was not the point 1 was making. At Fort Erie and Niagara we will say you have to have day and night officers. Having day and night officers now, how can you get in the extra time unless one officer lies off, either day or night ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: WTe do not have day and night men at these ports.


Andrew B. Ingram: Then, that is where the department should make the change. All the trains do not come over the line in the day time. Many come at night and it is as important to have night officers as day officers. For instance, at the city of Detroit, you should have both day officers and night officers. If the hon. minister has no night officers, and if this duty is to be performed by the day officers putting in extra time, for which I presume they get a higher rate of pay than they do for day work, then the department is paying more for the service than it would pay if it had both day and night officers, and I think the department should be reorganized for that purpose.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: That is what we would like to; but that item is not under discussion now; it'will come in the supplementary estimates. To have day and night men would probably be all round the best plan; but it would necessitate a larger expenditure. Suppose you have an officer to whom you are paying $600 a year, and who, for the extra time, which he is anxious to put in, makes from $150 to $200 extra. In that way he gets $750 or $800, while his salary is $600. If we were putting on a night man to do the service for which the day man is paid extra, he would expect $600 at least, the same salary as the day man. Then the day man would immediately press us and say, I was getting $S00, and you are cutting me down to $600, and I cannot live on that. We would find him pressing for as much pay for his day work alone as he had been getting for both day work and the extra work. That system would entail an extra expense upon [DOT] us, though I have no doubt it would otherwise be very satisfactory, and we may adopt it in some cases.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. gentleman is referring to points where there would be only two or three hours of extra service. I am referring to points like Detroit, where it would be necessary to have men on duty all day and all night. In such cases it would cost a great deal more to pay day men extra for night services than it would to have day men and night men working the same number of hours.


Mr. SUTHERLAND (Essex).: As I live at the city of Windsor, I can explain perhaps how this matter has been conducted in the past at that point. In connection with the ferry company, which runs its boats up to twelve o'clock at night the customs officials get twenty-five cents an hour after six o'clock, and they are glad to get it for the extra service. The extra pay in connection with the railways amounts to $40 or $45 a month. In these ways the officers' salaries have been considerably supplemented, and they have been quite willing to meet the trains and boats at night for this extra pay. On their behalf I can say that they are opposed to this change by which the government will pay them instead of the railways. However, there has been a request for this change made by the business interests of that and other localities. While speaking on this subject, I might refer to these officials who have been in the service for many years, and yet have not been put upon the permanent list. I found in 1900, when I came in, that there were four or five men in that position. I felt that if these men, whether Conservatives or Liberals, were good officials, they should be put on the permanent list, for this reason. It appeared that when they fell ill or took their holidays, they lost their pay for the time they were absent, by not being on the permanent list. I thought that a hardship, and therefore I recommended to the hon. Minister of Customs that they should be put on the permanent list, and I think they were-two Conservatives, appointed prior to 1896, and two Liberals, appointed subsequent to that date.


Mr. CLANCY.: How did the hon. gentleman get these officers placed on the permanent list, in view of the statement of the Minister of Customs that he regretted that he was unable to do that ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I do not see why the civil service examination should apply so strictly to these officials as it does to other officials of the government. I thought it was nothing but right that they should be put on the permanent list, in order that they might be rescued from the disabilities I have mentioned.


James Clancy: That is not the question I asked. I quite concur in what the hon. gentleman says, that the evil he refers to ought to be remedied ; but I am now going to ask the Minister of Customs how the hon. member for Essex succeeded in doing what the hon. minister expressed himself as unable to do generally for officers similarly situated throughout the province. Perhaps the hon. gentleman can explain how that took place ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Oh, yes, with pleasure; and it is very simple when you know how it is done. Collectors do not have to pass the civil service examination, nor preventive officers, nor landing waiters.
123}
Appraisers have to pass special examinations. As I have explained before, I recognize the spirit of the Act to be that we should endeavour to get as many as we can to pass the qualifying examination, but in certain cases we take advantage of the clause allowing us to appoint clerks to the position of preventive officer without their undergoing examination. Where there are employees who have been years in the service and who are faithful and competent officers, but who do not feel competent to pass the qualifying examinations, we put them on as preventive officers. It would be very difficult for men who have been on the staff for years to pass this literary examination-I doubt whether I could pass it myself -and it would not be fair to compel them to do so.


James Clancy: I can quite understand that the rule which the hon. gentleman lays down is a good one, and that officers who have been years in the service and given satisfaction should be put on the permanent staff as preventive officers. But the hon. gentleman is constantly bringing in new men and putting them over the heads of those temporary clerks who have done efficient service for years. The hon. gentleman shakes his head, but will he say that there are no cases of new men being put over the heads of these men who have served for years as temporary clerks ? The hon. gentleman will have the support of both sides if he will bring down a Bill to cure the evils of the past and prevent them from multiplying in the future. It is no excuse for him to say that the same state of things existed in the past. If he is a progressive minister, he will put an end to it. A temporary clerk who is employed throughout the year, and who is paid practically the same as a permanent officer, should no longer be left in that position, and then no new man should be appointed to any position in the service until he has passed the qualifying examination. I should like to have an expression of opinion from the hon. gentleman on this point. We ought to know whether he is prepared to take hold of this matter courageously and deal fairly with that class of men and put an end to a condition of things which is not consistent with good service or healthy administration.


Edward Frederick Clarke: This item comprises practically the whole vote, and we cannot let it pass without more information.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The last time we had this item under discussion, some hon. gentlemen opposite said I spoke too much, and I thought that I would let them do the talking to-night. If there are to be amendments to the Act, I shall have to submit my views to my colleagues. It is only just to those older servants, who do their work well and may not be able to pass this literary examination, that they should not be compelled to pass it. As regards

future appointments, 'we are trying to do the best we can, but when deaths or other sudden changes occur we have to put a man on at once, and the way we have been doing is to appoint a man and have him pass the civil service examination later, or in some cases, where he is a valuable officer and does not feel competent to pass his examination, we put him on as a preventive officer.
I think that the previous government, either by Order in Council or in some other way, put any one who had been in the service prior to 1S82 -and down to 1896 on the permanent list, and at that time those on the permanent list came under the Superannuation Act. But, of course, the question of superannuation does not come up to-day.


Albert Edward Kemp: Will the hon. minister have a statement prepared giving a list of the officials and the whole staff: employed in the port of Toronto and the outports connected with it, showing salary received, the dates of appointment, and the total annual expenditure ?


The MINISTER OP CUSTOMS.: I have the information all here. But it would take a good while to read over this whole list of about a hundred employees.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Would the hon. minister send it over to us for a few minutes ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: It is in a book containing particulars of all the other ports as well.


Edward Frederick Clarke: W'ould not the minister have some clerk copy it 1


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: And bring it down on concurrence ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: Not on concurrence.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I understand the hon. gentleman (Mr. Kemp) does not want to hold the item until these particulars are furnished. The hon. gentleman wants this memorandum laid on the Table at any time.


Albert Edward Kemp: Yes-within a day or two.


George Taylor: Has the hon. minister dispensed with the services of Mr. A. S. Gerald, of Prescott, and for what cause ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: He was superannuated, I think last year.


Mr. BENNETT.: What rule does the department follow with regard to salaries paid ? Has the amount of customs receipts anything to do with it 1


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Well, yes. It is not invariable. But when increases are asked the officers usually point to the increase of revenue, and, where we are able to grant increases, we like to see increased revenue if we can. That would be more particularly the case with the collector. But the payments are not uniform.


William Paterson: In some ports the collectors are paid as much as those of other ports of twice the revenue.


William Humphrey Bennett: I believe the collector at the town of Midland is paid only 8800.
I would call the minister's attention to the fact that a landing waiter was appointed, and, though the collector has been there for many years and is kept at $800, the landing waiter began with $600.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I was under the impression that we had given the collector there an increase. However, I believe we eased the work by appointing an assistant. But the port is going ahead and the revenue is $26,500. While I do not bind myself, I think the collector would be entitled to* a little more, comparing this port with others. In fact I think I have his name with others before me for consideration. I do not speak of this as making an absolute promise. This brings me to what the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) said with regard to the estimates for the several ports. We dropped that purposely. The estimates had to be made for a long distance ahead- usually a good deal over a year-It might then be found impossible to give an officer the amount that had been asked for from parliament, and the officer would say not unnaturally :	Parliament voted that money
to me. Therefore, we asked the committee to leave the matter in our hands. But I would ask hon. members of the committee if they think that injustice is done to any officer or merit is not recognized. I would take it kindly if they will mention the matter so that we may give it consideration. Of course, the committee would not wish me to go through the list of the 1,600 employees we have and give the names and salaries. But each member of the committee knows the officers in his own locality, and I shall be glad to give any information with regard to any officer asked for.


William Humphrey Bennett: While the receipts at Midland are much larger than in many other places where the officials are paid higher salaries, this of itself does not measure the work done by the collector. For a large quantity of grain passes through that port-last year the quantity was about 15,000,000 bushels. No duty is collected on this, as it goes through in bond. I hope the minister will at least advance the collector's salary by $200. It then would only be on a par with that of many other officers who have far less to do. May I ask the minister what rent is paid for the office occupied by the collector at Midland ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The rent is $180.


William Humphrey Bennett: If the collector was paid at the same rate as the office is paid for, he would have $2,000 or $3,000 a year. I see that the rent was formerly only $60 a year.
.TUNE % 1903
But the leverage exerted by a warm camp follower has resulted in giving $180 for premises that would be dear at $90.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The accountant informs me that when the change of office was made we had a report from the inspector or the collector in favour of it. His recollection is, and, so far as mine extends, it is the same that the collector advised us favourably.


William Humphrey Bennett: I think that perhaps the collector would have been afraid to report against it. There was formerly one large room, now there are two small ones. However, as a camp follower, the landlord is entitled to something, and he is satisfied with small things.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I do not know about the camp follower, but my recollection is borne out by the recollection of the accountant-and his memory of these things is pretty accurate-that when the change was made it was because of the increase of the business of the port and it may have been said that there was a vault in the new premises or something like that. At any rate our record is that the collector recommended it.


William Humphrey Bennett: I hope the collector will be treated as liberally as the landlord.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Well, he will not be charged with being a camp follower.


Mr. COCHRANE.: What is the salary of the collector at Campbellford ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Five hundred dollars.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Does he attend to the duties of the office himself ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Yes,
they would be attended to by himself.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Are you sure of that ! My information is that he was an official of the Grand Trunk Railway, and some deputy was attending to the business.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Still we should hold him responsible, and more than that, he should discharge the duties himself, and for anything I know he does.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: How much does the collector at Brighton get ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Six
hundred dollars.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Is not there a much larger revenue collected at Campbellford than there is at Brighton ? I venture the assertion that there is double.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The
hon. gentleman is right.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Then how do you reconcile the two facts ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: It is difficult to reconcile them.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: It is absurd to say that an officer at one port should get $500 for collecting double the revenue that an officer collects at another port who gets $600. for it.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I am afraid I am following in too large a measure what was done by my predecessors in these two places. I must do better.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: I have heard that answer so often that I am sick and tired of listening to it, especially when I hear it from the Minister of Customs, whose stentorian voice I used to hear so often on this side of the House condemning the party I supported years ago. And still to-day we hear that flimsy pretext that he is following the government that he condemned. Does a business government do business in that kind of a way ? It is so absurd to my mind that I hope no intelligent minister will give that answer any more, but take the responsibility of his own acts and not say, oh, you did it. The hon. gentleman used to denounce everything the Conservative party did, and now he has-I will not say what I was going to say, but I will say that he has the impudence and the hardihood to get up and say that he is following in the steps of his predecessors that he condemned. Is it not the height of hypocrisy for a minister to follow in the footsteps of a party that he condemned ? Get out. Make footsteps of your own, and be responsible for your own footsteps, and don't lay the responsibility on a party that has long since resigned the responsibility of office, and I think very largely to the detriment of the country.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Well I have a dim recollection that I used to find some fault with the previous government. Since I have been in office I have concluded that perhaps if I knew as much then as I do now, I would not have made all the criticisms I made then. I dare say my hon. friend, if he gets my position or one like it, will come to the same conclusion. But that is no reason for continuing a bad policy. If years ago a certain salary was attached to a certain office it is a difficult thing to reduce that salary.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: But he has changed the official. That argument would be good if the old official remained, but the old official at Brighton resigned, and he has appointed a new man and given him a salary very nearly as much as the old official had, while the official at Campbellford was appointed long previous, and collected an amount nearly double that was collected at Brighton. If It was the old official, there might be some argument in it, but there is no argument in it when you appoint a new man with a salary a great deal larger than

the salary of the man who is collecting a much larger revenue.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: That is true, but after all you must remember that when a certain salary has been paid at a certain port, a salary which is not excessive, if you cut that salary down it is considered as degrading to the port, people look at it as lowering the standing of the town, as putting the town down.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: It would not be anything derogatory to the town of Campbell-ford if you increased the salary of that official to somewhere near where it ought to be, relatively to the other man.


Mr.   CLARICE@: The hon. gentleman, I understand, has given a pledge to my hon. friend from East Toronto (Mr. Kemp), that he will bring down a detailed statement of the staff of the Toronto customs house, giving the names, ages, dates of appointment and salaries received.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Yes, I will do that.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I would like also if the hon. gentleman would bring down a statement as to what part of this $80,000 he is asking for in this year's estimates will be distributed among the officials at the port of Toronto. Of course, the hon. gentleman knows-what he is going to do, and whose salaries he is going to increase. Then 1 would like to know what plan he has adopted with reference to paying the assistant appraisers at the port of Toronto, I see some of them are getting $1,000, and some $1,600, while some of them are getting $800, some $750, some $1,200, and so on. I see the name of one very old friend of mine, Mr. McCaw, who has been there for twenty-five years, and he is getting the munificent salary of $800. Others who have not been there half as long are getting half as much more. What plan does the hon. gentleman pursue ? Does he follow the example of his predecessors in this respect, or is this a plan of his own ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The assistant appraisers, generally speaking, are under the Civil Service Act and get from $600 to $1,500. The appraisers run from $800 to $2,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What cast iron rule does the hon. gentleman lay down in fixing the salaries ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: There is no cast iron rule, we try to be guided by the rules of equity and justice so far as we can. When I speak of equity and justice, it is with reference to the duties they perform. A man might be an appraiser for many years, and another man who has not been so long in the service might be getting more because he is more capable.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I hope the minister will apply the rule of equity and justice, and Mr. COCHRANE.
not merely cold justice, which I think has been the rule applied to many of these officials up to the present time. Some of these assistant appraisers are most competent men who have served many years, and their salaries remain stationary ; while others who have since come in and who are no doubt competent men, are getting half as much more, though they have not had the experience in the Customs Department, they have not had the training. Surely if equity and justice are to be the guide of the minister in apportioning the salaries to these gentlemen, there ought to be a reorganization of that department in reference to salaries, and those who have been standing stationary at a minimum salary of $750, should receive consideration. If we had the information tabulated such ns my hon. friend from East Toronto asked for, we might be able to understand the position better. The gentleman I mentioned is one of the most efficient officers in the service, and his salary is $800 ; others who have come in since are getting double.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Well, he was appointed in 1877.


Edward Frederick Clarke: A very worthy man, too.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: He was seventeen or eighteen years there under my hon. friend's government, and my hon. friend must not be too hard on me for not having been able to accomplish in something over six years what the late government was not able to accomplish in eighteen years. If he was appointed at $800 he remained at that.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What accentuates this case is the fact that assistants have been brought in since then who are getting double the salary he is getting. That was not the case with the late administration. The assistants did not come in then at $1,200 or $1,800, but they came in under lower salaries. There are men who have been in the service for years getting $750 who are thoroughly competent. Surely, if the hon. minister is going to apply any rule of equity and justice, he will not allow them to stand at $750 or $S00 or $900, and bring in strangers who have not had the training or experience that these officers have had and put them at salaries at 60 or 75 per cent more than the old hands are receiving. I am sure, that, the hon. minister's attention having been drawn to these cases now, he will see that they at least get cold justice. They do not seem to have been able to get either cold or hot justice in the past.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Except there is some reason, it looks as if this officer were entitled to something more than he is getting.


Edward Frederick Clarke: There are lots of cases,
and I think the hon. minister should allow
this item to stand.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Why should it stand ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: So that we could consult with him and show him that it is all wrong.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: We are asking for this extra money. We note down as far as we can before we make the estimates the officers whose salaries we think we will be able to increase. But we do not commit ourselves to it. New ports will have to come in. We have over 1,600 officers, and if I gave them $50 each of an increase the whole of this $S0,000 would be gone. I cannot do that. We have to open new ports. A case such as the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Clarke) has called attention to is a case that should receive consideration. I put it that way that it should receive consideration in case that it may not be said that I have violated my word, but lam going to look into that case. There is no use of our delaying the item, because the hon. gentleman will get the information that he desires.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It will be too late to do anything.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I have to bring down supplementaries, and there is concurrence.
Mr. 'CLARKE. We know all about concurrence; we have been there before.


Mr. CLARE.: The hon. minister states that the amount of revenue collected has something to do with the amount of salary paid. I would like to call his attention to the amount of revenue received in a few of the different customs houses and the salaries paid. At Bowmanville the revenue was $10,545 last year, and the salaries $1,500; Cobourg, revenue, $19,763, salaries over $3,000; Collingwood, $28,000 revenue, salaries, $1,635 ; Galt, revenue over $66,000, salaries, $1,850. This certainly seems very unfair. I have been asking the hon. minister for two years for an increase of salary for one of the officers at Galt. The amount collected is very much larger in proportion to the expenditure on salaries than at some other places.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The representations of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clare) have not been forgotten. They have been noted. I do not know if I shall be able to accomplish it, but there has been a note made of the request and it will be fully considered. Of course, Galt is an inland town. At Cobourg there is trains-shipping and there are outports under the collector.


George Adam Clare: There are outports of Galt, too.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I suppose there are.


George Adam Clare: When you take into consideration how much more is collected at Galt
than at the towns I have cited, it is hard to understand why there should not be some increase if there is any fair division of salaries.


Andrew B. Ingram: Would the hon. gentleman turn to page F-11 of the Auditor General's Report and explain what he means by ' acting collector D. Ferguson ' and ' acting landing waiter T. Morse ' ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: At St. Thomas 7


Andrew B. Ingram: Yes.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: It means that these officers are not appointed by Order in Council at once. When they are not appointed by Order in Council at once they are referred to as acting collectors or landing waiters. When they are put on the permanent list by Order in Council they will appear as ' collector ' or ' landing waiter.' The term ' acting collector ' just shows that when he was first appointed he was not appointed by Order in Council.


Andrew B. Ingram: Has the Order in Council been passed making Mr. Ferguson the permanent collector 7


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Yes, he was appointed permanently on May 20 last.


Andrew B. Ingram: What about Mr. Morse 7


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Mr. Morse was appointed permanently on April 1 last.


Mr. HACKETT.: Mr. Chairman, before leaving this item, I desire to remind the hon. minister of the promise he made last year in regard to the superannuation of James Curry, the late collector of customs at Charlottetown. Mr. Curry was superannuated at the age of sixty-seven years, an active and vigorous man. I desired to obtain information last year as to what officer had reported on Mr. Curry's case and what data was before the treasury board when ordering Mr. Curry's superannuation. The hon. minister promised to give me that information last year, but I have not seen it yet. I ask him now if he is prepared to give it.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Yes, Mr. Curry was superannuated. I have forgotten the exact circumstances now. What was it I was to give the hon. gentleman last year 7


Edward Hackett: I have here 'Hansard' of last year :


Edward Hackett: Would the hon. minister state upon whose recommendation he was retired ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I did not expect to be asked for the details and hare not got the information here, hut I will bring it to the hon. gentleman.
The information I desire to obtain is this : Who was the inspector that reported that

Hr. Curry was unfit for duty, was Mr. Curry retired under the provisions of the Civil Service Superannuation Act, and what information had the treasury board before it when retiring Mr. Curry ?


The MINISTER OP CUSTOMS.: I will try to have that information for the hon. gentlemen when I bring down my supplementary estimates.


Mr. WILSON.: I would like to ask the hon. minister the salary that is paid to the custom-house officer at Napanee and the salary of the landing waiter there ? I think the customs officer there is also the inspector of excise.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: He receives $800.


Uriah Wilson: Is that all ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Eight hundred dollars is all he gets from the Customs Department.


Uriah Wilson: Well, he is the inland revenue collector, too ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I could not tell the hon. gentleman about that.


Uriah Wilson: I would like to have that information.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Would the hon. gentleman make that request when the inland revenue items are under consideration ?


Uriah Wilson: There ought to be enough members of the government present to give such information when it is asked for. There is no reason why there should only be two or three members of the government in the House. I do not see why they should not sit here as well as the rest of us.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Of course, the miniser whose estimates are under consideration has to assume the responsibility of explaining them, and some of the other ministers can be spared to attend to other pressing duties. This gentleman is also an officer of the Inland Revenue, and when the Minister of Inland Revenue is asking for his vote he will explain about him.


Uriah Wilson: What is his salary as landing waiter ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: 


Uriah Wilson: And you do not know
what he is getting as an inland revenue officer ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I do not.


Uriah Wilson: I will try and be here when the inland revenue estimates are up.


Richard Blain: What number of officers were appointed in the Customs Department last year who did not pass the civil service examination, and what number were appointed in that department altogether ?


Edward Hackett: 


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I cannot give that information to-night, as I did not know it would be asked for, but I shall get it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Will the minister also give us a list of the appointees this year who have passed the examination ? And now that the attention of the minister has been called to the anomaly of some assistant appraisers receiving $750 a year and some $1,600, I think he should give some explanation.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: A note has been made of that, and it will be considered.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The preventive officers are paid all the way from $40 a month to $70 a month, and some of those recently appointed are getting a great deal more than the old-timers. What is the explanation of that?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: There is no specified salary applicable to that class of officers ; you can give them as high as you like and as low as you like. You cannot assume that because they are all called preventive officers they discharge the same duties, because some of them are in the long room receiving entries, which is the most particular work, while others of them may be merely out on the wharf.


George Taylor: I wish the minister also to bring down the number of officers he has superannuated last year at the different ports, and the reasons for their superannuation. Was Mr. Gerald superannuated because he was unfit for service, or why was it that he was superannuated ? Did he apply for superannuation ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I would have to refresh my memory from the list which has been placed upon the Table of the House, which gives the names of those superannuated and the reasons for their superannuation.


George Taylor: In this $80,000 increase is there anything for increasing the salary of the customs officer at Gananoque, who col- i lected last year $20,591, and the expense of the office was only $1,193 ? That is for Gananoque proper, and including the two outports the cost was only $1,700. The officer at Gananoque is entitled to an increase. At Bowmanville, where only $10,000 was collected, the officer and his assistant gets $1,643, as compared with $1,100 at Gananoque, where twice as much is collected.


William Humphrey Bennett: His brother ;is a member.


George Taylor: His name is Beith, and I presume he is a brother to the hon. member of that name. The minister should see that justice is done to the collector at Gananoque. There are more steamboat arrivals and departures there than there are at most other ports on the St. Lawrence, and notwithstanding that the customs officer has

to do duty day and night he only gets a small pittance for salary.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: There is no doubt that the port of Gananoque shows up very well.


George Taylor: Will the minister show his appreciation of this good service ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: It would not be wise to make a definite promise, but a note has been made and I will consider the case. You cannot go solely by the revenue, because the officer at Galt collects $45,000 and gets $800.


George Taylor: Guelph collects $113,000 and-gets $3,550. In Toronto it costs $87,000 to collect $6,000,000, and in Montreal it costs $155,000 to collect $10,000,000. There is no comparison there.
The MINISTER OB'1 CUSTOMS. No, they vary very much.


Albert Edward Kemp: I wish to ask the Minister of Customs if it is the intention to adopt any more stringent rules or regulations to prevent the customs revenue from being defrauded by continental goods being admitted as British goods, and getting the benefit of the British preferential tariff ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: We want to do all we can in that way. I do not know that we can devise anything better than we have at present. If there is any practicable way in which they can be strengthened, wet would be glad to be informed of it. I think we have done about all we can do by means of rules and regulations. As to carrying them out, we are insisting on our officers being as vigilant as possible.


Albert Edward Kemp: But there is no barrier against certain classes of goods which are made on the continent coming here from Great Britain as if they were British manufactures. The certificate which the government requires to be on the invoice, and which is signed by the shipper or the clerk of the shipper, is no barrier. That is all that the government does In reference to this matter. When the preferential tariff was first adopted, a declaration was suggested, and a! form was given to the collectors of customs which made it compulsory for shippers to go before a notary public, a commissioner, a municipal officer of a city or town, a British consul, or a secretary or a president of a chamber of commerce, and take an oath. That was in 1897 ; but in 1898 the government saw fit to put into effect a different sort of obligation-an ordinary certificate. That certificate can be made by a senior or junior clerk in the employ of the exporting firm, and it is merely the ordinary form of declaration. The hon. Minister of Customs knows, from his experience as a business man, of what little importance these certificates are in the eyes of exporters or shippers. We
all know what little importance some shippers place upon an affidavit, and they place far less importance upon the mere signing of an invoice. This form in use at the present time, I know ' from personal experience, is often signed by a clerk employed by a firm which has probably a hundred invoices a day going out. The form going to Canada may be different from that going to India or Australia ; and that is the only barrier that the Customs Department has. provided against continental goods coming into Canada and obtaining the preference as British goods. I believe it has been the intention of the government not to allow that to go on. In 1901, I remember the hon. Minister of Finance stating in the House that that was not the intention of the government, and he said practically what the hon. Minister of Customs says now, that if any other device could be suggested, lie would be pleased to hear it. I am informed by one of our leading wholesale dry goods merchants of Toronto, a man who has had great experience in importing, that he could not say of certain classes of goods whether they were of German or Belgian or English manufacture. This gentleman stated this case to me : ' Some years ago I bought from a firm of very high standing in Bradford, before the preferential tariff came in-tol effect, a certain class of dress goods as being of British manufacture, and they were placed in my warehouse in Toronto. My son was at the time living and undergoing an apprenticeship in a town in France. A short time afterwards he came to Toronto on a visit, and saw these goods in my warehouse, and asked where I had got them. I said from Priestley, of Bradford. M.v son said that they had been made in the factory in France where he was employed.' This same gentleman told me that he would not be prepared to swear in what country the following goods were manufactured : dress goods, certain classes of laces, silks, ribbons, velvets, velveteens, hosiery, underwear, gloves, buttons, linens, printed goods, and flannels. These different classes of goods, I believe, are" coming into this country all the time as being of Rritish manufacture, and I believe that a very large proportion of them are largely German goods. A short time ago there appeared in the Toronto ' News ' an article headed ' How some German firms avoid paying full duty. Many manufacturers send goods to Canada via England. They thus save ten per cent. Germany to Canada, thirty-five per cent ; England to Canada, twenty-five per cent ; Germany to England, free.' The article, of which I wili just read a small portion goes on to say :
The Canadian tariff on manufactured woollen goods imported from Germany is 35 per cent compared with 25 per cent imposed on British manufactures of the same class entering Canada. As these German goods are admitted free into England, the German manufacturer at once sees that by sending his goods to Canada via
*

England, he saves 10 per cent in duties. Walter Muhlinghaus, Toronto, who represents the Hermann Muhlinghaus Company, Lennep, Germany, states that this unfair and round-ahout method of getting into the Canadian market is resorted to by several firms. With this end in view they established agencies in London and sold their goods 'through that medium. Mr. Muhlinghaus states, however, that his father's firm, to which he is attached, sends their manufactures direct from Germany to Canada.
Frequently this German agency was placed with a British manufacturer, who availed himself of what was known as the ' business secret,' that is he sold these German goods as the ' made in England ' article, and in most cases the Canadian purchaser was none the wiser. The classes of goods in question were underwear and similar clothing.
Owing to the comparative cheapness of production in Germany, the British manufacturer found that he could buy certain lines of German goods and sell them in Canada at greater profit than by manufacturing the goods in England. Mr. Muhlinghaus stating that the cost of production was at least 30 per cent cheaper in Germany than in England.
I have satisfied myself that what I am stating is correct, and I believe the officers of the Customs Department know that this kind of thing is going on, and I have no doubt the hon. Minister of Customs knows it. It is a difficulty which should be overcome in some way or other. The British preference was not given for the purpose of letting in continental goods under it and thus swindling the government. There is another point I would submit. Under that German surtax, I believe there is a new regulation, but it does not amount to anything more than the old one. The temptation to get in German goods from Great Britain will be greater than it was heretofore. There is absolutely nothing in the way except a mere certificate of the exporter or his clerk on the bottom of the invoice, which means nothing. The buyer on this side does not consider that it is his duty to investigate. He sees his neighbour doing the same thing and it will not do for him to suggest to the Customs Department that the goods may be German, Belgian, Austrian or French. He says to himself : ' My neighbour will not do that, why should I ? If I do it, it will result in raising the duty on myself.' That sort of injustice is being perpetrated and these foreign goods are coming in as British. Under this German surtax the temptation will be greater, the swindle will be greater, and the government should devise some better method of dealing with the case.


Sir. SMITH (Wentworth).: How is it that the customs officers will not give receipts for customs duties paid at the various ports of entry-a straight receipt to the importer or his broker ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: It has not been considered necessary. The importer pays his duty and gets his goods.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: When an importer sends money to his broker, the broker Mr. KEMP.
pays the duty at the port of entry and the importer has no check on his broker.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: If the merchant gives the broker his check, it comes back to him through the bank. If he remitted the cash, he would have to trust his broker.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: But he wants to know the items for which this money was spent. I do not see any valid reason why the officer should not give a receipt. This is done on the other side, right across the river, and it would be a great convenience to importers. The custom is to receipt a third copy of the entry, but that is a cumbersome way and it takes just as long as it would to give a straight receipt.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: When persons are on the ears with small parcels, the officer gives them a receipt, but it is not usual in ordinary transactions, and this is the first time I have heard any complaint on that score. As a rule the brokers are responsible men and the merchant knows with whom he is dealing.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: It is not a matter of very great importance, but I know that a great many complaints have been made. I know of cases where the parties absolutely refused to pay the duty unless they got a receipt, and I can not see any reason why one should not be given. A proper form might be made out and submitted to the customs officers for approval.


Albert Edward Kemp: I would like to have an explanation with regard to the matter I brought up.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I really cannot give any more information than I have already given. As the hon. gentleman has rightly stated, the department do not intend to let goods in, under the preference, that are not entitled to it. A certificate is required from the exporter, signed by himself or signed by one of bis clerks, who must declare that be has personal knowledge of what he certifies to. But whether signed by the clerk or the merchant, the house is held just as firmly. The hon. gentleman is right in saying that *when the preference was first introduced we required an affidavit accompanying the invoice. But we found that a source of great anuoyance to our imiJorters. Houses in the old country complained very much. They complained that they had to pay a fee of fifteen cents for each certificate, and in some cases they had to get their certificates from the Chamber of Commerce, and there was a good deal of trouble and annoyance especially in the eases of small parcels. The department concluded that if a house would deliberately sign a declaration on the invoice in the name of the firm, which was not true, they would also make a false affidavit. As far as the penalties

are concerned, these penalties would follow just as surely a false declaration as a false affidavit. We thought that it would ease the trade in the old country and please the importers here and be just as safe to the revenue to have a declaration instead of an affidavit. You may say that a man might sign a declaration who would hesitate to make an affidavit, but I do not think there would be many cases of that kind. If a man would be careless in signing a declaration, he would be equally careless in the matter of an affidavit. We may probably be able to do a little better in the future in the way of supervision in the old country, because my hon. colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, is appointing commercial agents in some of the cities in the old country. One has been lately appointed in Birmingham, and if we have any doubts about imports of hardware from there, we can avail ourselves of the services of that commercial agent. WTe are giving the matter every attention and care, and I will hail with pleasure any suggestion that would be workable and supplement the present regulations.


Albert Edward Kemp: I did not know that there was a fee charged by the secretary or president of the Chamber of Commerce, but if there was, it could have been but a very small fee. I happened to be in London about the time this order was changed, and Mr. Murray, the [DOT] secretary of the London Chamber of Commerce drew my attention to it and prophesied that the result would be very unsatisfactory. His reason was that in London particularly, there are all kinds of merchants, and because a firm in this country imports from a certain firm in London, it does not necessarily follow that the firm in London is composed of British subjects of the high character of British merchants, whom we were glad always to think of as men of great integrity. These men are foreigners, to a very large extent. They reside in England sometimes only for a short time ; they are people of all nationalities, and if the precaution were taken by the government of insisting on their going before a notary or a secretary or a president of a chamber of commerce, and making an affidavit, that would be- a greater safety for the government and for the revenue than the mere declaration now required.
1 think the government will do well to reconsider the step it took in 1898 in framing the new regulations, especially in view of the German surtax. The temptation will be greater under that even than it was before.
I repeat that I do not think that the certificate at the bottom of the invoice amounts to anything in at least three-quarters of the cases. In the other 25 per cent it might be of some value. But, on the whole, it is no effective guard against bringing in continental goods and passing them through as British goods.


Edward Frederick Clarke: In fact it is not worth a continental.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I cannot agree that it is no guard. With regard to Mr. Murray himself, I imagine that the fee on account of these affidavits was a persona] perquisite. I take it that these fees would not go into the coffers of that chamber of commerce but would be one of the perquisites of his office.


Albert Edward Kemp: I do not know what the charge was.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: If what I suppose is true, he would naturally favour having that continued. But there is this value to the declaration made by the firm that if there is a flaw, we seize the goods, and the importer, as an innocent party would have this recourse against the exporter, that, under our customs law, the perpetrator of the fraud could not collect for the goods sent to this country. They run the risk of having their goods forfeited and not being able to collect them. While some houses might be lacking in principle, the fear of the power of the law is there to help to keep them straight.


Edward Frederick Clarke: May I ask the minister what steps he takes or can take, if there is a fraud in the matter ? How, in the name of conscience, will he or his officers find out that there has been a fraud ? Will he enlighten us on that point ? We have drawn the attention of the minister to this question in years past, but he has never enlightened us on the subject. Will he do so now ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The party who signs that declaration knows whether it is a fraud or not.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Yes, but how can the minister's officers find out if it is a fraud or not ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: By their expert knowledge, they might be able in a ease of a certain article to know whether it is an article of German manufacture or not. In the case of a textile, I judge, that would be a difficult matter. My hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Brock) would be able to tell us about that.


Edward Frederick Clarke: But the difficulty is made greater by the fact that raw material from which the goods are made may be German. They may be manufactured in Germany and yet come in under the so-called British preference. How can there be the slightest safeguard, under the present system, against goods brought in under affidavit, that they are British goods, and yet, without a farthing of British labour put up on them ? The handicraft is the same. How, then, can the hon. minister's officers detect any difference ?

392*


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: We have to rely very largely upon the affidavit. But if we are going to have a preference that difficulty occurs and you cannot help it. Has there been any deficiency on our part-that is the practical thing.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The whole preference is deficient.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The hon. gentleman's argument is against the preference as a whole; but we have it, and we have to deal with it. The question is now, are we lacking in anything that would enable us to exercise greater circumspection 7


Edward Frederick Clarke: But the hon. minister is making the whole thing impracticable. The regulation cannot be practicably carried out. He says this is a British preference and we contend that it is a German preference. The government should change the name of it and call it a continental preference, not a British preference. The hon. gentleman cannot tell us any way by which he can find out where the goods are produced, unless he watches their manufacture from the time they are begun until the time they are exported to Canada. That has always been our contention, and now the hon. gentleman admits that it is right. Well, what does he intend to do under the circumstances 7 Does he intend to allow these goods to come in as British goods under the preference when he admits that he cannot know, without watching the goods in the course of manufacture, whether the affidavit on the invoice is right or not 7 Is he not going to advise his colleagues that this whole thing is a fraud on the face of it 7 It is surely wrong to call this a British preference when he himself admits that foreign goods are coming in here and getting the advantage of the preference. The German manufacturer and the middleman in England and in New York are the only persons who are profiting by the preference-not the British artisan or manufacturer.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) is mistaken. Of course he is leading the discussion away from what is really my point, the point that I seek to defend. He is opening up the question of the policy of the government.


Edward Frederick Clarke: For the reason that the hon. gentleman admits that there is practically no safeguard.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: No, I do not admit that. I think we have a great safeguard in the declaration, and another in the expert knowledge of our officers. I hope we shall have an additional safeguard in our commercial agents. The hon. gentleman's argument is against the whole preference. The goods, to come in, must be declared to have been finished in Great Britain. We require the finishing process there.


Edward Frederick Clarke: There must be at least twenty-five per cent of the value of the goods of British production, and this twenty-five per cent must include the last stage of manufacture. They could not send out British goods which would make twenty-five per cent of the completed product and have them manufactured in Germany and sent here. The last process must be in Great Britain. The hon. gentleman asks what further we can do 7 Well, for instance, our attention was called to linseed oil which was coming in under the preference. We were informed that it was made largely from Argentine seed. This raised a very nice question. If the material was pressed from Argentine seed it could not come in under the preference. But if the seed came from India or some other British possession entitled to the preference, the value of the seed would be counted in towards the twenty-five per cent. We wrote to the High Commissioner and he investigated at the'headquarters of the manufacturer, what proportion of Argentine seed went into the production of the oil. We take all the steps we can to guard the revenue. As to saying that you can absolutely determine all these points, I am free to admit that that cannot be done. But do not blame the customs department for that. We have to carry out the law. The hon. gentlemen about me, forming the parliament of Canada, have, said :	We want this preference. Parliament having declared that these goods shall come in under the preference we cannot exclude them. We let them come in under what seem to us the best regulations. But, if there has been a fraud, we seize the goods and the man who has made the false declaration cannot collect for them.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How many seizures have been made, because of false declaration, of goods brought in under the British preference 7 Has there been one 7 Surely that is an easy question for the minister and not an unreasonable one. The preference has been in force since August, 1891, I believe I hope it will not tax the memory of the minister too much to tell us, how many seizures have been made because of false declarations since that time.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: No, 1 cannot tell the hon. gentleman. I do not think there have been many.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Was there one 7


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I should think so.


Edward Frederick Clarke: More than one 7


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I think so. We had a good many seizures.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am asking about the seizures because of false declarations under the British preference. If there was only one, the hon. gentleman could give us some particulars, because it would be im-

pressed upon his memory. Where was that seizure made ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: It is not impressed upon my memory particularly.


Edward Frederick Clarke: If the minister will bring down the information


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I could not tell offhand.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Bring us down the memorandum when we next discuss the hon. gentleman's estimates, showing how many of these seizures there have been, where, and the amounts involved.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The department does not give the names.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Only the place, and the amounts involved.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: You are asking me to bring down so many things I am afraid I shall forget some.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am very sorry to burden the minister. But how can he know, except from the declarations, whether 25 per cent of British labour has been added to the value of these goods ? I need not remind the hon. gentleman that the circular issued by his department to the collectors- in 1897 permitted the goods to come in as having had 25 per cent of value added to them, if the person who bought them in Germany, or Belgium, or France or Switzerland, sold them for export to Canada at 25 per ceut more than he paid for them ini the foreign country. That 25 per cent was to be accounted, according to the instructions issued by the hon. gentleman's own officials, as British labour, as an increased value given to the goods by British labour. In interpreting exactly what the hon. gentlman meant, how can he state that these goods have been enhanced by British labour to the value of 25 per cent ? Our contention has been that it is not necessary to add even one per cent to the value of these goods by British labour, foreign goods can and do come in under the preference. That is the reason why we protest against the so-called British preference, because we claimed it was a continental preference. Will the minister explain how his departmental officers could tell that 25 per cent had been added by British labour ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: 
Albert Edward Kemp: But that is 25 per cent on.
Mr. CLARKE, If the merchant in England or the middleman in England purchased $800 worth of goods made in Germany and sold them to the Canadian importer at $1,000, thus adding 25 per cent, the difference
between what he paid for them and what he sold them for was to be counted, under the instructions issued by the hon. gentleman, as British labour. That is the point.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: They have to be enhanced in value 25 per cent, enhancing in value 25 per cent means that 33i per cent has been added, because 25 per cent off is equal to 33J per cent on. Now there is no profit at 33J per cent on a wholesale transaction.


Edward Frederick Clarke: 25 per cent includes the difference, the addition, made to the goods purchased on the continent, when they land in England and are sold in Canada, and may embrace insurances, freight, boxes, &c.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Here is $1 worth of goods, if they come in there must be additional value given to them as British labour. Take that 25 per cent off and that leaves 75 cents, 25 on 75 is 33J advance. NoV there is no 33^ profit made by the wholesale merchants, or anything of that kind. I think in textiles the cost of the labour averages about 331 per cent. So while 25 per cent of the finished value of the goods is required to be put on, it is about 331 advance.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I say that if the British merchant or the middleman brings in $800 worth of goods from the continent and sells them for $1,000 to a Canadian merchant, he has added 25 per cent to their value according to the instructions issued by the hon. gentleman, and he gets the advantage of the preference, although British labour has not added one cent to their value.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: That would be a simple and direct fraud.


Albert Edward Kemp: That is what we claim.


Edward Frederick Clarke: And we claim that this fraud is permitted by the department because of the circular of instructions issued in 1897.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Can the hon. gentleman point out any other way by which a fraud like that can be avoided ?
Mi'. CLARKE. We ai'e asking the hon. gentleman to do that.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: But hon. gentlemen are finding fault, and I think it is not unreasonable to say, after we tell how we are doing it, that they should suggest any better way if they are able. One suggestion he has given that there should be an affidavit instead of a declaration. We tried that, and we abandoned it. But what other plan can he suggest ? The argument of the hon. gentleman is against the preference altogether. That does not concern our duty. The duty of the department is to administer the law as parliament, including hon. gentlemen opposite, have enacted. Parliament said, we want a British preference, we want the goods to come into this country

that are made iu Britain at a lower rate than those that are made in other countries. That being the law, we hare to administer it, and in doing that we try to keep foreign nations from taking advantage of that preference illegally. I furnished the hon. gentleman with all the1 declarations, rules and regulations, and X think we have done all we can without unduly hampering the trade. But I shall be obliged to hon. gentlemen if they will tell us of any other step we can take that we have not taken.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The minister has at last taken our advice very kindly, and he has put on the surtax. They were slow to take advice offered from this side of the House, but at length they did it. But let me read for the hon. gentleman's information one paragraph contained in the circular issued by his department in 1897, which will sustain our contention :
In estimating the labour of the United Kingdom entering into the production of articles manufactured therein partly from imported material, the extent of such labour may he reckoned by the value of the manufactured article ready for shipment at the place of production after deducting therefrom the value on entering within the limits of the United Kingdom, represented by the component parts of such articles which are the produce of countries not entitled to the benefits of the preferential tariff.
Surely that can only have one meaning, that if the goods are sold for export to Canada for 25 per cent over and above what they cost when imported into England from the| continent, the difference between what they cost and what they are sold for is to be acounted as British labour, although there has not been necessarily one per cent of British labour or any other kind of labour added to them.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The hon. gentleman has the latest circular that we issued, I gave it to him the other day. There is one-quarter to be added to the value of the goods.


Edward Frederick Clarke: No ; the hon. gentleman must not persist in maintaining that after this circular has been read.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: What
part are you referring to 1


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am dealing with what was In operation in 1897.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Deal with what Is in operation now. I have the form of circular prescribed :
Form of certificate prescribed to be written, printed or stamped on Invoices of all articles except raw and refined sugars, for entry under the British preferential tariff of Canada, when made and signed by a person other than an individual exporter.
1* (I)	hereby certify that I am
(2)	of (3)'	the exporter (s) of the articles included in this invoice, and that I am duly authorized to make Hon. Mr. PAiTERSQN.
and sign this certificate on behalf of the said exporter (s)	
I have the means of knowing and I do hereby
certify that this invoice from the said (4)

	to (5)	amounting to
(6)	is true and
correct ; that all the articles included in the said invoices are bona fide the produce or manufacture. of one or more of the following countries. viz.:	(7)	and
that a substantial portion of the labour of one or more of such countries has entered into the production of every manufactured article included in the said invoice to the extent in each article of not less than one-fourth of the value of every such article in its present condition ready for export to Canada.
(Sgd.)	
Dated at	this	189 .
There is the declaration that they have to make. It enters into not less than one-quarter of the value of the article. If the article is of German origin, there must be 25 per cent of it that is the result of British labour. Take that off and the valuation is 75 cents. Twenty-five per cent on 75 per cent will not make up a dollar, but 33J per cent will, and therefore there is an enhancement in value of literally 33J per cent. Twenty-five per cent off is equal to 33J per cent on.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I have not that circular.


George Taylor: There is no difference between that circular and the one which my hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) has read. If an exporter in England purchases goods in Germany and makes 25 per cent profit on the transaction, he can take that declaration, because that 25 per cent is put on by his labour in purchasing and selling again. It comes down to the bald fact that 25 per cent of the value of the article so exported has not been added by goods of British origin going into it or British labour being employed in its manufacture. But it may be increased 25 per cent in value by the party who has purchased it in Germany, imported it and sold it again. He can take that declaration, and it is being done every day. The country is being flooded with German goods and they have the benefit of this preference, although they have not been enhanced in value by material or labour in England, except the value that is represented by wrapping and stamping.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. minister has given us the form of declaration that exporters have to subscribe to, and he accompanies that with an explanation as to how they estimate the increased value. That circular provides that if the value Is enhanced by 25 per cent over what the article cost the exporter in a foreign country that fact will be sufficient to justify him in making that declaration.


Albert Edward Kemp: The hon. minister has a very ingenious argument in regard to 25 per cent off being equal to 33J per cent on, but I guarantee that not one exporter in a thou-

sand understands the matter in that way. He understands it in the way that the hon. member for West Toronto understood it when he said that if $800 was the value of goods (purchased in Germany and they were sold for $1,000 in this country, the $200 difference would be considered the 25 per cent. At any rate, if the goods were worth $800, the exporter in Great Britain might calculate his profit to be a certain amount, the carriage of these goods to be a certain amount, the packing to be a certain amount, and it might result in there not being 1 per cent of British labour put upon them under the regulations which are in effect in the Customs Department of this country. I think the argument of the hon. minister shows that he admits that fraud is perpetrated. I do not think he is prepared to deny that fraud is being perpetrated, that the regulations do not cover the situation and do not prevent continental goods coming in here and getting the benefit of the preference. The quantity that comes in, it is impossible to state. It is an indefinite quantity. The hon. minister says to us, having admitted that fraud does exist, and having admitted the correctness of our argument : What would you do ? I ask the hon. minister if it is the duty of this side of the House to prescribe what should be done? Whose invention is this Is it not the invention of the government, and should it not be their duty to invent some means to overcome the difficulty to which we have referred ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Quite so, but I know if the hon. gentleman knew anything more that could be done to prevent possible fraud-mind, I only admit possible fraud ; I do not say that fraud is committed, as I do not think there are many frauds committed-but I believe that if the hon. gentleman knew of any step that could be taken that would tend to greater security, his sense of patriotism, his desire to see the law enforced, would impel him voluntarily to give me his suggestion. These hon. gentlemen have not suggested anything. Although we are doing the best we can, they believe the best we can do is ineffectual. I grant that possibly it may be, but I do not know of any better system. When I was in England last year accompanied by my secretary, when we got through our work, we met a great many merchants. We were waited upon by a large commercial body in the hotel one day for the purpose of discussing an insolvency law. The delegation was composed of large shippers. I availed myself of the opportunity of finding out if they thought there were any large frauds perpetrated in reference to the preferential tariff. These were shippers of high standing and men whose word you would not doubt at all. Their interest would be, if any fraud was being perpetrated by any other house, to reveal it to me, because if any other house was perpetrating a fraud
of this kind it would beat them out in the Canadian trade. Notwithstanding that their interest was to reveal any fraud if it existed, their reply was that they were not aware of a fraud of that kind being committed, and they did not think it was being committed to any extent. We had other opportunities of procuring information in regard to the subject, and my secretary, who is fairly up in the department, visited the establishments of some of the houses interested in the Canadian trade, and he was unable to discover that fraud existed to any extent.


Edward Frederick Clarke: These great shippers and leading merchants were supplied with the circular that provided that the profit of the middleman was to be counted as British labour. There was no fraud as far as they were concerned in interpreting the circular which the hon. gentleman had issued.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: There is no such profit as 33J per cent on the whole transaction. There is nothing of that kind.


Edward Frederick Clarke: If our contention is right these gentlemen with whom the minister and
his secretary came in contact could not say that a fraud was committed, except it be a huge fraud on the Canadian public ?n calling the preference a British preference, when as a matter of fact goods that had not one dollar of British labour in them were classed as British.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Their testim#ny was in a general way that they did not believe that fraud was perpetrated under this preference tariff. We made personal inquiries and in some cases we availed of the services of the officers of the High Commissioner. I hope I may be permitted to say that this is outside of my estimates, which is a vote to pay the officers who must be paid, and I think you might now conclude to give me the money provided I spend it in a proper manner, which I will try to do.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It is pertinent to the estimate that we should ask for the number of seizures because of fraud. I understand the minister will bring that down ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I might not be able to trace that for a number of years.


Edward Frederick Clarke: For the last two or three years.


Richard Blain: The linseed'oil manufacturers of Canada sent a deputation to wait on the minister to complain that foreign oil was being imported under the name of the British preference. Has the Minister decided to remedy that wrong perpetrated on the linseed oil manufacturers of Canada and which is a very serious grievance ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: My recollection is that we took steps to get the facts from the people who manufacture this oil, and the information we got from them

did not agree with the information given us by our friends here. It was very clear to nie that the labour in pressing the oil itself did not amount to 25 per cent, but if a certain quantity of seed coming from a country entitled to the preference entered into that oil, that together with the cost of production would entitle it to enter. My recollection is that while they claim that they use some of the Argentine" flax, that there was enough of the other kind to bring it under the preference, while our manufacturers here claim that while they ran the Argentine seed they ran it pure, and they do not accept the statement that it is mixed. These manufacturers told us that to mix the two would lessen the value and that it was against their interest to do so. We were not able to determine whether it was right or wrong, and I have not heard very much since from my linseed oil friends or whether they fe.el that they are not getting fair play. It is one of the most difficult questions we had to tackle.


Mr. McGOWAN.: I would like to know from the minister if there is any way of ascertaining whether there is any other seed than this Argentine seed in this linseed oil ? I suppose the minister admits that there is hot 25 per cent of British labour in the manufacture of this oil ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Yes.


John McGowan: They got over that by saying that there was some British seed in it, and the minister let it go at that.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: We had inquiries instituted, and my recollection is- I speak subject to correction-that they claimed there was enough of Indian seed going into the oil so that with the cost of production it brought it within the preference.


John McGowan: Could you tell from the oil itself whether there was Calcutta seed in it or not.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I cannot, and I do not know whether our experts could. Can my kon. friend (Mr. McGowan) tell ?


John McGowan: No.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Well, if you cannot tell I do not suppose that our experts can. It is a difficult matter, but we took all the steps we could.


John McGowan: I do not know anything about these other things which my hon. friend from Toronto speaks of, but I am perfectly satisfied that in the matter of linseed oil the revenue of the country is being defrauded in connection with this preference. The minister says that there is not 25 per cent of British labour in the manufacture of this oil and that there must be enough British-grown seed to make up for the deficiency of the labour. I can tejl the minister that this is not so. There is not Hon. Mr. PATERSON.
25 per cent British labour, and every one knows that there is no Calcutta seed going into it. I think the department should take the trouble to ascertain whether they are being defrauded or not in this matter.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The British colonies are entitled to the preference and British seed grown in India gets the benefit of it.


John McGowan: How do you know that there is Calcutta seed in it ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: If there is not it is not entitled to the preference.


John McGowan: It comes in all the same.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The labour expended in producing this seed is as much entitled to count in the preference as the labour of crushing it in England. The contention is that the cost of producing the seed together with the labour of crushing it in England entitles it to the preference.


John McGowan: Did they furnish any information as to the portion of Calcutta seed in that oil ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I think so.


John McGowan: Then I would like to have that evidence brought down.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: If the hon. gentleman 'would not consider it too much trouble to come to my office, I will be glad to show him the efforts we made in order to arrive at a decision in this matter. I know that the views of the men here who understand the business do not agree with the views we received from the English producers.


Richard Blain: We are to understand that the information furnished by the linseed oil manufacturers of Canada was found to be incorrect.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Well, it would be better to say that the department has not come to a decision yet.


Richard Blain: The minister has been asking for suggestions to overcome this difficulty, and I wish to remind him that the linseed oil manufacturers of Canada gave him some very valuable suggestions on that score. I will just read one clause :
Air. Paterson then asked us what we could propose. We suggested that all persons making such a declaration should make a detailed statement of where the materials were obtained from which the goods were produced.
That is to say, you would alter your declaration so that the party who made the linseed oil would be compelled to make a declaration stating where the seed came from out of which the oil was made in England before it came to this country. May I ask the minister if he proposes to take action

and adopt the suggestion of the linseed oil manufacturers, which I am satisfied would keep out of this country the foreign article ?
that there may be some come in. 1 admit the possibility, but I do not go further than that.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: That is worth considering.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. minister would have to go further. If a portion came from a British colony which was entitled to the preference, he would want the declaration to state the proportion coming from the colony and the proportion coming from a foreign country.


Mr. BELL.: It would appear, from the discussion that has taken place to-night, that the charges or statements made on a great many occasions with reference to the importation of goods from Germany, France and other foreign countries into this country, under the British preference were true. The Minister of Customs practically admits that they are true.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I say there might be some come in.


John William Bell: That being the case, what steps have the government of Canada taken to protect the revenue ? So far as I know, they rely on the certificate, which has not the force of a declaration, and that in the face of the fact that the department knows from past experience that certain foreign houses in Great Britain have been in the habit of defrauding the revenue continuously. Not many years ago, under the present Minister of Customs, a foreign house in Montreal was detected in a very extensive undervaluation of invoices, carried on for a number of years, in which it was perfectly clear that any statement or declaration made by a house of that character would be perfectly worthless ; and yet, from the statement made to-night by "the lion. Minister of Customs, he has relied entirely on evidence in the form of declarations or statements of people of that character of those with whom he had that experience in the past. Virtually the understanding at which the House must arrive, after hearing the minister's statement, is that in this matter the country and the revenue of the country are absolutely unprotected. There are a great many articles of foreign manufacture, which it has been asserted from time to time have been getting the benefit of the British preference, including some goods to which it was scarcely conceivable that any value could he added after their production ; for instance, cutlery, crockery, certain classes of textile fabrics, silks, neckwear, hats and caps, and many other classes of goods. These are apparently coming into Canada continuously as British goods, when the minister has practically confessed to-night that the department over which he presides is not at all satisfied that they are British goods.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I did
not say that. I admit that it is possible1


John William Bell: [DOT]3939

person engaged in these fraudulent transactions. Nothing whatever would appear to have been done to secure detection or conviction. If I did not misunderstand the hon. minister to-night, he has practically admitted that he knows that a certain proportion of customs entries are fraudulent. I understood that the hon. minister is in the habit of sending agents to the United States and elsewhere to watch for cases of undervaluation.
I understood that a portion of the machinery of his department was the employment of men thoroughly versed in the manufacture of the several branches in which undervaluation is practiced, and I am surprised to find that while the hon. minister was apparently compelled to admit that all the statements made with reference to the evasion of the preferential clause are correct, and so far he has taken no means to secure the detection of the guilty parties and prevent the continuance of those frauds. The country would sustain him in any reasonable expenditure in order to protect our manufacturers and the honest merchants by seeing that the preference we have given so generously to the mother country should not be taken advantage of by foreigners. If the hon. gentleman would apply the same energy to the prevention of frauds on the revenue by this abuse of the preferential clause which he does to putting down the operation of smugglers throughout our sea-coast, he would find that this House would cordially second his efforts. There can be nothing more unsatisfactory than to find that the preference which Canada has given the mother country is not being enjoyed by the merchants of the mother country at all, but by foreigners, to whom certainly we would not be Willing to extend any favour whatever, particularly at the expense of the manufacturers and the workingmen of Canada. It is quite possible that the hon. minister may not care to take the House into his confidence. He may possibly have taken some steps in this direction and not care to disclose them, in case that might prevent there being successful. Well, if he is in a position to say that he is prevented by the fear of publicity from fully taking the House into his confidence, I would not be disposed to press him unduly, but the impression I gathered from the whole discussion leads me to the belief that the minister was of the opinion that we were being cheated, but could look upon it with a good natured smile as one of those things no fellow could understand. It was a sort of fourteen-fifteen puzzle, which he was inclined to pass over to this side of the House in order that we might see what we could do with it. That certainly is the impression which the hon. gentleman left on my mind. This energetic minister of an energetic government practically confessed that he was beaten and threw up the sponge. He practically admitted that if these foreign houses in Britain choose to continue to send us goods Mr. BELL.
of those different classes under the preferential clause, he did not see what he could do and was disposed to ask what we thought should be done. Does the hon. gentleman wish us to understand that there are insuperable difficulties in connection with this preference, that he has exhausted his ingenuity, that the cleverest minds in his department are powerless to devise a remedy, and that he is absolutely at loss to know what to do ? Is that the position the hon. gentleman takes ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: No.


John William Bell: I am very glad to hear him say so, but might I ask him to take us to some extent into his confidence and tell us what he proposes to do. It is not at all satisfactory for the people of Canada to feel that they are being defrauded by foreigners, who are ingenious enough to get the advantage of the preferential clause, which it was never intended should apply to them. The people of Canada will not long tolerate a minister at the head of the Department of Customs who admits that he cannot remedy this condition of affairs, and it seems to me that it ought not to be very difficult to devise some means of assuring the conviction of those who thus evade our customs laws. There are only a very few business centres from which these suspicious invoices may come, and but a small number of houses which do this kind of business; is there any insuperable difficulty in watching the operations of those houses ? Can the government not secure evidence, if necessary, by acquiring information from the employees of these houses ? Convictions could thus be secured and the minister could make up a black list of exporters of the mother country, houses dealing in the class of goods under suspicion no statement from which would be accepted in any custom house under the control of the hon. gentleman.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bell) is mistaken when he says that the hon. Minister of Customs has admitted that all the statements made with regard to fraudulent invoices under which German or other continental goods obtain the benefit of the British preference are correct. The hon. gentleman's (Mr. Bell) whole speech was based upon the assumption that the hon. Minister of Customs had admitted these statements. But the hon. minister has not admitted anything of the sort. What he said was-the hon. gentleman will no doubt reccollect it when I remind him of it-that it was possible that fraudulent invoices had been sent and goods fraudulently entered. Wherever you have a system of taxation somebody will manage to evade some portion of his just due. The difficulty is all the greater and the temptation is greater if you have two rates of duty on articles precisely the same or of a similar character. But I wish to say that I think

it is a mistake to have the discussion proceed upon the assumption that there is widespread fraud in this matter. I have not the same information on this subject as my hon. friend the Minister of Customs. But to'the extent of my information I agree with him in saying that I do not believe that such frauds exist to any considerable extent. And I will tell why. The Minister of Customs has said that he appealed to reputable business houses in Great Britain on the subject-and they would have an interest in seeing to it that fraudulent dealers were not permitted to carry on their business in this way-and the best information he could obtain was that this fraud was not likely to be perpetrated to any great extent. Among the numerous gentlemen who have waited on me with regard to tariff matters were many who believed that German goods were being fraudulently brought in as British. But I think I do not go too far when I say that ih most cases when they were asked to look into the matter carefully and see if they could fortify their impression-because it was only an impression-by reference to particular cases, they failed to do so. We did not ask them to give public information whereby they would have been brought into trouble. We said : Give us a clue ; give us your Impressions, we will take your information confidentially-some things we could not take confidentially but that we could- we will be glad to follow up your clues and ascertain the facts If possible. And I think I shall not be doing wrong if I say that in most cases the gentlemen who thought that there was this widespread fraud are now inclined to believe that they were mistaken. Of course, some thought the restrictions should be greater-I do not say they upheld the whole preferential arrangement ;-but I think that business men are under the impression, not that there are numerous frauds but that the law is being enforced. It may be that there is fraud-there is temptation. But I know on the other hand, that the hon. Minister of Customs has endeavoured to follow up any information he has gained from the merchants. Wherever he has had a clue he has followed it up to ascertain the truth of the case. My hon. friend from Fictou (Mr. Bell) is right in saying that in matters of undervaluation it is the habit of the customs to send agents abroad, if there is reason to believe that any fraud goes on even to a limited extent. It is the duty of the Minister of Customs in such a case, to send out his officers and to see to it that the revenue is protected. While I say with the Minister of Customs that it is possible and even probable that the revenue laws are sometimes evaded, still, my impression is that there is no such general evasion of the British preferential tariff as has been mentioned, and I think that most business men in Canada who have looked into the matter will confirm that impression. If in any case any gentleman in Canada, or any outside of 124*
it, will give information that will enable us to follow up the case, no expense shall be allowed to stand in the way of a full investigation. We have all the same object in view. We all want a British preference, that the article which is the product of British labour shall have the benefit of the British preference. That is why the hon. minister is acting fairly in saying that he would be glad to receive suggestions. When merchants have told me that they believed these evasions were taking place, I have asked them to give us the information and to look into the matter, and they have been compelled to say that they could not give the information and would drop the case. If any merchant in this House or out of it would give us information on which we could proceed, then I believe with the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell), we should follow the matter up and do everything that may be necessary to make the British preference a British preference in reality.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me that the mistake the hon. Minister of Finance makes is in talking about this as a fraud. If any exporter' has this blank declaration before him what will he do. There are Instructions accompanying it to the customs collector or inspector. And they tell hi nr that in valuing the goods if they are twenty-five per cent in value over the value for which they were sold in the country from which the goods come, then they are to be entered under the preference. If the exporter makes out that declaration and the goods pass, he does not regard it as a fraud. He is complying with the regulations of the law, according to instructions given him from the Customs Department here. So he does not regard it as a fraud and in reality it is not a fraud to him. But it seems to me that the government have arrived at this stage-they admit that the law giving a preference cannot be worked out, that they cannot find ways and means of so working it out as to secure this preference for British goods, yet they will not repeal or amend it, but will allow it to remain as it is and allow this imposition upon the British public and the Canadian public to continue. Because, say they, we do not know how to devise ways and means to carry it out and the opposition will not tell us how to do it. That is about the situation. The hon. Minister of Finance says: that they spoke to reputable business houses. Who were they ? I assume that they are people who buy and import and export this very class of goods and who are interested in carrying on the business exactly upon that line.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) will permit me, what I said was that of the manufacturers who came with a view to obtaining higher duties, if they might, and who suggested their impression that German goods were being brought in under the British prefer-

ence, X have not found one who, when pressed to bring information, could show a single case in which this has taken place.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman spoke of reputable houses that were consulted in London, England, and the Minister of Customs did the same. If he qualified it by saying manufacturers


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The manufacturers I refer to were in Canada.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Have we not shown the minister over and over again how it can be done. Has not the Minister of Customs himself admitted that it could be done in that way ? Yet, with that knowledge before him, he does not propose to amend the law or repeal it, but will allow it to go on.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The Minister of Customs must admit that it is not very easy to allow such a large item as this to pass until he can give a categorical explanation as to what as being done to prevent these frauds. No doubt frauds have been committed-I have myself heard in Montreal time and again cases where the goods were introduced into this country coming from Germany, and without the observation of'the clause in the tariff with which the minister is familiar. So I think we have a right to obtain a clear and categorical statement from the minister, in that voice that can be heard afar, as to what he intends doing to protect the manufacturers of linseed oil, and also what means he intends to adopt to prevent these frauds in the future. The minister must take the House into his confidence. If he is adopting means which he deems it in the public interest not to make public, he is bound to tell us what proportion of this large increase of $80,000 is going to be employed to prevent these frauds. Under these circumstances, I would suggest that this item stand until we have that categorical statement from the minister, to which I think the public are entitled. I move that the committee rise.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Oh, no, Mr. Chairman, not yet. Not only do I want to get these items through to-night, but the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is waiting to get his estimates through. Of course the hon. gentleman is not serious in moving that the committee rise. Perhaps he was not in the House when I was giving categorical answers, as I have been doing all the evening, I have been doing nothing else. He will find my answers in 'Hansard,' and I am sure he will be satisfied with them. But there is not much fraud under the preferential tariff when you compare it with what takes place under the'general tariff. I have admitted there may be fraud, but I go further and I say that under the general tariff I know there'are frauds, lots of them. We know it, because we seize the goods, and we have to adjudicate upon these frauds. We have special officers in Hob. Mr. FIELDING.
the United States who travel about ascertaining the values. Every little while cases are coming before me of frauds which have been going on for three years, where there has been systematic undervaluation during all these years; and in dealing with them we not only make the offenders pay duties for the three years, but we impose'penalties for the three years. There are scores of such cases under the general tariff.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Of fraud ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Yes, under the general tariff. You must have them, you cannot help it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Have there heen any seizures in regard to infractions under' the British preference ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Yes, I believe so ; but there has been nothing like the number that there'is under the general tariff on goods coming from the neighbouring states, where we get all the information we can. There are scores and scores of seizures, always have been and always will be.


Albert Edward Kemp: The minister says he has officers throughout the United States investigating. How many officers have the government at the present time, or have they had at any time in the past, in the United States, or in England, in Germany, or France ? How many officers have you employed to investigate matters under the British preference ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: We have not had one, nor do I propose going to the expense of sending one until I am more convinced than I am yet that frauds are being perpetrated. I do not believe there is an evasion of the preferential tariff to that extent that would warrant me in having special officers in England to look into the matter.


Albert Edward Kemp: Are the Americans more dishonest than the Europeans ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: We are doing a large trade with the states, and we have our officers over there. As I say, there have been scores and scores of cases in the department, always have been, of undervaluation and cases of fraud that we have to adjudicate. There is the general tariff, you take what precautions you can. What precautions do you take ? Prima facie, the invoice, then there is the new declaration which I have introduced. The old declaration was ' certified correct.' That was all there was on the invoice. The merchant goes over to the other side and buys goods at 30 per cent discount. The invoice comes in certified correct. It was a perfectly true and honest invoice as between the seller and the purchaser, but it was not correct for the Customs Department, because customs duties are to be levied on the value of the goods when they are sold in that coun-

try. Our merchants were going on and making declarations of the price at which they bought the goods in the country of production. You pointed out to them that the goods were undervalued, and they said they didn't know. Well, we said, there is some one that does know, and that is the man who sells these goods, and we will make him certify to the price, and we got a declaration from him. Now when a case of seizure comes up, we come upon the importer and be says he had no idea the goods were undervalued. But our recourse is not on the foreign merchant, he is not within our reach, but these goods are within our reach, and we put a seizure upon them. It is idle to talk about there being no infringement of the preferential tariff, there may be. but there is nothing approaching the frauds that take place under the general tariff. When I say it is possible that some goods come in illegally, I could not say anything else. But if you want my honest opinion of the preferential tariff. I believe there is very little fraud indeed in comparison with the general tariff. Perhaps I have spoken longer than I should. We want to get on a little faster. We need this money, it is to pay your officers. You believe that your officers ought to be paid a little more, some of them at least ; and we are asking for more money to pay them and to open new ports in order to keep up with the increasing business.


Richard Blain: When the minister was in the old country last year he made, as he told us. an effort to find out whether frauds were being committed under this preferential tariff. During the debate a year ago this matter was brought to his attention and a quotation from a British newspaper was read to the House. I propose to read it and find out whether the Minister, when he was in the old country, endeavoured to find out from the publisher of this journal whether this statement was correct.
How Foreigners Rob Canada.
Since Canada granted a preference tariff to Britain, tons upon tons of German and other foreign textiles have been brought over to England and reshipped to Canada, after a so-called process of ' finishing,' in order that they may he classed as goods partly of British manufacture. In some cases this ' finishing ' in England consists simply in taking off the German, French or Austrian labels, doing the goods up again, and then giving them a British name or label. There is no branch of trade in which this style of smuggling is carried on to the extent that it is in the textile trade.- fBelfast ' News,' January 23, 1902.
That was read when this question was up for discussion in the House on a former occasion. When the hon. minister was in the old country surely he would have thought lit worth his while to go and see the publisher of this large and important journal to find out whether he was publishing articles without a tittle of truth in them as the hon. minister has said. Surely he would
have thought it worth his while for the protection of the manufacturers of this country and in view of the complaints that were being made in this House and in the newspapers throughout the country to go to this leading publisher and find out whether this article was correct or not. This article says that tons upon tons of goods are being brought over from Germany to England undergoing slight alteration as to labels, &c., and then being sent to Canada under this preference. Surely the hon. minister would have thought it worth his while to put some special officer at work in this country and the old country to find out whether this condition of things could not be stopped in the interests of the people of Canada.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I did not see that article.


Richard Blain: It was read in the House last year.
The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS, I did not pay any attention to that article. It is like the criticisms that are rather too strong and which lose their force for that reason. Talk about tons and tons and tons ! Such statements as those lose their force, just as my statements would if I were indulging in criticism and making statements which were altogether too strong. Perhaps there is a possibility that we may be defrauded in some cases under the preferential tariff just as we are under the general tariff, but there could be no better precautions taken than those we have taken that I am aware of, except to employ an army of men over there watching initial processes and then we could not cover every point.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We do not employ any at all.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Well, we had better get on, Mr. Chairman.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We have only touched the fringe of this question and we think a great deal more might be said upon it, particularly since the hon. minister has admitted that he does not employ any special men in Montreal or on the other side to prevent these alleged frauds.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I did not admit that.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: This is another of the consequences of this unfortunate preference which has "done no good to the British people and certainly has done no good to us. I would be prepared for my part to allow the item to pass hut the hon. gentleman must understand we cannot go any further this evening.


Mr. BROCK.: I must acknowledge that I have been quite moved by the appeal of the hon. Minister of Customs, not so much in his own behalf as on behalf of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. COMMONS
PrSfontaine), whom we are keeping out of bed to such an unusual hour and who is so unaccustomed to it, but notwithstanding that, now that the hon. Minister of Finance has taken a hand in the debate, I would just like to draw his attention to something that probably might not have struck him before. I refer to the disastrous results of the budget that he brought down this year wherein he stated that he was not going to make any tariff Changes. The disastrous results of that budget are beginning to show themselves. We put on duties first of all to collect a revenue, I have no doubt, to pay the expenses, but we also put on duties incidentally, I have no doubt, to protect the manufacturers of this country. The extent to which the manufacturers have been protected may be judged somewhat by the state of the industrial classes at the present time. Are we not aware of what is going on in Toronto at the present moment, and of the value that has been put upon cotton stocks, woollen stocks, steel stocks and other stocks that are affected by the tariff that the hon. Minister of Finance has placed upon the statute-book of this country ? How does he like to talk of millions and millions that are being lost in Canada to-day as the result of the disastrous tariff that the hon. Minister of Finance has imposed upon this country, and as the result of the want of proper protection to the industries of this country ? If we had had proper protection we would not have probably kept the committee so late and we would have been in a better spirit and temper to discuss the matter that is now before this committee. We, on this side of the House, do not object that the officers should be well paid. We think that a great many of them are underpaid. At any rate, the point I wish to make is that the state of affairs in Montreal, in Toronto, and in the large cities of this country is such as should startle the hon. Minister of Finance and make him feel that this country is suffering severely as the result of the want of adequate protection to its industries. The hon. minister says that he is assisting these industries by the small amount of duty that he is placing upton important goods. I contend that we would not have the present disastrous condition of affairs in this country that we regret to see by the Ottawa evening papers to-night had the hon. Minister of Finance taken the proper course at the beginning of this session. If, up to the present time, such serious consequences have resulted from the want of adequate protection to Canadian industries, are we not likely to suffer greater disasters if a change is not brought about ? But, we do hope to have a change. We do not hope to have that change with the present hon. gentlemen in power, but we hope that next year a change will be brought about by the people of this country.


An hon. MEMBER.: Not much.


William Rees Brock: 


William Rees Brock: I think some hon. gentlemen who say ' not much ' might speak with better knowledge. They know what is going on at the present time in Ontario and in Quebec, and they know how the people are suffering down by the sea. From one end of this country to the other the manufacturers are suffering and suffering definitely and positively in consequence mlL-the manner in which the hon. Minister of Finance has managed the finances and the financial statement of this country. One of the reasons he gave for refusing to make any changes in the tariff this year was that the manufacturers came to him and he refused to accept statements from them which he said they wished to be kept confidential. There was a very good reason for wishing to keep these statements confidential, not from the people of Canada but in the interests of the people of Canada. I think that the hon. Minister of Finance owes the country an apology and the very best reparation he can make after having caused such an enormous loss, and it is no laughing matter-I can assure you it is a very serious matter


Mr. DAYIS.: That is blue ruin.


William Rees Brock: To those gentlemen who are handling industrial stocks. The great cry of our hon. friends from the west is wheat. They are all right, but the peiople who are engaged in industrial pursuits, who have invested millions and millions, are losing their money entirely in consequence of the want of proper sympathy and support from the government of this country.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Before that item is passed I would like to get an assurance from the hon. minister in regard to the matter I brought to his attention a little while ago. He is asking for large increases in the salaries of his officers. Surely it would not be too much to ask them to give a receipt when they take money from importers. It is a small matter, but I can assure the hon. minister it is a matter that is felt by those who place their money in the hands of agents at the ports of entry. It is important that they should have a proper means provided of getting a reckoning from these agents. Collusion might take place between the agent and some of the customs officers and a portion of the money in the hands of the broker might be retained. Between the two of them it should be accounted for.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: If the hon. gentleman will be kind enough to send me the letter I will correspond with the collector in reference to the matter. It would be inconvenient to make a law like that if there is no general demand for it, and in many of the large ports it would be impossible to do it.
Salaries and contingent expenses of inspectors of ports, and travelling expenses of other offi-

cers on inspection and preventive service ; Board of Customs-expenditure in connection therewith ; Customs laboratory-to meet expenditure in connection with the testing of sugar, molasses, &c., including pay of officers appointed or employed for that purpose ; Salaries of officers appointed or employed for compiling statistical returns of imports and exports, $129,200.


George Taylor: This item used to be given in detail, under the late government and In the first year of this government, and now we have a lot of these items grouped together and the minister is asking $129,000 for a service that a few years ago used to cost only $40,000. We must have detailed explanation about this.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We really have done a considerable amount of work. We have voted a million dollars now, and we spent the afternoon on the Railway Bill to suit the convenience of the Minister of Railways.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Go on, carried.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: These hon. gentlemen need not say ' carried ' because we can stay as long as we see fit to do so. We require an explanation as to why these estimates should be grouped together. I think we have done enough work to-day.


Some hon. MEMBERS: We have done nothing.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Of course, there is no intention to force the committee at all, but I am an old enough parliamentarian to know how part of this discussion has gone on to-night. I know that it is not because of a lack of confidence in the Customs Department or in the officers, but gentlemen opposite are in the mood of enjoying themselves a little. I have been long enough in opposition to understand that. However, there will be an opportunity for that when some of my colleagues bring up their estimates, but mine is a business department. I was asked how long my estimates would take and I said they would go through like a shot because I knew that everything was right. Hon. gentlemen opposite have got up one after another on questions that are not very foreign to the subject although a discussion on the tariff was hardly germane to the estimate. We have got over the troublesome item now, and this is a very easy one. The increase is $8,500, but in the supplementary estimates this year I will have to ask for $6,000, because we were short. Here are the particulars:	Twelve inspectors,
salaries $24,750, expenses $8,500 ; board of customs, 27 officers, salaries $23,500, expenses $7,000 ; statistics, 51 officers, salaries $42,000, expenses $400 ; preventive service, 12 officers, salaries $8,350, expenses $1,300 ; laboratory, 3 officers, salaries $2,900, expenses $2,500-we have to pay express charges on sugar and other articles that are sent to be tested. Of the increase, $6,000
is to meet additions to the staff and in-ireases. Taking out the 12 inspectors and the chief of the preventive service there are 92 officers and an increase of $50 to each of these would mean an increase of $4,600, I am not promising to give the increase, but I am saying what it would be if we did give it, and perhaps the hon. gentleman would not object to that.


James Clancy: Does the hon. gentleman intend to give it ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I think we will in some cases ; yes.


James Clancy: The minister must have made up his mind to it or he would not ask for more money than he needs.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: We are taking a vote for that, and if the hon. gentleman would please let us have it I think we will use it.


George Taylor: Why should not these votes be kept distinct and separate as they were in 1897, so that we would know what each costs ? What is the object of mixing them all up together to confuse them ? Omitting this statistical branch which the minister has created, for what purpose we do not know, and which costs $42,000. the minister is now asking $129,200 for services which in 1897 cost us only $42,000.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: This has been done for years, and has been sanctioned by the committee, and for the purpose of comparison is all right. The hon. gentleman is mistaken about the expenditure. There is $42,300 for statistics and $8,350 for preventive service which did not exist in 1897. We established it, and. as the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) gave us credit to-night, I believe we have stopped smuggling altogether, and that was a tremendous evil in the province of Quebec and the maritime provinces.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh !


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I am speaking more particularly of the illicit importations of liquors from St. Pierre and Miquelon, which found their way into those provinces. That is not because the people of those provinces were more addicted to the use of liquor. We have, I believe, wholly stopped that smuggling, and the Minister of Inland Revenue, through that stoppage, finds his receipts greatly increased. The expenditure is against me, but the credit goes to the Department of Inland Revenue.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What amount ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: That I cannot state. Unless the drinking habit is cured, the liquor which was formerly smuggled is now got from the home manufacturer, and the country gets the revenue from it. Then we have increased the inspectors

since 1897. That was necessary to provide for the inspection of ports which had not been inspected for years. With regard to the statistics, the department have been congratulated by the manufacturers of the country for getting them out. We can send to the members and others at their residences, full returns for the previous month, as full as those that appear in the Trade and Navigation returns.


George Taylor: That is under the Department of Trade and Commerce.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: No, by the Customs Department. We publish these returns by the authority of the House. We are taking the vote just as we did before, but we are asking $8,500 to meet the additions to the staff, and leave us a little margin to give an increase of salary to those who deserve it.


George Taylor: The hon. gentleman takes credit for establishing the detective service. Surely he cannot take credit for that.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: This is the preventive service.


George Taylor: Mr. McMichael was at the head of that service, with a staff of officers under him, and they were paid out of the vote in 1897. And yet the hon. gentleman claims that he established the preventive service. Nothing of the kind; he simply continued the service which he found when he came in, and I do not know that he has added anything to it. The other items were voted separately, whereas my hon. friend grouped them together for his own convenience a year or two ago. It may be that they passed the House unnoticed; but it is not right to vote $129,000 for half a dozen different services. The items should be voted separately so that we shall know what each service costs. My hon. friend claims credit for giving statistical information. We have a double service of that kind both by the Customs Department and the Department of Trade and Commerce. Why should there be this double expenditure unless it is to provide places for friends of my hon. friend.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: This preventive service is different from the preventive service to which the hon. gentleman refers. The preventive service we took up, to deal with the great evil of smuggling from St. Pierre and Miquelon.


George Taylor: We had that before.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: No. Mr. Fred Jones was put at the head of that branch, and he and the officers under him have done great work, and the service has paid for itself many times over.


George Taylor: Mr. Jones was not employed. but Mr. McMichael was, and he was at the head of that service.


William Paterson: 


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Mft McMichael was and is yet at the head of the service. He has inspectors going around to the different ports, but they do not deal with the smuggling. That service is virtually new. The statistics are also new. They are not published by the Department of Trade and Commerce. Every month we send out as fully detailed statistics with reference to the imports and exports of this country as you get in the Trade and Navigation returns, and I can assure the hon. gentleman that they are valued by the business men of Canada, especially by the manufacturers, who have passed resolutions commending me for that course; because it was at their instance largely that these statistics were published.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are they not published by both the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Customs Department ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The report of the Department of Trade and Commerce is not in the same shape. They do not give all the details, as we do. What they give they get from the Department of Customs. We gather the information, and they compile it in their own way, in a condensed form.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to get some satisfactory explanation from the hon. minister as to why he has abandoned the former system of giving us these expenses in detail. My hon. friend took nearly ten minutes to explain to us the details of this item of $129,000, which would have been perfectly unnecessary if the estimates had been made as they used to be. I have often observed that the report of the Auditor General in England is far less voluminous than ours, which gives us too much detail. But I maintain that a great deal of our time might be shortened if we had more detail given to us in the estimates submitted by the government. How is it that in former estimates we had all the details that we have been obliged to-night to ask from the minister ?
We had then in former years the amount in each province, the increase in each province, and other details which saved a great deal of discussion. Under the present system the hon. minister may divert one expenditure to another, so that we do not know exactly what we are voting. The hon. minister should alsto explain the distinction between the statistics prepared in the new branch he has organized and those we find in the report of the Department of Trade arid Commerce. I fail to see the difference, and this new department imposes on the country an additional expenditure of $42,000. Why has the hon. minister such an enormous staff in that department ? The country got on very well before without these fifty-one employees, and the hon. minister tells us that he intends increasing the salaries of

these men, who are 'doing just the same work as is done by the Department of Trade and Commerce. We have also a right to know from the hon. minister the names of those whose salaries he intends increasing.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: If I gave the names my hon. friend would not be any the wiser, because he does not know the men. The expenditure this year shows an increase of $8,500 over the last. The expenditure last year was $120,700, and the House voted that amount. We need not therefore go behind that. We have that as a basis to start from, because the House sanctioned that last year, but lion, gentlemen have a right to ask for the details of this additional expenditure of $8,500.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The conditions may be changed from last year.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The only change is that we are asking a little more salary for some of the men employed in this work, I think it is a fair rule of criticism that you should start with that amount voted last year as a basis, and ask for details of the additional sum required.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The hon. gentleman need not tell us what policy we should follow in criticising his estimates.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I was simply pointing out what I judged to be legitimate criticism.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: We are the best judges of that.


George Taylor: The hon. minister says that the opposition admitted that the vote of $120,000 last year was right. But he will find that the opposition objected as strongly to that vote then as they do now. But because we do not give an individual or separate vote on each item and because an item is forced through by the majority behind him, the hon. minister taunts us with having admitted that the $120,000 voted last year was necessary. We did not admit it then nor do we admit it now, and I would move to have the item reduced by this $8,500.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: If you move to reduce this, you are going to place it out of my power to give any additional sum to men I consider underpaid.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Not at all, because under the system adopted by the hon. gentleman he can take the money from another part and increase the salaries. He is not bound by this item. The hon. gentleman has not answered any of my questions. I asked why he has abandoned the system of giving the various items composing this vote. We then could tell for what specific purpose we were voting the money. But to-day, instead of giving us the vote under a number of different heads, he groups it in one single item of $120,000, which will enable him to
| distribute the whole sum of money over the I different heads as he chooses. We are asked to vote $120,000 for seven or eight different objects without knowing what amount will be devoted to each one. There may be reason for that. Surely the hon. minister is able to give us the reason. Otherwise, we shall pursue that course and, in future years we shall be voting still larger sums en bloc without knowing what amount is to be devoted to each separate item. That is contrary to the principle of voting money that we have usually followed and are still following in other matters. As representatives of the people we ought to vote the money for each separate item and limit the sum to that item. This is a wise rule that we have followed, and it is the rule followed in England, and, so far as I know, in the United States, and in the large budget that is voted in France. There may be a reason why we should not follow that rule, but, if so, why does the minister not state it ? Another question which I asked, which the minister did not attempt to answer. I merely wanted to draw attention to the difference, if any, between the expensive statistical branch he has established and the one in the department of Trade and Commerce, which formerly gave us the same information. There has been no answer. Was the hon. gentleman himself when in opposition, satisfied with those on the treasury benches when they did not answer his questions ? I have never bad the pleasure of seeing the hon. gentleman perform the duties of a member of the opposition, but I am sure that he insisted upon answers to his reasonable questions. Then the hon. minister will observe that he has not given us the names of those whose salaries are to be increased, for which purpose he asked a considerable amount. Why not give these names ? I think we have a right to answers to these questions, and I would like the hon. minister to give me that satisfaction before we pass this item.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I said to the hon. gentleman that for years the estimates have been prepared in this way.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Not in 1890.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: It has been so for some years. It is more convenient. If the items were specified, you would not be able to do with the officers of the department what you can now. The services are of like nature-as, for instance, the inspector of the preventive service, the statistical branch and the laboratory. You cannot estimate exactly what you are going to want for each service. But, in this way of voting the money, you can interchange the officers as you could not do otherwise and pass the Auditor General if the money were otherwise voted. You might want to take an officer of the statistical branch and assign him to the board of customs or one in the office of the board of customs and put him in the preventive service or the labor-

atory or make one of them assistant inspector. As changes become necessary during the year you can make them. It will be more than a year before this vote is expended. and it is impossible to say what changes may be necessary in that time.


James Clancy: Why should the hon. minister make any such changes ? _ The hon minister will pardon me for saying that it is incredible that he sould need to distribute his officers in this way. Does he say that he has a staff of officers compiling statistics for whom he has hot employment during the year ? If so he bad better dismiss them. And so with the other branches. It is unreasonable that the hon. gentleman should bulk five or six distinct services and ask the House to vote the whole sum. The country will expect him to tell how much he needs for travelling expenses of inspectors. how much for travelling expenses for other officers, how much for the board of customs, how much for the laboratory, and so on. Each of these is a distinct service. The hon. gentleman will concede that there is nothing unfair in that. I hope bis answer will not be that the item slipped through in other years and that therefore it should be passed now. The fact that it slipped through without question before does not do away with the right of the 'committee to ask for the facts now. Will he give his estimate of how much is required for each service ? If he cannot, he has bungled his department and its expenditure in sueh an extraordinary manner that the country cannot learn anything about it.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I gave that detail, but the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) did not hear it.


James Clancy: Did the hon. gentleman give it for each service ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Yes, and I have no objection to repeating the figures for the information of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy).


James Clancy: I understood the hon. gentleman to give the estimate for last year. But, of course, that is only half the- question. Will he give the expenditure ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: That is the actual expenditure for 1901-2.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think that, so far ns getting any information from the hon. gentleman in regard to the difference between his statistical branch and the similar branch in the Department of Trade and Commerce, I must give it up.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: No, 1 must beg the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Monk's) pardon. I was going on to speak of that, when the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Claney) interrupted me. If the hon. member for Jacques Cartier can bring that up when the Minister of Trade and Commerce is putting his estimates through, the Minis-Hon. Mr. FITZPATRICK.
ter of Trade and Commerce will then give Ills reasons for the publication that comes from his department. I have given the justification for the issue so far as the Customs Department is concerned. I believe every member of the House values this publication. By bringing the statistical department here we are able to do what we could not do before. We used to have great delay in obtaining the Trade and Navigation returns. Sometimes, even in the month of March, we could not get the returns of the imports and exports of Canada for the month of .Tune previously. Members were forced to ask for special returns, whereas under this system, in the month of .July, you can get the whole transactions, imports and exports, for the month of June.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not quite see that the statements which we get should necessitate so large a staff of employees. Here are fifty of them at an expenditure of over ?40,000 a year. I can understand that possibly a larger number of employees might get out the information more rapidly than we got it before.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The hon. gentleman will be pleased to know that our statistical department is doing its work very rapidly. There is not a country on the face of the globe that gets out as prompt returns and with as much information as we get. I believe Canada stands ahead of every nation in this respect.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not at all agree with the hon. gentleman. It is like our Yearbook that we get a year after the proper time. If you go to New Zealand, to Australia, or to all the other British dependencies, you will find that their Year-book is out a long time before ours. If you go to the United States, you will find that their statistical abstracts of trade are more complete, sooner brought out, better printed, in fact better than ours in every respect. But the hon. gentleman, I think, has laid down a very erroneous principle when he claimed that because we had passed an item in a previous year we must necessarily pass it every year, unless there is an increase. I do not think the hon. gentleman adhered to that principle when he was in opposition. Parliament is called expressly for the purpose of criticising every year every item of expenditure ; that is our duty, and we are endeavouring to fulfil it. Now when my hou. friend to my right made a motion to reduce this item by $8,500, he gave us an example of the kind of arbitrary power we are conferring upon the minister. What did the minister say ? He said that in that case all the poor employees of his department would be deprived of their increase of salary for this year. What enabled the hon. gentleman to say that ? Just the very rule which he has infringed for two or three years past, and which my hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor) pointed out. He gave

us several services voted en bloc; and then he says that he can Increase or diminish the number of members of the board of customs and their travelling expenses. He is absolute master of that sum of $129,000. My hon. friend knows what difficulties this government had with the Auditor General, most of which were based upon the failure to observe the good old rule that we should vote specific amounts for specific purposes. Now I venture to say that most of the correspondence that we find in the Auditor General's Report since this wise rule has been infringed, has been caused precisely by a failure to observe that rule. Under 'this particular vote let me point out that we can diminish the salary of all the employees of the board of customs out of the $24,000 that he says is required for that special service for this year. Out of that $24,000 he can divert any sum he likes, to provide for the expenses of a preventive service, for instance. Does he not see that voting money in that way deprives the House of Commons of its valuable privilege of controlling these expenses ? We say to the minister :	Here is a sum of $129,000,
of which you can spend just as much as you like, provided you confine it to six or seven specific objects. If I am in order, Mr. Chairman, I move that this item 228, of $129,200, be divided so as to show the sum of money to be appropriated to each service. I think that would be bringing us back to a very wise rule, and save the government a good deal of trouble with the Auditor General.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is the only safe rule parliament can follow in voting money. Tlie object of separating it up into as many parts as possible is that the House may understand what the money is needed for, and afterwards that there may be control over its expenditure.
The MINISTER <3f CUSTOMS. I trust hon. gentlemen do not think it necessary to do that. Where is the danger ? If there be no danger, it is a convenience in the department. If I had to estimate for these different votes I should then have to estimate for a larger amount than I am asking here. I would have to ask for more money under different heads. Things will occur. There are fourteen months ahead before some of this money will be expended, and it is impossible to estimate the whole thing. As it is, this is in the hands of the minister, and it will be in the hands of the minister then. The minister has no more opportunity of doing what is unjust if the vote were divided than he has now. When you want to make an expenditure of a certain amount for a public work, you want to know how much money you are going to expend and what it is for. This is an absolutely different thing, because we are now dealing with the question of salaries and expenses attendant upon the duties of these men.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Under the old system, when it was broken up and specifically given, was it the custom of the government to ask for more ? They asked for less.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I will give the hon. gentleman an illustration of that myself. Formerly the vote was made by provinces. This was changed, because you could not estimate fourteen months ahead, and you would have to make an outside estimate for each province. If you ran short $2,000 in one province and you had $S,000 which you did not need in another province, you could not, under the old system, use the unexpended money in the province where your estimate had fallen short, and the officers in the province in which you were short would hav.e to wait for their pay until the new estimates were passed.


Richard Blain: If the House votes money for, say the board of customs, the hon. minister asks the privilege of being allowed to expend that on salaries. Would he not regard that as dangerous legislation ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The board of customs means salaries.


Mr.   BDAIN@: Or for travelling expenses. The hon. minister has a general vote here, and he can take that money and apply it to-any purpose he wishes.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Within the vote.


Richard Blain: Is that not a rather dangerous kind of legislation ? I think it is, and it is not permitted in any other department of government.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Oh, yes ; that has always been permitted in the estimates of the Inland Revenue Department.


Richard Blain: Not in the estimates of the Minister of Public Works.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: That isa very different thing.


Richard Blain: It is a question whether this House has a right to pass legislation in that way. It seems to me that the minister having charge of that department in the House ought to be able to say nearly how much money he requires for the next twelve or fourteen months for the payment of salaries.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: That is-what I am doing.


Richard Blain: And that he should be able to say what he requires for travelling expenses.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: That is what I have done.


Richard Blain: Then, if the hon. minister comes forward and says that he wants $20,000 for travelling expenses, what objection can he have to saying that it will be expended for that purpose alone ?



'3959 COMMONS

The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: You cannot tell exactly. Suppose a case of fraud arises and a special officer has to go to Kansas City,-or New York, or Philadelphia, or Boston, you must have a little something to play on. If I had to separate this, I would have to ask for a larger amount than I have, because there would be a danger that in some way we might be short, and the expenses could not be paid. The mission would have to be foregone or the officer could not get his pay. I have given the actual expenses under the different heads last year.


George Taylor: How much did they amount to 7


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: $121,000. There is nothing to be gained by dividing the vote, and you will only make it more difficult for the department to work. You will just increase the book-keeping.


George Taylor: How would it increase the book-keeping 7


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Let us take the hon. minister's reasoning, and we could very much reduce the work of this House. Take, for instance, the Militia Department. There is money to be voted for cartridges, for travelling expenses,- pay and drill. We have been dividing these items up and asking for a specific amount for each of them. We could reduce the work very materially by saying we want $2,500,000 for militia purposes. We might go through every department of government and do the same thing. But we do not do it, because parliament, in its wisdom, has devised a better way, and one that is calculated more to protect the public treasury.	'
Mr. CLANCY, How is the minister able to say what each service costs if there is that promiscuous sort of a thing, of one clerk going from one service to the other. How often has that happened during the past year.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I am told T>y the accountant that we have done it two or three times during the last two or three months.


James Clancy: The very rarity of its occurrence shows that there is no necessity for it. The minister was an able critic when in opposition and he did his country good service, but he knows that such a latitude amounts to license and that it is an extremely bad precedent. I am prepared to acquit the hon. gentleman of anything like stealing or misappropriating any money or anything of that kind, because I believe that if a greater sum were voted to him than is necessary he would only spend so much as would be in the interest of the country, but the principle is wrong.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: There is no parallel between this case and the case Mr. BLAIN.
of the Department of Public Works' as has been cited. It would not be right to take a vote of $2,000,000 for buildings in Ontario without specifying where these buildings were, but here is a vote to pay salaries earned by our officers and what does it matter so long as the salary is paid whether it is paid under the head of statistics or under the head of Board of Customs. It is a convenience to the department and I hope hon. gentlemen will let it pass, as it is now nearly one o'clock.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I move to amend the second item of resolution on 228 so as to show the the sum of money to be appropriated to each service. I am quite prepared to admit that I believe the minister will make a judicious use of this money and that he will not divert it unnecessarily from one service to the other, but in order to defend this system he should not fall back upon his own honesty in which we have the most implicit trust. There is no such vote as this taken in committee of the British parliament.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: My impression is that the whole army vote and navy vote is passed in a bulk sum.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: No.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I am inclined to think so, but I am very certain there is no such detail in the British estimates as there is in our estimates.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am perfectly sure that the hon. gentleman is mistaken when he says that the whole army vote or the whole navy vote in England is passed in a bulk sum. We never find in the British estimates a number of items accumulated together as these are. In voting this sum of $139,000, we are confiding the disposal of it to the hon. gentleman's own discretion. That is what we have no right to do.. My hon. friend says he would probably not make any undue use of the money, even in the exercise of that discretion. But in all previous years up to 1896, we voted the amount for the service under separate items. In 1896 it amounted to $819,000, whereas here it amounts to $1,000,000, all the items being grouped together.
Amendment negatived : Yeas, 7 ; nays, 28.


Richard Blain: Might I ask the hon. min-nister if he proposes to establish a customhouse in Bracebridge 7


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Brace-n-idge is one of fifteen or twenty po uts with reference to which applications have been made. It is an important point, and the application is under consideration. We have not yet finally determined. We ascertain in all cases what business is done. I had a deputation to see me about Bracebridge.


James Clancy: I might ask about Dresden 7


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: It is under i consideration, too.


James Clancy: May I ask the hon. gentleman if there is any comfort to be drawn from the fact that it is under consideration ? Does that brighten the present prospect any ? He took Dresden under consideration last year, when he asked for $10,000 for matters of this kind, including, I believe, some service in British Columbia. This year he is asking for a larger sum. The country has a fair claim on the large revenue the hon. gentleman is collecting from the people, and I think he ought to congratulate himself that there are not more than twenty places asking for additional advantages. I quite understand that the hon. gentleman is subject to constant pressure, in some cases not entirely warranted. I also recognize that it is difficult to make a distinction between different places; but there are always business interests, as in the town of Dresden, which should decide the matter, and the people there put to inconvenience in not having that point made an outport. The hon. gentleman has a preventive officer at Walpole Island, and I would suggest that he might transfer that officer to Dresden and do away with the service at Walpole Island. I know the locality very well. It is said that smuggling has gone on there to a large extent; but a very small sum is collected by the officer there, indicating that the smuggling is very small. I hope the hon. gentleman will consider the desirability of making this change.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: It was represented that there was a large Indian settlement at Walpole Island, and that there was not only smuggling, but that the Indians were getting liquor, and that it was desirable to have an officer there. Dresden is becoming an important point. Brace-bridge is also. As the hon. gentleman knows, Dresden is near Wallaceburg.


James Clancy: Twelve miles distant.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: That would weigh against it as compared with Bracebridge, whose nearest point is Orillia, thirty-five miles away. I am not putting one place against the other. I am merely stating the points that we have to consider.


James Clancy: I would like to know where the hon. gentleman gets the representation that the Indians are bringing in liquor to such an extent as to require him to keep an officer there. It is not liquor to resell. If it is a little bottle in an Indian's pocket, the officer would have as much difficulty as anybody else in protecting iit. I would like to know where the representation comes from.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I do not know whether it was an inspector or not who reported it, but it was reported that it was necessary.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to call attention to the reports I have heard of frauds in Montreal in connection with importations from Germany. The hon. minister might employ somebody to find out whether those reports, which have reached me from reputable people, are well founded.
Miscellaneous-Day books, ledgers, bookbinding, printing and stationery, subscriptions to commercial papers, flags, dating stamps, locks, instruments, &,c., for various ports of entry,, legal expenses and uniforms for customs officers, $37,500.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: There is an increase of $2,500 here, which is required to meet the cost of printing a book now in course of preparation by the assistant commissioner, containing instructions to the customs officers on tlieir respective dutiCjS. We have 1,617 officers, and I suppose each one should have a copy.


George Taylor: How does the hon. minister account for requiring $37,500 now when in 1896-7 only $15,000 were required.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: $3,000 are accounted for by the expenditure on uniforms.


George Taylor: I find by the Auditor General's Report that last year the department purchased from W. E. Charleson, goods to the amount of $784.94. Were those purchased by tender ?
TJie MINISTER OF CUSTOMS. No, they were just small items.


George Taylor: They were small items bought at retail prices. There is no merchant in Canada who figures so often in the Auditor General's Report as W. G. Charleson. In this account, F-36 of the Auditor General's Report, there are sixteen coal screens at $7.75; enamelled measures, two sets $9.50; ever-ready flash lights, two, $7.50; hammers and hatchets, twenty-four at fifty cents, three at sixty cents; nail pullers, one at $1.25, fourteen at $1.50. In any hardware store you can purchase the best at one dollar. We want samples of these goods brought here. Paper clips, 101, $75.75; padlocks, two gross at $125. We would like to see a sample of the padlocks. You can buy them at ninety cents a piece.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: We want good padlocks.
Mr. TAYLOR, Yes, and I know what customs padlocks are. Why not go to a wholesale hardware man and pay cash prices instead of paying Charleson retail prices for two gross of padlocks, $250. Scales, union, three at $7; four at $7.50; special, seventeen at $6, one at $7; stamping scales, $7.65; small items, $38.40. These goods are charged from twenty-five to fifty per cent advance on the wholesale price. Why should the hon. minister throw away the people's

money in this manner ? I think this is enough to warrant the committee to be careful in voting money to the minister-in whose own honesty every person has confidence, but whose department we find buying articles from Mr. Charleson at such prices as I have quoted.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: This is something I do not know about. To tell the truth I did not know that Mr. Charleson's name was there. But I am glad the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) has mentioned the matter. I do not know that we can buy these small articles by tender, but we have a right to be saved from over-charge. I will take this matter up with the clerk of supplies and shall question him as to whether we get proper value. So far as I am concerned, I want no extra prices paid for goods, I will look into the matter.


Richard Blain: I see that legal expenses are included in this item. How much was spent for legal expenses last year ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: There were only two small items, one for legal advice given to the collector at Montreal, $12 odd, and the other was over some trouble about a lease in Richibucto.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: This is another case of grouping. And, to show that in England these items are voted according to the principles we have been defending, let me point out the difference. This item includes : day-books, ledgers, book-binding, printing and stationery, subscriptions to commercial papers, flags, dating stamps, locks, &c., for various ports of entry, legal expenses and uniforms for customs officers. In England they separate printing, paper, parchments, binding, small stores, printing for stationery, office publications. There is far more detail in England and each item is treated separately.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Is not the army estimate put through in one vote ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have not the army vote here, but the hon. gentleman may be quite sure that in England money is not voted in this way. Now, with regard to the point raised by my hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor), why does not the department adopt the principle which is observed in England and which I have often advocated here ? In England they send out a circular with respect to stationery and other articles which! the department may require. A list of the articles is given, and the circular is sent to responsible persons, who are asked to report the lowest price at which they will furnish these articles. But the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Paterson) purchases these articles without tender, and without information as to prices from friends of the department. We lose more money in that way than it would take to put the port of Montreal in perfect condition in five years. Is the hon. gentleman willing to try the ex-Mr. TAYLOR.
periment of following the English fashion in this matter ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Day books, ledgers, stationery and such articles are furnished to all the departments from the Printing Bureau.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Why is not the principle adopted for all the departments ? The hon. gentleman knows that at present when hardware is required, it is Mr. Charleson who sells it to the government at prices that are always or almost always excessive. We have gone into these details in the Public Accounts Committee, and in every case there was proof that a great deal more was charged than the regular price.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think that is a mistake.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: No, I think the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fielding) will recollect seeing in his own newspaper organs, statements that we were paying attention to trifles. They were trifles taken separately, but the aggregate of all these trifles was a very large sum. But, not only is it a loss of money, but the,system is unjust to the people in the trade. Under the method pursued in England every man has an equal chance to sell his goods to the government.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me that this new arrangement is an ingenious device to get around the Auditor General who has been a very troublesome official to the government-


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Not to our departmeht.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Reading the correspondence in the Auditor General's Report, I think we are justified in coming to that conclusion. He has objected to expenditure in many cases because it was not, in his judgment, in acordance with the purpose for which the money was voted. Now, this new arangement is the only way-except by over-' ruling by the Treasury Board-by which the government can get over the Auditor General. This is admirably calculated to answer the purpose and leave the government free to spend money in any one of half a dozen lines without any check whatever. We have just voted a sum of no less than $129,200 which may be spent on travelling expenses, board of customs laboratory, or statistical branch. No matter how the government arranges the expenditure within these broad limits, the Auditor General can make no complaint. If this system is to be continued, you might as well do away with the Auditor General, for his supervision of expenditure is reduced practically to nothing. I do not believe the country will endorse this or like it. The Auditor General is a most useful and important officer, and his power of imposing a check upon the government expenditure should not be curtailed. The sooner we drop this system and revert to that which we

formerly had, the better. We asked the minister several, times why he grouped the expenditures in this way, and he gave us several frivolous reasons-did not appeal to us as being legitimate or proper reasons at all. I think I can see through it plainly now, that is the reason for which it has been adopted. I think we will find many evils creeping in under this system, and the sooner we abandon it the better.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: 
The MINISTER OP CUSTOMS.: But they do not discuss individual items as the hon. gentleman is doing.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If we take a longer time to vote the estimates, it is because we do not have the information.


The MINISTER OP CUSTOMS.: The item under consideration is word for word as it was in 1895-96.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That does not make it right.


George Taylor: The hon. gentleman will certainly allow this item to stand until he brings down the information.


The MINISTER OP CUSTOMS.: No.


George Taylor: Then we can stay here as long as the hon. gentleman can. My hon. friend said he did not know that Mr. Charleson spent 8780 of this money last year buying goods. He says the storekeeper no doubt did it. But storekeepers only buy at such places as the government directs. I presume the minister tells his storekeeper where he shall buy his supplies.


The MINISTER OP CUSTOMS.: No, I do not, the commissioner may.


George Taylor: Will the hon. gentleman allow this item to stand until he brings down the information, telling us where the storekeeper purchased these goods and at what prices ? And let him give us some illustration of the values that we get for the money we expend.


The MINISTER OP CUSTOMS.: He purchased them because he wanted them, and he certifies to all of them as being reasonable.


George Taylor: Let us have a sample of the goods. We have men in this House who know the value of goods as well as Mr. Charleson. The hon. gentleman does not know anything about the value of these goods.


The MINISTER OP CUSTOMS.: He certifies that the prices are fair and just. I told the hon. gentleman that I would look into it myself, if that is what he means.


George Taylor: Then bring down the information before the item is passed.


The MINISTER OP CUSTOMS.: On concurrence. I cannot get it to-night. I am anxious to get this passed, so that we may pay these men.


George Taylor: We can stay till six o'clock, and we are prepared to do it. The hon. gentleman is undertaking to bluff us to-night. He wants to pass all his estimates before he quits. He is not going to make any progress by adopting this course. Though we are few in numbers, we have just as strong powers of endurance as the hon. gentleman and his friends. We want some more information. Will the hon. geu-tleman bring down a sample of these goods and submit them to members of this House who are acquainted with the prices ? He will find that the prices are outrageous.


Mr. McCREARY.: Can you not criticise these items in the Public Accounts Committee ?


George Taylor: But the minister is asking for these votes for next year, and probably a slice of them will go to Mr. Charleson again.


The MINISTER OP CUSTOMS.: The accountant tells me that he cannot get a nail puller, that they have not got any.


George Taylor: Your accountant will not tell you that he cannot get a duplicate of them.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: 1 know what an opposition can do if they want to. But when the hon. gentleman says he will talk till daylight, I do not think his friends will support him. The hon. gentleman says lie thinks that we paid excessive prices for certain supplies. Well, I will take care to examine into that, I will do so to-morrow the first thing. I will have the clerk of supplies up, and find out what he has done. Now the accountant tells me that he gets a statement that the goods have been received and that the prices charged are fair and just. This person was not appointed by me. He is one of the higher salaried officers and a cousin of Sir Charles Tupper, I think, but a gentleman we have confidence in, and when the hon. gentleman says that they will talk all night unless I consent to let this go, I do not think he is reasonable. This item we are considering now has been the same year after year, with the exception that the customs officer's uniform has been added.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not think there is anything unreasonable in this demand. Here is an item of $37,000 which is not as it has been in previous years. It is more than

doubled, and we And that Mr. Charleson has sold to the government an item of $708 worth of goods. I am not an expert in the value of hardware. My hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) is, and perhaps the hon. minister is, and perhaps he will be struck with the prices that are charged in that account. They appear to be very abnormal and very extravagant and this is not the first time Mr. Charleson's name has come under the observation of this committee, and the Committee on Public Accounts in connection with excessive charges.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: A customs lock would necessarily be a good lock.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is there anything unreasonable in asking that we should see samples of this extravagant bill of sale?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: These goods are scattered all over the country.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There are no samples ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: No samples, so the accountant tells me.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: As my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) says they could be got at any time, and one of these locks would be worth keeping as a curiosity.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: This clerk can go before the Public Accounts Committee.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: When we have voted the money and find that these remarkable charges have been made, our duty is to recriminate.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Would the hon. gentleman know the value of a padlock if he were to see it ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would. But there are other articles mentioned that I do not know very much about, and I would certainly like to see these samples. I do not think this is a very unreasonable demand. I venture once more to make an appeal to the hon. leader of the House. It is going on to two o'clock and I do not think it is fair to ask us to sit here any longer. I am ready to remain all night if it is necessary.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I had hoped at an earlier stage of the evening that we might have had an opportunity of directing our attention to the estimates of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Prcfontnine). but it is rather too late now for that. I think, however, that having devoted so much time to the estimates of the hon. Minister of Customs, it is only reasonable that we should finish this branch of the estimates and then adjourn. In regard to the late hours, my own opinion is that if the session is to close any time this side of October we will have to sit later than we have been doing in the past. I hope to have the co-operation of hon. gentlemen opposite. It is all very well to adjourn at eleven o'clock if business is going Mr. MONK.
on smoothly, but if the work is to be disposed of it will be necessary that we should sit later than we have been doing in the past.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I agree with the hon. Minister of Finance as to the desirability of finishing the session, but it seems to me that we are called upon too early in the session to vote large sums of money when Important measures are left in abeyance until it is too late to do them justice. Now, as to the proposition of my hon. friend may I suggest to him that we finish these estimates of the Department of Customs with the exception of one item, the amount required to meet the expenditure in the Yukon. I make this request as there are really so few of us here to-night, and I think it would be well to leave one item open.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There are supplementary estimates for the current year and the coming year to come down, and I can assure the hon. gentleman that they will afford ample opportunity for discussing customs matters, and that if they pass this item they will not in any way deny themselves the opportunity of discussing any customs questions at a later stage If in their judgment such is necessary.
The MINISTER OF CUSTOM^. I have to bring down supplementary estimates for the Yukon for this year, and hon. gentlemen will then have an opportunity of discussing the question because there will be an expenditure made.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I suppose if we have an opportunity in the Public Accounts Committee to look into this account of Mr. Charleson we can bring it up in the supplementary estimates ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I have not the slightest objection to you doing it?
Amount required to meet expenditure in ftie Yukon Territory, $40,000.


James Clancy: The hon. minister ought to give us some explanation as to the increase because there has been a falling off in the revenue.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Not this year.


James Clancy: As compared with two years ago.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: We ask $40,000 for 1903-4. For the current year we asked $31,000, and I will have to bring down a supplementary estimate for $5,000 extra for this year so that the actual increase will be $4,000 over the expenditure of the current year.


James Clancy: What is the cause of the increase ? As the hon. Postmaster General (Hon. Sir Wm. Mulock) knows there has been a very great shrinkage in the revenue.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I will have to ask for a supplementary estimate

this year for $5,000 more, so that really when this is voted by the House the increase will be $4,000, as between 1902-3 and 1903-4. The increase is made up by an increase in living expenses of two officers at Dawson. Messrs. Harold Rolph and A. Forest, of from $1,200 to $1,800 per year each, increased living allowance to the appraiser, Mr. Wm. Merchant, from $1,200 to $1,800. That is for six months. He comes out from the Yukon to Victoria during the winter, and he is not allowed his living expenses then, but for the six months he is in the Yukon he is allowed $1,800. Then, we have a new officer, Mr. A. D. Ross, who has no living allowance, but who has a salary of $1,800, and there are two new officers who are employed seven months in the year at a salary of $150 a month each. They are T. W. Alcock and T. R. Moulton. These officers were employed on the recommendation of Chief Officer McMichael. He went up there during the summer clothed with plenary power to put the office in perfect shape and he made these arrangements. Some resolutions reported.



ADJOURNMENT-HIDES INSPECTION.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved the adjournment of the House.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I beg to call the attention of the government to the following telegram which I have received :
Some men interested in cattle trade called on me to-night and asked me to put in protest against government's Bill insisting on the stamping of hides. They say there should be no government interference in the matter, for instance, if their hides are stamped number three by the government inspector and they cannot get their price here and have to sell in the states the stamp will hurt them very much. Look into the matter and if you can say something in above line try and do so as I hear also it is the tanners who are at the bottom of it and against the cattle men and farmers.
This telegram is from Mr. W. F. Maclean.
I understand the Bill is before the sub-committee and not finally considered, and I wish to call the attention of the government to it, so that they may know. Might I ask what business will be taken up to-morrow ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The Minister of Railways desires to resume the consideration of the Railway Bill.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will that be all for tomorrow ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If we get through that we will, be very glad ; the Bill is quite a long one.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If you get through will you go into supply ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I did not anticipate that we would get through with it, but if we should be so fortunate as to dispose of it-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If you dispose of that, will you go into supply ? It is of some importance that we should know.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is possible we might take up other Bills, but if all other business is disposed of, we would have to go on with supply, and in that case the estimates of the Minister of Marine will be under consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 1.50 a.m., Wednesday.

[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 3, 1903.