1903-05-15

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 175) respecting the Century Dife Insurance Company.-Blr. Morrison.
Bill (No. 176) to incorporate the Canadian Transportation and Storage Company.-Mr. German.

The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hou. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved :: That on Monday next, Public Bills and Orders, if not reached earlier, be called as the first order at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

The PRIME MINISTER moved :: That when this House adjourns on Wednesday, the 20th instant, it stands adjourned until Tuesday, the 26th instant.
He said : The reason for this motion is no doubt familiar to the House. There wild be a holiday on May 21st-Ascension Day, and another holiday on May 25th-Victoria Day. As there would be only the one business day, namely, the Friday, intervening, it has been suggested to me that under the circumstances it would be preferable that the House should not sit on Friday, and that the adjournment should be for the time mentioned in the motion.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. O. E. TALBOT (Bellechasse).: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called, I wish to rise to a question of privilege. The Ottawa 'Citizen ' of this morning contains the following :
In the talk which followed Mr. Talbot, of Bellechasse, was indiscret enough to interject a gratuitous sneer at Mr. Blain who by the way of retort made Indirect reference to a story which Mr. Talbot resents allusion to as an insult of the most exasperating kind.
A little further down I read :
'11 is no smaller than you are,' Mr. Ondsi-phore Ernest Talbot called out.
' That's another small member,' Mr. Blain retorted hotly ; * Let him look after certain small things that crawl upon him.'
Some members tittered ; others looked aghast ; but nobody said anything, though doubtless many were reminded of the scene of a few sessions ago in which the heated disputants over a somewhat similar remark were the same Mr. Talbot and the late N. Clarke Wallace.
I may add, Mr. Speaker, that this morning I 'had an interview with the reporter of the ' Citizen,' Mr. MacLeod, who was in the gallery last evening, and Mr. MacLeod has promised me that he will rectify this article. Now, I appeal to the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain), and I ask him, as I do not see these words in ' Hansard,' if it is true that be uttered them ?


Mr. R. BLAIN (Peel).: Mr. Speaker, I would just say, in reply, that I took part in the debate before the committee last even-Mr. ROCHE (Marquette).
ing, that the hon. gentleman was present iu the Chamber throughout the whole debate, that whatever statement I made then I stand by, that I have nothing to retract, and that I am not responsible for the items that appear in the Ottawa paper nor in auy other paper, and in taking that position I have good aufhority in the references that have been made this session by some of the cabinet ministers.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Mr. Speaker, I must in justice to myself say that the words which have been placed in my mouth by this paper were never uttered by me, and I have no means of knowing whether or not the hon. gentleman used the words attributed to him by the paper. But if he did use these words I think it devolves upon him as a gentleman to take them back. He is the last man in the world to whom I would have directed a word of rebuke or anything of an insulting nature. I have always had the greatest respect for the hon. member for Peel, and I cannot understand how I could have drawn upon myself expressions of this kind from him; and I think it devolves upon him now to withdraw these words. If he does not wish to withdraw them, of course he is not obliged to do so; and if he does not, I wish ldm to say now what he means by them


Richard Blain: Mr. Speaker, I suppose it is not desirable to enter into a discussion of this matter. The hon. gentleman, so the newspaper tells us, if he wants to be quoted by the newspaper, sneered across the House at the member for Peel.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. What 1 said was not any sneer at all. I said :	' What a storm iu a teapot.' These are the very words I used.


Richard Blain: The hon. gentleman wanted to attach the story of the teapot to myself, and I retorted by a reference to a story which is well known throughout the country in regard to the hon. gentleman. If he says it is not correct, he knows more about it than I do.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Shame, shame.


Richard Blain: The hon. gentlemen need not. worry about it. If they want to give a better explanation of the story than I can, they can have the floor. I have nothing to add to what I have said. I have no disposition to cast any reflection upon any bon. member of this House. Those who have sat in the House during the three sessions that I have been here, know that it is not my mission here, as I said last night, to cast any reflection on any member of the House, and I have not done so. But if the hon. gentleman commences a discussion in the committee and makes statements which seem to me to be incorrect, whether they are or not, I cannot tell- then he will have to suffer the consequences if I correct them.



CELEBRATION IN THE COUNTY OF ELGIN.

Mr. JABEL ROBINSON (West Elgin).: Before the Orders of the Hay are called, I wish to thank the Prime Minister for allowing us to adjourn during the latter part of next week; because in the county which I have the honour to represent along with iny lion, friend Mr. Ingram, we are to have a grand celebration at the city of St. Thomas from the 21st to the 25th, and we expect the members of the House to come up to the county of Elgin and assist us. On the 21st of this month it will be a hundred years since the first tree was chopped down in my constituency by Col. Talbot, and I wish the members of this House to come up and assist us to celebrate that event, and see the fair women and stalwart men that we have in the county of Elgin.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN.

Mr. T. EARLE (Victoria, B.C.).: I would like to ask the :hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries about the correspondence in reference to the lease said to have be'en given for the Vancouver False Creek.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: The lease has never been granted.


Thomas Earle: There was an Order of the House passed asking for the correspondence.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: I was not aware. The correspondence will be brought down.



TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: Before the Orders are called, I wish to call the attention of the Prime Minister to the following passage in the speech from the Throne at the commencement of this session :
The whole question of transportation and terminal facilities continues to occupy much attention, and my government will Immediately appoint a commission of experienced men to report on the subject.
As nearly nine weeks have passed since the commencement of the session, and as there have been rumours from time to time of the appointment of that commission, 1 would like to ask the right hon. gentleman whether any commission has yet been appointed, and if not at how early a date we may expect the appointment ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: The principle of the commission has been assented to, and it has been referred to the Department of Justice to be drafted, and I expect it in a short time.
SUPPLY-1 RAGGING ' IN! THE BRITISH ARMY.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved that the House again go into Committee of Supply.


Mr. JOHN CHARLTON (North Norfolk).: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I desire to make a brief reference to a despatch from London of the 12th of May, which deals with a question which I apprehend will be one of great interest to Canadians, and refers to an abuse which I think ought to receive some notice from this House. The despatch is as follows ;
A court-martial is in progress at Dublin against certain officers of the 21st Lancers. They are accused of ' ragging ' a brother officer. Lieutenant Willows. Lord Roberts is in Dublin to-day and is especially interesting himself in the trial. Williams is a colonial ranker who gained his commission through heroism displayed in the South African war. He takes his profession seriously. His brother officers ragged him first because he had risen from the ranks, and secondly because he is a colonial. This kind of a scandal is common in many regiments where commissions are held by colonial rankers. The ordinary English officer considers the army a social preserve and not a public service.
With regard to this matter, we have from time to time accounts in the press of affairs of this nature. We have the fact revealed that among the aristocratic officers in the British army, there is not only prejudice against men risen from the ranks, but a double prejudice against men who have risen from the ranks and are colonials. This prejudice develops into violent action towards these officers. There are cases where they have been subjected to the most shameful indignities and violent treatment, and where such treatment has been visited upon them, not because they are not military officers worthy of the positions they hold, but because they do not belong to a certain grade of the aristocracy, because they are not patricians. We find that Britishers seem to have bowed to the circumstances and resigned themselves to this kind of usage without making much fuss about it, but I apprehend that colonials will hardly take this treatment with as much complacency. I do not think it is out of place to call attention in the House to this matter, and I desire to put on record my protest, as an individual member of parliament and a Canadian citizen, against the treatment meeted out to our fellow colonials in the imperial service. The best blood of the country, the most successful business men, the ablest public men, professional and military, have come from the middle classes. These classes have always outstripped those above and those below them, and surely no policy should be tolerated that discriminates against men who owe their promotion not to social influence, but to merit and bravery. I can conceive of no greater outrage to an officer like Lieutenant Willows, who owes his commission, not to social influences but to distinguished bravery in the British service in South Africa, than the 1 ragging ' to which he was subjected by the patricians of the 21st lancers. All history gives us

information and experience as to the value of the class of men who rise from the ranks The great marshals of Napoleon, the great soldiers, the men whose fame spread over the world, were men who came from the ranks because of their intrinsic qualities, because of their superior capacity, demonstrated in the field of practical experience, and that is the place to demonstrate whether a man possesses the qualities that will make him famous or not. These qualities are not due to the fact that he happens to belong to the aristocracy, that he happens to be the son of a duke, of an earl, or of a lord, but are brought out in the crucial test of active military duties. In the civil war, which made the United States a great military nation, the most famous names in that struggle, with the exception of a few West Pointers, were those of men who had risen from the ranks. And even these graduates of West Point were boys, selected from the middle class, recommended by their respective members of congress, and sent to that military academy, from which they graduated and entered the army. There is no other military service in the world, I venture to say, where the conditions in the respect I have mentioned, are such as exist in the British army. There is no other military service in which a man who receives a commission because of merit and bravery will not be accepted as a proper companion for those whose social standing is a little better than his own. The British army, in my opinion, should be made a fighting machine and not a social preserve. It should not be a place intended to afford positions to patricians, where they may lord it over those below them, but should be made a fighting machine composed of the best material obtainable, and if it were, the British army would be the best in the world. If anything would detract from this and render it less efficient, it is the kind of thing described in this despatch which I have just read. A few weeks ago, the death occurred of a ' ranker,' one of the bravest of the brave, a man who had acquired as enviable a military reputation as any man who ever belonged to the British army. I refer to the late General Sir Hector Macdonald. True there were charges made against him, but the charges were never tried and the law supposes him to be innocent until proved guilty. He had a brilliant military record, yet he was treated in a manner a little better than shameful, so far as the authorities were concerned. His treatment was due largely to the prejudices of the British aristocratic classes against men who have come from the ranks and who belonged to the middle classes and not to the patrician order. When we talk of imperial unity and hear arguments in favour of imperial defence, when we are asked to tax ourselves for that purpose, I would like to ask what influence will be exerted in favour of such a line of policy by the treatment given to Lieu-1 Mr. CHARLTON.
tenant Willows and, in numerous other instances, to colonials who have risen from the ranks ? If the British people expect Canada to fall in with their views on imperial unity and to aid in the defence of the British empire, they will have to see that in the army fair play be made the rule, that merit be recognized as it should be, and that colonists should have their sons, who have gained promotion in that army through their merits, placed on the same social grade, as the best men in the British army, so far as blood is concerned. Our people will resent this outrage perpetrated on an independent colonial citizen by imperial officers because forsooth he is not a patrician. I have a right to protest as an individual, and I do so in the hope that my protest may be heeded, because a perpetuation of this kind of treatment to which I have referred, will have an effect most lamentable, so far as the relations of the colonials and the motherland are concerned.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. Sir Frederick Borden).: I did not know that my hon. friend intended bringing this matter up, or I perhaps would have been a little better prepared to say something with reference to the particular case to which he has referred. But I cannot help taking the view at the outset that my hon. friend has departed somewhat from the sound doctrine which he laid down in this House, not very long ago, namely, that we had perhaps enough to do in attending to our own business without interfering with that of the imperial parliament. It seems to me, if the exception which he took on that occasion was good, it would be very much stronger in the case which he has brought up to-day, which is purely a case of discipline within the British army itself, with which we can possibly have nothing to do. However, I may refer briefly to what my hon. friend has said. There is no doubt that in certain aristocratic regiments of the British army, there is a strong prejudice against what are called rankers, or men who rise from the ranks. I do not think, however, that that is at all general throughout the British army, nor do I believe that the prejudice is any stronger against the colonial ranker than any other. The hon. gentleman has intimated that Canadians have not received fair play in the British army. I do not think that that is a fair statement. Let us look at men in the British army, distinguished Canadians like Girouard who, in South Africa was placed in one of the most responsible positions in the army, being the right-hand man of the commander-in-chief for a long time during the concluding months of the war. I might mention many other Canadians, not only graduates of the Royal Military College, but men who have gone from the active militia of this country, and have been treated fairly in the British army, and from 1 whom no complaint whatever has been

heard. So, I think it is hardly fair to charge that there is a determination, a preconcerted determination, on the part of British officers or the British authorities to place Canadians who become officers of the British army at a disadvantage as compared with officers born in the British islands. I do not think that is the intention of the British authorities, and it seems to me only fair that I should make that statement here.



SUFFERERS FROM FIRES IN THE OTTAWA VALLEY. '

Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle).: (Translation.) I wish to call the attention of the government to the destruction caused by fires in the valley of the Ottawa, and more particularly in the county of Labelle. The poor settlers who have been burnt out are now deprived of all the necessaries of life for themselves and their families. All has been destroyed, their dwellings, their barns, their agricultural implements. I do not mention the minor losses sustained by several other people, through the destruction of hedges or of live stock in the pastures.
I think I am not mistaken in saying that the government granted relief to the sufferers of Russell county, a few years ago, when great fires devastated that region. It is also to my knowledge that we voted large sums for the relief of the sufferers in the great Hull and Ottawa fire. I hope the government will deem it as reasonable, in the present instance, to grant assistance to the sufferers from the fires in the valley of the Ottawa.
These unfortunate settlers are in a most lamentable position. They have lost all their property at the very time when they were the least capable of facing such a contingency. Most of them settled on these new lands not more than four or five years ago, at the cost of great sacrifices. They opened up roads, cleared their lands, built houses for themselves ; but as yet they have not reaped any benefit. As a matter of fact their position is almost a desperate one. If the public do not extend relief, many of them will have to abandon their farms. It is stated (and truly, I think), that a contented settler is the best colonization agent that could be found. It is, to my mind, equally true to say that a disheartened settler is the worst enemy of colonization. The public are, therefore, interested in relieving at once the really grievous condition in which these settlers are, not only with a tiew to helping these poor people out of the calamity which has befallen them, but also with a view to preventing the exit of settlers which Is threatening this region. To my mind it is the only means whereby settlers in these parts, after having sustained such great losses, may be induced to remain on their farms.
We are making constant sacrifices to promote and develop the settlement of the
North-west Territories. I do not object to that; but it seems to me it should not make us lose sight of the condition of the settlers in the older provinces. We are going to great expenditures with the object of attracting to our country immigrants from various European countries ; we are helping on foreign immigration. With still more reason should we endeavour to prevent our own people, those who have made sacrifices to open up new lands, from leaving the country, as this contingency would soon have its counterpart in another, just as sad, by discouraging those who would otherwise have been disposed to settle on, and clear, our new lands.
I trust, therefore, that the government will tender some assistance to the relief committees organized for the purpose of helping the sufferers from the fires in the Ottawa valley.
The PRIME MINISTER (The Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier(. (Translation.) The question brought up by my hon. friend is surely one not only worthy of the consideration of this House, but appealing very strongly to its sympathy. However, I cannot give rise to expectations which circumstances would not permit the government to fulfil. I for one would most happily comply with such request ; but on the other hand, I do not wish to entertain hopes which it would be impossible for the government to satisfy. No doubt, these poor settlers, so grievously stricken, are worthy of help and protection. However, so many applications of a similar character would be forthcoming, were we to accept this one, that I fear we will find it extremely difficult to comply with the very legitimate wish expressed by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa),



'RAGGING' IN THE BRITISH ARMY.

Mr. SAMUEL HUGHES (North Victoria).: Would the Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) be good enough to express his views on the subject brought up by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) ?


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: That has been amply answered by the Minister of Militia (Hon. Sir Frederick Borden). The subject brought forward by my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) has no reference to this other matter.


Samuel Hughes: I understand that.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I am satisfied with the answer given by my hon. friend the Minister of Militia.


Mr. A. C. BELL (Pictou).: Mr. Speaker, I must say, for my own part, that I think

we should not pass over the matter Introduced by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) In such a way as to leave the impression outside of this House, and perhaps with the mother country, if the incident be noticed there at all, that this House, or the members of this House, or the Canadian people, look upon the system generally described as ' ragging ' with anything like favour. I think it is quite proper that the Minister of Militia (Hon. Sir Frederick Borden) should have made the remarks he did, so as to guard this House, and, I presume the members of the House generally, from any imputation of charging misconduct generally against the officers of the British service, or any class In the British islands. As I understand it ' ragging ' is not a matter of regular discipline, but rather a system of punishment established by the mess or by the association in connection with the mess of a regiment, a sort of club constituted of the officers of the regiment, which undertakes to impose punishments for infraction of the arbitrary rules which it undertakes to enforce. And these punishments take an insulting and belittling form, as I have learned. Generally speaking, the great interest in this matter for us is the fact that there is a large-and likely to be larger-number of young and educated Canadians, very largely educated and trained at the expense of the Canadian people, who are passing into the British army, and taking their places there as commissioned officers. There is a provision, as I understand it, under which His Majesty gives a certain number of commissions regularly to the graduates of the college we maintain. So, I think, Canadians are interested in seeing to it that the men whom we send there, who, so far as mental ability, courage and professional qualifications are concerned, are we believe, at least the equals of the officers born in the British islands-we should see to it that these gentlemen are treated as gentlemen when they go into the British service ; and, if they are not so treated, we should give the impression to the people of the British islands that we have no sympathy with the system of absurdities and nonsense that interferes with proper military discipline. Therefore, I think it would be unfortunate to allow this matter to pass as though the people of Canada had any sympathy with such absurdities. From what I have seen in the press and heard in conversation with soldiers from South Africa, where our sons fought side to side with the British regulars and under British officers, I have gained the impression that, though our men have come back with a highly developed respect for ' Tommy Atkins,' on the other hand, many of them have formed the opinion that the British officer is not the man he ought to be, if the British army is to continue to be what it has been. The British private has courage, and all the qualities that have given us our extraor-Mr. BELL.
dinary military record. But, as I gather from the reports in the newspapers and from what I have been told by returned soldiers, too much is the officer given up to sport, too much is he attracted by social considerations, and too much is he influenced by the official rank. As citizens of Canada, and of what is unquestionably, next to the mother country, the greatest partner in the imperial federation which we hope to see accomplished, which we hope to see go on from one stage of accomplishment to another, we have a direct interest" in the efficiency of the British army ; and I think it is not out of place that we should, in a case of this kind, where a brother, a friend, a fellow countryman is affected, state that, so far as we are concerned, we look with great disfavour upon the system which is called ' ragging,' and are inclined to regard with a great deal of displeasure any instance in which its indignities are inflicted upon a Canadian.


Samuel Hughes: It is not my intention to take up much of the time of the House in dealing with this subject. I had expected an utterance from the Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) upon this subject. He gave us a lecture the other day which, I think, has not very much pleased either himself or the general public. I must say I heartily endorse the views expressed by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) and by my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Bell). Now, ' ragging ' in the service, as I understand it, is as it has been defined by the hon. member for Pictou. But there is more than that, there is this social ostracism, there is forcing the men to follow certain lines and ways. I want to tell this House that this is not by any means a colonial complaint, it is a complaint on the part of the best men in the British service, sons of the highest noblemen who have entered the service with a desire of becoming proficient in their profession, so that in case they should fever be called upon to do duty for their country they would be as well posted and as efficient as possible. But the social etiquette- I think that term will include the entire cause of complaint-is such that it prevents a man from devoting his attention to the service; and as a consequence, men who have gone into the service with the highest ambition to be a credit to their country have left the army broken hearted. Their high spirit would not stand the humiliating mode of social life that these officers have unfortunately to lead. Of course we know that these officers as a rule have very little to do. The best men are either lost to the service entirely, or they have to fall in with the current custom which is in vogue in the army.
The Minister of Militia has referred to the Canadians who have risen in the service. I am glad, Sir. that Canadians have risen in the service, but it is chiefly in the engin-

eers. I want to point out that the custom of ragging cannot prevail in the engineers department because there is no regimental etiquette or mess among these. Those faults we find belong chiefly to the cavalry regiments. But we do not find in the engineer's' corps anything like the mess service or the regimental esprit de corps which you find in others. I shall not enter into a detailed discussion of that matter to-day, but I want to point out that the complaint does not come from colonials alone, but from the best men in the British service.
There is another matter of much importance to us colonials. We send our officers over there for training. I do not know whether we always pick our best men; I presume it is rather difficult to get a good man to settle down into a military life in a country like Canada. But whether we pick the best men or not, it is unfortunate that Canadian officers-and I wish the Minister of Militia to make a note of that and examine into it, I do not want him to take my word for it-but I say it is unfortunate that Canadian officers who have gone into training in the imperial service, or who are in our permanent corps, seem as a rule to adapt themselves to the objectionable features of the regular service, and do not become sufficiently posted on important matters of their duty. I want to say that the customs of the British service undoubtedly reflect upon ours. These improper customs are not peculiar to the British service. We find the tyranny of the German service infinitely greater than that of the British. Why, only the other day, the press of the conn try was filled with a story where a young German officer meeting a non-commissioned officer and not considering himself properly saluted, shot the non-commissioned officer, and he has been upheld by the German Emperor himself, I understand. Why, Sir, any such condition of affairs in the British dominions would bring on a revolution inside of an hour, and rightly so. If the King of England even endorsed any such attitude on the part of the officers, there would be a republic proclaimed throughout the British dominions before twenty-four hours were over.


Mr. ERASER.: Not as long as you and I were here.


Samuel Hughes: I am afraid I would not be able to cover my hon. friend. My proportions are not sufficiently broad a shelter to my hon. friend, either in advance or in retreat. Reference has been made to South Africa. It is a well-known fact-and I have shown, and I trust will show again, that I appreciate the British army as highly as any man should appreciate an army-but I want to point out this fact, that when Canadians went to South Africa, when colonials of all sorts went to South Africa, while Canadians did splendid service there, and while the Canadian soldier, I think, was the best man in Africa, still I must say 99
that the Australian and the New Zealander, officer and man, was considered ahead of him, taking them altogether. I had a very good opportunity of knowing that the New Zealand officer and the Australian officer was better individually than the Canadian officer, taking them man for man. But the point I wish to make is this, that when the colonials went to South Africa it was never the intention that they should see fighting- we might as well understand that. It was a very short time before the colonials were raised and sent to South Africa, that the highest officers in the British service in the colonies, informed the Prime Minister of Canada and informed the British government that colonials in the imperial service would be a ' menace ' to their armies in South Africa, that is the word, would be a ' menace ' to British arms in South Africa. When the cojonials reached South Africa they were regarded with considerable curiosity, looked at through various eye-glasses, and regarded as rather fit subjects to guard lines of communication, to be posted along wayside stations and that sort of business. The idea was utterly abhorrent to the imperial officers that these men could possibly take their places in the field in the line of battle alongside the British troops. I want to point out that it was not until after the memorable engagements of Stormberg, Ma-gersfontein and Colenso, that colonial troops began to be recognized. It was not until after the strategy and tactics of the British officers had been proven to be absolutely at fault, when the whole British army in South Africa stood face to face with the most deplorable position that it has ever been in, it was only then and not till then that one solitary Canadian, one solitary Australian or New Zealander, was ever put into the fighting line.
However, I do not know that this is pertinent to the subject of ragging. I have very little respect for the colonial who would waste his time, a man who has arrived at mature years, who would waste his time, being a regular officer under existing conditions. I may say, and I say it frankly, that I have a son whom, in former days, it was my highest ambition to see in the field wearing the uniform of a British officer. But after my experience-I do not think I would be justified in saying that I would prefer to follow my son to the grave-but I will say that I would as soon see him in any other position as following the profession of a British officer. I am glad to say that he refused a position in the imperial army, one of the highest positions given to Canadians, the Royal Engineers in India; he refused the commision of his own accord. Had he asked my advice in the matter, I would have told him frankly to refuse it. As to the matter of preventing ragging, it is a matter of turning the whole life of the British officer inside out, it is a matter of giving to the middle class in Britain, men who have only their own



honour and the honour of their country to uphold, giving them an opportunity to come to the front. To-day it is an open boast in Britain that since the days of commission-purchasing, other systems have arisen which make it just as impossible for a man coming from the middle classes in Britain to rise from the ranks to get a commission in the army or to obtain prominence in it, as it was before. They openly boast that the aristocracy of England will control the officers. With that I have no fault to find, but this condition must be established that the officer shall be trained as highly, shall be a gentleman in his demeanour and as proficient a soldier as it is possible for him to be. It will not do for him to be a Piccadilly dude ; he must make himself efficient, and if ever a colonial or man from the middle ranks in England should be granted a commission, such a person must be accorded the same rights as he himself enjoys. Otherwise, as far as the view's of the great majority of people in Britain, as well as those of the colonies are concerned, the whole system of officers' promotion and training will have to be changed and a purely promotion system will have to be instituted. I may tell the House that I know that already magnificent reforms have been made in the army system by the people of Britain. A few already have been introduced into the cavalry corps which has been referred to by the hon. member for North Norfolk, since the close of the war, and I know that it is the determination of the British people and government. notwithstanding the Gibraltar of opposition. to rid the army entirely of the barnacles that have so. long prevented its progress towards the perfection to which the British army officer should attain. I want to say here that there are thousands of the best officers in the service who will welcome with open arms the change such as has been outlined by the hon. member for North Norfolk, any change that will give them an opportunity of standing on their merits, of being able to make themselves proficient and letting them win their positions by merit and not by society influence. There is no class that I can call to mind at the present moment that will welcome a change like that more cordially than the great majority of British officers in the service to-day. I know this to be a fact. These officers have pointed out again and again the futility of their attempting to make themselves proficient under the present system. If the lion. Minister of Militia and Defence introduces his Bill into this House in relation to the service, I trust he will take note of the fact that there shall be no star-chamber reports by one officer concerning another, that no reports shall ever be made by a superior officer concerning another officer, but which the officer concerned will first see and will show' that he has seen it by endorsing his name tliere-Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).
on. That is one of the great drawbacks in the imperial service to-day. More than that we should insist that the system of training shall be such that merit will count on every occasion. However, these matters are coming mi at a later period of the session, and I shall not detain the House further on the present occasion.


Mr.  J. R.@: DAVE 1,1, (Deeds and Grenville). Mr. Speaker, before this matter, which lias been introduced by the hon. member for North Norfolk (Mr. Charlton), is entirely dropped, I would like to say a few words in regard to the position taken by the lion. Minister of Militia and Defence (Hon. Sir Frederick Borden) and more especially as it has been fully endorsed by the right lion, leader of the House. In Ills opening remarks he seemed to chide the hon. member for North Norfolk for apparently busying himself with matters over which the imperial parliament had jurisdiction. I could not help thinking, in view of some of the votes given in this House, that this ivas a somewhat remarkable revolution in the opinions of the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence. I presume the revolution has taken place in the minds of the right hon. lender of the government as well. Most certainly this House has by a previous example shown that it is quite willing on imperial questions, not at ail * so closely connected with Canada as this one, to express its opinion. In this matter I submit it is not a question of purely local concern to the British empire. We in Canada have chosen for some reason best known to ourselves, and I hope it will be shortly remedied, to very closely connect ourselves with the British empire and it is very needful for ns to know something of the standards of honour and decency that prevail in the British army, and something of the influences through which the men have to pass who come to take charge of our own military affairs. We know that under our law, as well as under our rule, our commander in chief is one who lias passed through the various stages of the British army and that in the Royal Military College. which we maintain at Kingston at considerable expense, English military officers have great prominence and that we offer as prizes to our best young men who graduate from that institution, commissions in the British	army-where	these disgraceful
events have occurred. I think it is a good thing that the hon. member for North Norfolk brought this matter up, and it is of far greater importance that we should express our opinion on matters of this kind witli which we are so closely connected, than that we should express our opinion on matters which come under the jurisdiction entirely of the British parliament. I hope that this matter will not be allowed to drop, but that it will come up again when the Militia Bill, which is apparently foreshadowed, is introduced.



INTERFERENCE OF CIVIL SERVANTS IN ELECTIONS.

Mr. W. J. ROCHE (Marquette).: Mr. Speaker, I desire to bring to the attention of the House, and particularly to the attention of the government, a matter that is creating a great deal of adverse criticism in the press of the province of Manitoba at the present time, and which is, in fact, becoming a public scandal owing to the extent to which it has taken place. I refer to the participation of Dominion civil servants in the elections about to take place in the province of Manitoba. I do not desire to go particularly into the question of dismissals, which has been very thoroughly threshed out in preceding sessions, but I merely desire to bring to the attention of the government the law that was laid down in I89(i when these discussions were up, by which the government intended to guide their future actions in reference to officials participating in active political warfare, and I will give some specific instances where that law has been grossly violated, which. I think, demand the immediate attention and action of the government.' It has been laid down as a cardinal principle by the members of the cabinet, particularly in their speeches of 1890, that a person cannot be at tlie same time a civil servant and a political partisan, that he must do either one of two things-he must either cease to be an active partisan or cease to be a civil servant. Dismissals innumerable have taken place since this government have come into power, of officials whose political proclivities were Conservative, on the ground that they were active participants in political warfare, that they had served as active members of political committees, that they had been seen on political platforms, that they had participated in election discussions, that they had canvassed from house to house and that in other respects they were actively engaged in political warfare in the interest of the candidates of the party to which they belonged. Many of these dismissals have taken place without any investigation having been held, without allowing them any chance to defend themselves. Many of them have taken place upon 1he mere request of the Liberal representative in parliament, or of the defeated Liberal candidate, or of some political committee to whom had been entrusted the duty of demanding the head of the accused person. Now. Sir, with this established as a precedent on the part of the government, and particularly when we review the speeches of the hon. gentlemen during the session of 1890. and when we have no attempt to justify this action on their part, I think that with the instances I will lay before the government to-day, we may fairly claim that the government should be called upon to immediately put into execution this principle to which they gave 99*
their adherence and at once dismiss these officials who have violated the law as laid down by themselves. In the first place, I desire to refer to some remarks of the right hon. leader of the government when this question of dismissals was up during the session of 1896, and an expression by the bight hon. gentleman should have far more importance attached to it because of the position which he occupies, than of any other hon. member of the House, or than of any other member of the cabinet. I may say that I largely agree with the views laid down by the Prime Minister when he discussed this question some years ago, and I trust that I am not asking too much when I ask him to put these words into action, with regard to the officials whose conduct it is my intention to bring before the House. The right hon. gentleman then said :
Now. when we find an officer in the ftivil service, however good a servant he may have been, however faithfully he may have discharged his duties, but has been an active politician, who has taken part in the election offensively and actively, and before the eyes of the whole community, that official has become a scandal in the eyes of the community and I have no hesitation in saying that he cannot be trusted to render faithful service to this government. Where there is a government officer he may hold his opinions, I do not care what they are; they may be Liberal, or Conservative, I do not care ; he may go and vote, and I will not inquire how he voted-hut when he is seen on the public platform, when he takes part in party processions and is actively and offensively prominent, that as regards party candidates, that man has taken his life in his hands, and no one can have a word to say if he is dismissed from the service.
These were the remarks of the right hon. gentleman on that occasion, so that if I can produce evidence to satisfy him of the partisanship of officials who are in the employ of his own government to-day, and who have even gone beyond the extent laid down in these declarations of the Prime Minister, I think that we may fairly claim that it is the bounden duty of the government to at once dismiss these officials because of offensive partsanship. The remarks which I have read contain the broad principle laid down by the Prime Minister upon which he intended to guide his future acfions. That principle is; that an official of this government may hold whatever opinions he may desire, and the Prime Minister would not question that; he may exercise his franchise in a quiet} manner and the Prime Minister will not interfere With him, but that official shall not go one step beyond that-in no manner, shape or form shall he actively engage in the public party warfare, or if he does he places his official position in jeopardy. I do not at all suppose that when the right hon. gentleman gave voice to that declaration, he meant it to apply to Conservative officials alone. I will not believe that the Prime Minister would be so unfair as to discriminate in such a manner. I will not believe that he would apply one

of the present government to do active service in my behalf. In due time when my resignation has been handed in, I will then earnestly cooperate with you for the overthrow of the present administration. I trust that since you have shown such confidence in me you will leave nothing undone to ensure my election as your representative.
Yours sincerly,



THOS YOUNG.

[Stage Direction]
So that if the acting Minister of the Interior desired any evidence of the fact that these gentlemen were candidates, all he had to do was to pick up the Winnipeg ' Free Press,' the organ of the Liberal party in the province of Manitoba, and he would have seen there for the last six weeks a list of the candidates of the party, and figuring conspicuously among them Mr. Young and Mr. Jonasson. It may be that Sir. Young will resign his position during the campaign ; but if so, no doubt the position will be kept open for him until after the election, just as in the case of Mr. Jerome. But fancy Mr. Young attending to his duties during the election, while abstaining from canvassing. This letter was the outcome of the pressure brought to bear upon him by his political friends. He tries to convey the impression that he is not going to engage in canvassing while he holds his office. He hopes to draw his salary until nomination day, and to have the place kept open for him until after the election, in case he should be defeated. No reply that we shall have to-day from the acting Minister of the Interior will be satisfactory to this House, even if we are told that these gentlemen will be notified that they cannot be candidates while they are officers of the government, unless we have the further promise that the public service will not be allowed to suffer by these offices not being filled during the campaign, and that the positions will not be kept open until after the election in order to allow these same gentlemen to drop back into them in return for the sacrifices they are making for their party. I do not think the answer will be satisfactory to the House unless we are told that these gentlemen have to cease at once discharging their duties as officials of this government, or else refuse the nominations of these conventions. This letter was written on April 22nd ; three weeks have elapsed, and still Mr. Young has not been notified to quit his position as an official of this government. When these facts are brought to the attention of the acting Minister of the Interior, he cannot plead ignorance of them. I charge that these gentlemen have been availing themselves of all the prestige conferred upon them by occupying these positions, and have used that fact as a lever to secure votes for themselves and the party to which they belong. The premier of Manitoba, in a public speech delivered in Winnipeg a couple of weeks ago, used the following language in reference to this question :
William James Roche: I want to draw your attention too, to another hypocritical plank of their platform. They say in clause 10, that they declare in favour of the establishment and maintenance of an efficient and non-partisan civil service. Gentlemen, I agree with that expression of principle. I concur in it and endorse that sentiment, but how do their acts contrast with their professions ? Why in this very day's ' Free Press ' you will find published a list of Liberal candidates who are civil servants, who are paid officials of the Dominion government, and who are using their positions and their power to coerce and influence electors against the Rob-lin government. Only to-day I received information of a homestead inspector, a Dominion government official who is using his official position, whose time is paid for with your money and mine, whose travelling expenses even are paid by the Dominion government, and who is canvassing against the Roblin government amongst farmers who have not taken out their patents, endeavouring by the abuse of his official position to coerce and induce them to vote for the Liberal candidates. Sir, I say that a more scandalous and outrageous abuse of the civil service has never been heard of and cannot exist and cannot be conceived, and I go further and I call upon the independent members of the Dominion parliament, whose servants these men are, to refuse to pass the estimates for the Department of the Interior, to refuse to allow one dollar of public money to be voted for that department, until such men as Jonasson and Jerome and Young and others whom I might name who are receiving large salaries from the federal government, either resign their positions as officials of the Dominion government, or resign as candidates in the Liberal interests in this province.
Here is a strong expression from the premier of the province that the officials of this government are abusing their positions in the interests of the Liberal party. No more glaring instances of partisanship could be brought forward. There have been upwards of 150 dismissals by this government. largely in the Interior and Post Office Departments in Manitoba and Northwest Territories alone. All of these were published in the Conservative organ, in the province of Manitoba, a couple of years ago. And many of these dismissals were made without any charges of partisanship or charges of any kind having been preferred. And in nine out of ten of these cases in which charges of partisanship were made, there was no investigation, and no chance of defence. In my constituency a postmaster was dismissed because lie had acted as returning officer in the election of 1896. Yet here we have a postmaster, Mr. Ira Stratton, in the town of Stonewall, who is at the same time the editor of a Liberal newspaper and secretary of the Liberal Association. If an official. who acted as returning officer in 1896, had to be dismissed on the ground of active partisanship, surely, this man, Mr. Ira Stratton is far more deserving of like treatment. But Mr. Stratton is not the only gentleman who, if the government were consistent, would lose his position. I am not one to take exception to every coun-

try postmaster, who draws a few dollars a year, being debarred from activity in political matters, although many such postmasters have been dismissed on this charge since this government came into power. But let me give the case of a gentleman who holds a rather important postion and is nevertheless an active partisan. In the city of Brandon, where the former postmaster was dismissed on the ground of active partisanship, his successor was present at the convention recently held which selected a Liberal candidate for that constituency. But he can rest perfectly secure because he happens to be a Liberal. Another postmaster named Lawrie, in the town of Morris, acted as presiding officer at the Liberal convention which selected an opponent to the attorney-general of Manitoba. Mr. J. W. Yeo, who is the Dominion lands sub-agent, was also a delegate to a Liberal convention in the province of Manitoba for the selection of a candidate. There are a dozen other postmasters who have been delegates to Liberal conventions. Mr. Charles Tomlin, immigration official, was also a delegate to a Liberal convention. I do not think that the lion. Fostmaster General, who is the acting Minister of the Interior, should hesitate about dealing out severe treatment to these officials, if he proposes to stand by the platform of the Liberal party as formulated in Winnipeg. There was a most curious condition of affairs in that city three or four weeks ago. We had the executive committee, or what is called the ' inner circle ' of Liberals, in that province in convention. A certain number of representatives were appointed to formulate a platform on which the Liberal party would appeal to the country, and what do you think was one of the most important planks in that platform ? It was plank ten :
We declare in favour of the establishment and maintenance of an efficient and non-partisan civil service.
And in that inner circle to which I have referred, there were upwards of a dozen civil servants of this government. Could you conceive anything more hypocritical ? Could you imagine a greater travesty on politeal honesty ? Just imagine these officials of the Dominion government formulating a political platform and declaring themselves in favour of a non-partisan civil service. Further, we had a speech at Brandon by Mr. Greenway, the leader of the Liberal party. In the course of his speech, he was asked this question : ' Are you in favour of a non-partisan civil service ?' He replied : ' Any man who occupies a position in the service of the government, which gives him a livelihood, ought not to meddle in politics at all.' Surely, in view of these declarations of policy, the hon. minister need not hesitate about dismissing these gentlemen or giving them the option either to resign their positions in the service or vacate their positions as nominees of those conventions. I do not know whether the acting Minister of the Interior wants to assume the responsibility or not of doing this. He may possibly think that in so doing he would be trespassing on the preserves of his absent colleague (Hon. Mr. Sifton). But it seems to me that that absent colleague ought to be here attending to the business of parliament. Session after session we find him absenting himself and allowing his place in this House to be taken by somebody else. He has been dubbed by his political admirers 'The Young Napoleon,' but I fail to see any exhibition of Napoleonic capacity or courage when he acts in this manner.
I also wish to point out that there are other officials of this government actively engaged in political warfare. Take Mr. Alfred Martin, who is employed selecting the swamp lands which are to be handed over to the province of Manitoba. Yet, although he is in the employ of this government and paid at the rate of $10 per day, he goes about attending Liberal conventions, proposing Liberal candidates and making partisan speeches. Then there is Mr. Cockburn, who was candidate for North Winnipeg, and who is reported in the press as being the postmaster for the north branch Main street post office in North Winnipeg. I would draw the attention of the hon. Postmaster General to this case.
I have laid these cases, before the Postmaster General, and am not going to enter upon the broad question of dismissals. I have merely specified a few of the more flagrant eases-in Manitoba, concerning which, there is at present, a great deal of adverse criticism, and which demand immediate action on the part of the government. I hardly think that the hon. minister will take the ground that because these men took part in local elections, they have not laid themselves open to action on the part of this government. A partisan is a partisan, and it makes no difference whether he be a partisan in Dominion or in provincial politics. And a man who takes the platform and is offensive to his political opponents, I care not whether lie is engaged in Dominion or provincial politics, and is at the same time a civil servant, should be forced to vacate one position or the other. And, in saying this, I desire to state also that I shall not be satisfied with a mere promise on the part of the government which will allow these gentlemen to drop out of their positions and have those positions kep/t open for them to be taken by them after the elections are over. This is what happened] in the constituency of Marquette, in the Dominion elections of 1900. Mr. .lolm W. Thompson was homestead inspector. The Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) attended the convention that selected this official of liis department as the candidate of his party to oppose myself. It is true that Mr. Thompsou resigned his position, but that position was kept open for him, and

when he had been buried under an avalanche of votes-I think the majority against him was 420-he was reinstated, and for over two years has been discharging the duties of that position. That is exactly what we expect will be the case with the officials whose cases are brought forward to-day; and I do not think there is any lion, gentleman in the House who will defend such an action on the part of the government. Therefore, I desire to move the following amendment :
That all the words after ' that ' in the proposed motion he left out and the following substituted therefor :-
The Prime Minister speaking in this House on the 1st day of September, A.D. 1896, with respect to political partisanship by officers of the government expressed himself as follows :
' Now, when we find an officer in the civil service, however good a servant he may have been, however faithfully he may have discharged his duties, bun who has been an active politician, who has taken part in the election offensively and actively, and before the eyes of the whole community, that official has become a scandal in the eyes of the community, and I have no hesitation in saying that he cannot be trusted to render faithful service to this government. Where there is a government officer he may hold his opinions, I do not care what they are ; they may be Liberal or Conservative, I do not care ; he may go and vote, and I will not inquire how he voted-but when he is seen on the public platform, when he takes part in party processions and is actively and offensively prominent as regards party candidates, that man has taken his life in his hands, and no one can have a word to say if he is dismissed from the service.'
The Minister of Trade and Commerce on the same day used the following language in speaking on the same subject :-[DOT]
' With members of the civil service eating the bread of both parties and deliberately interfering with the elections for the purpose of aiding one political party, if they so act they must be considered as taking their political lives in their hands and they must accept the consequences of their own acts, and the good sense of the people of the country and their natural sense of equal justice will not merely justify but demand at the hands of the government that they should make an example of them.'
That other members of the government during that session and in subsequent sessions expressed the same views.
That the government acting upon the principles and rules so laid down has since dismissed a very large number of officers on the ground of alleged political partisanship.
That an application of the principles and rules so laid down for the guidance of public officials would result in the dismissal of those officers of the government who have become ' a scandal in the eyes of the community ' by taking an active offensive and partisan part in the election campaign now being carried on in the province of Manitoba, and who while ' eating the bread of both parties ' are ' deliberately interfering in elections for the purpose of aiding one political party.'
This House regrets that the government has not seen fit to deal with such officials in accordance with the declarations of principle so made and so often acted upon.


William James Roche: 


Mr.  W. F.@: MeCREARY (Selkirk). Mr. Speaker, before this question is decided, 1 desire, as one of the members from Manitoba to say a few words in reference to it. In any reply I may make to the remarks of the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche), I shall not condone the offence of a civil servant taking an active part in politics. But when the hon. gentleman commences to lecture this House, and to declare the action of civil servants in Manitoba a public scandal, he is the last man who should speak in this way, and he comes from the province which is the last province from which charges against this government should come. For, if there is one province in confederation where the civil servants have been open partisans, where they have been active election agents, it is the province of Manitoba. Before proceeding to deal witn the question generally, I may deal with the case of the officials he specifically mentioned. The first is the case of Mr. Martin Jerome, a homestead inspector and an efficient officer. It is true, he Has been a member of the local House for the last four years. But it is not fair to speak of Mr. Jerome as being in active politics. He is not to-day a likely candidate for the local House in that province, but is entirely out of politics so far as that is concerned. Before I go further, I may say that there is precedent for Mr. Jerome's action. It is a well known fact that many members of the local legislatures of Canada have been men receiving salaries from the Dominion government. During the time when Sir Adolphe Caron was Postmaster General, it is a well known fact, many of the postmasters were members of the local legislatures of their respective provinces. But we do not need to go to other provinces for precedent in this matter. Take the present provincial secretary and Minister of Public Works of the province of Manitoba, Hon. D. II. McFadden. We find that he, while a member of the local House, for many years was employed by the Dominion government as veterinary inspector at Emerson, from 1884 to 1897. During that time he successfully contested provincial seats in 1892 and 1896. This was during the term of office in the Dominion of hon. gentlemen opposite. There is also the case of Mr. Baldwinson, who for the last four years has been representative of the constituency of Gimli in the local House. That gentleman was employed by the late government as Icelandic immigration commissioner at Winnipeg, from 1883 to 1889. On March 25th, 18S9, his salary was increased from $730 to $830, showing that they actually rewarded him by an increase of salary for having become a member of the local house. Now it is not necessary for me to go further. I could mention half a dozen gentlemen who were earning salaries from this government while they were still members of the local house during the Conservative regime. Wm. Wagner

and Wm. Crawford, for eight or ten years swamp-land commissioner under this government were members of the local house and received good salaries. Not only that, but they had not even the decency to resign their positions as land commissioners while parliament was in session. Take Hugh John Macdonald's case. Surely hon. gentlemen opposite will say that he should be a man above reproach, that he should not violate the civil service rule, yet we find that that gentleman was premier and railway commissioner for many months, from January 11,1899, up to October, in 1900. When he was nominated as Conservative candidate in Brandon he did not resign his portfolio, he did not give up the emoluments of office under the local government, he continued until almost within twenty-four hours of the time he was officially nominated for the Dominion House. My hon. friend alludes to Mr. Jonasson and Mr. Young. Their resignations will be in the hands of the Dominion government before they will dare to accept officially any nomination at the hands of the Liberal party. I am in a position to know that one of the ^gentlemen he mentions as a local govern-'ment candidate, although his name did come up before the nominating convention some time ago. I happen to know that he does not intend to run. Surely it would be unfair to ask that man to refrain from attending public meetings or taking an active part in politics until the day of nomination.


William James Roche: Who is that gentleman he refers to ?


Mr. McCREARY.: I do not know that I have any right to give away secrets of that kind. The hon. gentleman threw out the wrong hook. Now, Mr. Speaker, in regard to postmasters taking an active part in politics, I think the contention of the hon. gentleman is ridiculous. He did not go so far to-day as his brief in the Winnipeg ' Telegram ' allowed him to go. They say that postmasters who draw $12 a year should not take an active part in politics, that census enumerators who two years ago received $7 or $8 for service rendered should be prevented from taking an active part in politics. I submit that their contention is ridiculous. I presume that when a man is in the civil service ou the permanent list and is in receipt of a large salary he should not take an active part in politics. I have been a civil servant myself for three years and a half and I faithfully observed that rule, and no charge was ever made against me. I submit that that rule should be carried out to-day; but when you ask that a man who is receiving a small salary of $7 or $8 or $12 a year as postmaster to refrain from taking an active part in provincial politics, why the idea is ridiculous. The hon. gentleman mentioned such names as Stratton, of Stonewall: Cockburn, of North Winnipeg; Laurie, of Morris, and others, men who receive actually no emolument whatever from the Dominion government. It is true their names stand there as holders of offices, but they pay out in expenses more than the Post Office Department allows them, because they have stores in these places and they are the most convenient places for the public to go to get their mail.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if I were disposed to enter into an argument on this matter, I think I could furnish some interesting reading to the members of the House, because if there is any province in which the civil service law has been abused it is the province of Manitoba. The hon. gentleman has said that there were about 150 dismissals in Manitoba and the North-west Territories by this government since they came into power. But would you believe it, Sir, that the Conservative government of the province of Manitoba, since coming into power on the 11th day of January, 1900, have made 700 dismissals in that province ? I have before me a list of them, it is two years old, two years since I obtained it, but if I were to read that list it would afford interesting information to this House. On the 11th of January, Hugh John Macdonald was sworn in as minister, and on the 22nd of January the mill commenced to grind on the poor Grits. On that day we find the guillotine was applied to Mr. Howrie, game warden, and Mr. A. Taylor was appointed in his place. There was a lull in the proceedings for a few days and on the 7th of February we find the mill began to grind again, and on that day there were some ten or twelve dismissals of men against whom there was no cause of complaint. I have here some of them. Mr. W. E. Perdue, ' guardian ad litem,' was dismissed. He was a gentleman of considerable influence, a prominent barrister of Winnipeg, and he was dismissed. D. W. McKercher, another prominent barrister, was dismissed as official administrator, also S. R. Wright, D. W. McKercher and R. M. Matheson, official administrators, all dismissed without any cause ; Mr. G. Thorsteinsson, police magistrate of Gimli, was dismissed on that day; the bailiff of the county court, A. M. Livingstone, was dismissed. D. Philip, chief clerk of the provincial secretary and Queen's printer, was dismissed on that day. [DOT]T. W. Sifton, father of the Minister of the Interior, was dismissed from the Public Works Department and on the same day .T. A. McDonnell was dismissed from the position of engineer. I have column after column of names of gentlemen who were dismissed within a few months after the advent of the Conservative government. There was Mr. .Tames Thompson, clerk of the timber office, Winnipeg. There was Mr. S. A. D. Bertrand, who was official assignee for the province, dismissed by that government on February 7, and F. J. Nixon, a strong partisan, was appointed in his place. So indignant were the public over that dismissal and appointment that the wholesale

inen and the board of trade called a meeting of both sides of politics and threw the appointment back into the face of the premier and said they would give no estates to be handled by any such assignee as that. When the hon. gentleman talks about the civil service of Manitoba he talks to one who knows something about it. Now, coming down to the town of Nepawa, we find on tile same day, February 7, less than thirty days after they took power, that Mr. .Tames Thompson was dismissed and R. C. Ennis was put in his place. We find that T. A. Cuddy was dismissed as clerk of the county court of Minnedosa and J. F. Boyd was put in his place. Perhaps the hon. gentleman knows about that.
Mr, ROCHE (Marquette). I deny it.
Mr. McCreary. Mr. J. M. Robinson, burser of the Brandon asylum, was dismissed and E. Hughes put in his place. E. C. Conklin, clerk of the legislative assembly, was dismissed and A. H. Corelli was put in his place.	Mr. Charles Smith
was dismissed as shorthand reporter. Mr. N. Todd was dismissed as bailiff of the county court of St. Francios Xavier, and J. Bourke was put in his place. In fact from the 7th of February to six months afterwards I find that there were dismissed some ninety or one hundred civil servants in the province of Manitoba, some four hundred and forty-one justices of the peace, and over one hundred game guardians. In that one little province alone, six or seven hundred officers were dismissed during six months. The axe was ground up and it was put to work. They have a very peculiar way of dismissing civil servants up there. I do not blame Mr. Hugh .Tohn Macdonald so much. Any one who knows the inside reasons for his resigning from the position of prime minister of Manitoba, knows why he got out. There is what we call the Maple Leaf Conservative Club. It is an institution composed of nearly 3.000 members, and I know something of its methods, because I am able to keep pretty closely in touch with it. It has ramifications all through the province and it has an inner circle of nine in Winnipeg, which is a kind of Clan-na-Gael society. This inner circle meets in secret conclave and decides what heads shall be cut off the following day. It makes a list, sends that list up to the premier, and if the premier does not promptly cut off these heads and appoint other men in their places, he gets notice that the secret conclave is going to go back on him. I happen to know that that occurred in at lieast two cases which came upder my notice. One case is that of Dr. Patterson. Dr. Patterscn was a most capable official under the former Manitoba government. He was a great personal friend of Mr. Hugh John Macdonald, being his next door neighbour for many years, and I happen to know that the day before Dr. Patterson was dismissed he was told by Mr. Macdonald himself that he was
Mr. McCreary.
all right, that he had taken no active part in politics except to cast his vote and that his position would not be disturbed. That night, when the secret conclave met, that position was required for another partisan of the Maple Leaf Clan-na-Gael society, and down went the axe. I can mention another case, that of Ami Freeman, a poor Icelandic boy who came out to this country about twenty-five years ago, and who, although a cripple, was able to earn sufficient money to educate himself. He was employed in the license department and although he was taking no active part in politics and had been assured that lie would not be disturbed in his position, he was dismissed. At four o'clock, before he quitted his office on a certain day, he got a letter from Mr. Macdonald in answer to one that he had written, stating that he would not be disturbed in his position, but that night the Clan-na-Gael met in secret conclave, Freeman's head was required and next morning at eleven o'clock he received a letter from Mr. Macdonald saying that lie was dismissed. All that correspondence can be brought to the attention of the House if necessary. It ill becomes the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche) to stand up and talk about civil servants in the province of Manitoba. The right hon. leader of the government knows very well that I personally went to him to tell him of the position of affairs that existed in Manitoba, and how men were being deposed from their positions to make room for needy partisans of the present government of Manitoba. Men who had come into Manitoba in 1870 with Wolseley and who held small positions bringing them $200 or $300 a year with which to maintain themselves in their old age, were dismissed from their places. These men were dismissed without cause. I only trust that this government will take the matter up and deal with these officials as they should deal with them, if they looked at it from a purely party spirit. I want to pay this measure of credit to the right lion, leader of the government, that I went to his private office and complained bitterly of the treatment that some of these men had received at the hands of the present government of Manitoba. His answer was: They are making a mistake, they are violating the principles of constitutional government, but, because they do wrong, would you ask me to do likewise ? I said : No, sir. Probably if I had gone a little farther there might have been a difference, but I did not choose to do so. I claim that the Roblin government have, during the short time which they have been in office, done more to disorganize the civil service of Manitoba than any government in any province since confederation. I do not intend to deal very fully with this matter because there may be some other western members who know a good deal about the civil service of the west. I can remember the time in Mani-

toba and the North-west Territories when a man's life was not safe if he dared to say a word against the Conservative party. I can remember that during the election of 1887 the number of civil servants imported into the city of Winnipeg to vote was far more than the majority that the member elected got at that time, and there are cases in the Territories much worse than that. The hon. gentleman has also mentioned certain civil servants and for liis edification I will just call his attention to a few officers under Mr. Roblin's administration who are taking an active part in provincial elections. Take the case of R. G. O'Malley, who formerly was a member of the local house. He is what is called the noxious weed inspector. During the election of 1900, when I had the honour of being a candidate in the constituency of Selkirk, Mr. O'Malley was the official organizer against me in that constituency. He followed me all over. There was a little snow and ice on the ground. I met him in the parish of St. Laurent. When I reached there O'Malley was there and the first man that X had to speak against at the meeting was R. G. O'Malley, provincial noxious weed inspector. I said : Mr. O'Malley are you finding any noxious weeds here or noxious Grits, while going around here on skates or snowshoes ? With the aid of a priest in the parish they thought they were going to defeat me, but I was able for the first time in the history of the parish to get a Liberal majority of eighteen. We also had this gentleman just a very few days ago. Mr. Speaker, getting up in a public meeting in Assiniboia and making a strong political speech ; in fact, from the time of the man's appointment down to the present he has been doing nothing but acting as the organizer of the local government. That is his business. Rut. there are others. There is Mr. Joseph Burke, if you please, a so-called immigration agent of the Manitoba government. Mr. Burke, accidentally, so they put it, slipped up to the parish of St. Claude ostensibly to look after some immigrants to be transferred to another portion of the province, and we have him on political platforms making strong political speeches, in fact the speech of the day. There is Mr. Patenaude, another gentleman who has been appointed an immigration agent, is actually the organizer in Assiniboia for Mr. Caron. Then there is J. J. Golden, another gentleman appointed as an immigrant agent, and who was sent to Kansas for a short time, but who was brought back and is now an active politician in Winnipeg. There is not a single immigration official that they have appointed, and they have appointed probably twenty-five or thirty, who is not appointed absolutely for the purpose of doing canvassing work in Manitoba during the elections. We have another case, that of the police magistrate of Winnipeg-Mr. Dawson. Mr. Dawson was a most capable official. He has been a lawyer of high standing and he held a high place in the estimation of every barrister of Winnipeg, lie is a man who had never taken an active part in politics, but this inner circle of nine wanted his place for a member of the association, Mr. Baker. Off went Mr. Dawson's head, and Mr. Baker was appointed to take his place on the bench. But, matters became a little too hot for Mr. Roblin. A petition, signed by the citizens of Winnipeg, was sent to Mr. Roblin and things have become so hot that he would be glad to get Mr. Baker out of it, were it not for the pressure of the Clan-na-Gael that I speak of.
This Clan-na-Gael; this inner circle of the Maple I.eaf Conservatives of Winnipeg, is rather peculiarly constituted. Hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House will wonder how I got possession of this information, but I did. A man goes in there and he is given a ticket, with his number on it ; nothing else but the number. He is asked to subscribe to a declaration extending over two sheets of typewritten foolscap, and he promises that he will, during the time he belongs to that institution, do all in his power to oust any Liberal from any job, whether it is in the employ of the municipality or the government. He declares that he will do all in his power, if employed as subordinate, to oust the foreman, if the foreman is a Liberal ; and that he will do all in his power to bring party politics into municipal, provincial or Dominion affairs or anything else. That is the state of thing we have to fight against in the city of Winnipeg. That is the institution which has Mr. Roblin by the neck, and forces him to make some of these dismissals and some of these appointments X have spoken of. Would the hon. gentleman (Mr. Roche) say that this state of affairs is a public scandal in the province of Manitoba ? What does he think now of the officials in the employment of his own government and not of the Dominion government ?


Sir. DAVIS.: High binders.
Sir. SIcCREARY. High binders of the worst kind. I could, Sir. Speaker, at considerable length give the names of I.iberal officials who have been dismissed by the Slanitoba Conservative government, but I think the House is in possession of sufficient facts to warrant it in saying that if there is a mistake made by one of the officials in this government-and I believe that some officials have gone too far in the province of Slanitoba-still it ill-becomes the hou. gentleman (Sir. Roche), who comes from the province of Slanitoba. to bring these matters up here, when such a condition of affairs exists within the home of his own political party in his own province.


Sir. E. A. LANCASTER (Lincoln and Niagara).: I have listened attentively to the joint speech of the members for Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) and Saskatchewan (Sir.

Davis), and they have said nothing particularly which prevents me from expecting that they will both vote for this amendment. Everything they have said shows that there is a great grievance in this country, and more particularly in Manitoba than any other part of the Dominion, which requires the remedy proposed by this motion. Should the government decide to reject the amendment moved by my hon. friend (Mr. Roche), it will be another instance of their breaking one of the pledges they gave to this country. And, Sir, they will break that pledge apparently without any expectation on the part of their followers that it would not be broken. These two gentlemen, whose joint speech we have listened to from the other side, gave us no opinion as to whether they would vote for or against the motion. The member for Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) simply confined himself to giving instances of the dismissal of public servants for offensive partisanship by the present government of Manitoba, but let me point out that my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Roche) does not say that it is right for a Conservative administration to dismiss Liberal officials, or that a Liberal administration should dismiss Conservative officials. What the hon. gentleman from Marquette (Mr. Roche) has said, and what he puts in his motion is, that the interference of civil service appointees in political issues is a scandal upon the country. My hon. friend (Mr. Roche) quoted the language of the Prime Minister and the language of the Minister of Trade and Commerce in support of his motion, and in condemnation of the very thing that he condemns. The hon. gentleman from Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) has taken good care to say that these two ministers were right in stating that such a thing is a scandal, but he intimates nevertheless that this scandal will be allowed to continue in the province of Manitoba.


William Forsythe McCreary: I did not say that at all.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is the inference we must draw from his argument.


William Forsythe McCreary: No.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The argument that was made by the member for Marquette (Mr. Roche) showed clearly that this government, in 1890, laid down a platform upon this question, containing the rule of conduct for officials therein described, and that this platform has been deliberately broken by the government for three years past. We are here to-day asking that this government should enforce the rule laid down in 1896, or at least explain to the House why they do not enforce it. The right hon. the Prime Minister told us in 1890 :
When we find an officer in the civil service, however good a servant he may have been, however faithfully he may have discharged his duties, but who has been an active politician, Mr. LANCASTER.
who has taken part in the election offensively and actively, and before the eyes of the whole community that official has become a scandal in the eyes of the community.
Now, the country supposes that the Prime Minister meant what he then said, and we are calling attention to the fact that the rule which he announced has not been carried out, and we ask that a remedy shall be applied. It is charged here, and the member for Selkirk (Mr. McCreary), who knows more about the details than I do, does not deny the facts in regard to these three gentlemen who are named in the motion. Let us see what their conduct has been individually. Mr. Martin Jerome was employed by the Department of the Interior, and the Minister of the Interior told us in this House that if he accepted the Liberal nomination his employment under this government would cease. Well, Mr. Jerome did accept the nomination and he remained for three years a member of the local legislature, and his employment under the federal government did not cease. If a member of parliament or of the legislature is not an active politician, I do not know who is. I do not know that we can find fault with any one saying that the members elected to this House are active politicians, and so with the members of the legislatures, and if the Prime Minister did not intend his description of active politicians to apply to members supporting a political party in parliament, I presume that he would have said so. I think we are entitled to consider a member of the legislature as being an active politician. This Mr. Jerome remained an active politician and a member of the legislature for three years, and also an employee of this government. Is it possible that the government did not know it, or is it that the government simply trusted to luck that no one would draw their attention to it, or find fault with them for ignoring the policy laid down by the Premier on the 1st of September, 1896. The hon. gentleman from Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) says that this cannot be called a scandal because Mr. Jerome is now going out, and is about ceasing to be an active politician. Well, what about the scandal during the three years he was a member of the legislature ? The hon. gentleman (Mr. McCreary) has told us that he has made representations to the government with regard to some other men, but I wonder why he did not have a conversation with the Prime Minister in regard to Mr. Jerome, in which he would tell him that Mr. Jerome was a flagrant example of the disregard of the policy which the government promised to pursue in this matter. The hon. gentleman (Mr. McCreary) says that the Premier told him when lie complained of the conduct of the Manitoba government : If they are doing so they are doing wrong; they are false to the principle of constitutional government, and you would not ask me to do the same thing. Why did not

the member for Selkirk say to the Premier : What about the constitutional question, when you have laid down a policy in this connection which you are violating deliberately ?
It strikes me that the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) who, we know, is not a forgetful man, who is in no sense an unwise man, who is well able to defend anything he has in mind, and who is, I hope, an honourable man; should at once have taken the position that the honour of the province of Manitoba was at stake, and should have said to the Prime Minister: It is not enough to say that the Conservative government did what was wrong; that is no reason why a Liberal government should do this thing; we have had this public official in the legislature for three years, and what are you going to do about that ? The hon. member does not say that he even mentioned this matter to the Premier. Therefore we must think that he did not consider it a violation of principle on the part of the government to lay down the platform they did in 1896, immediately on coming to power, and to allow abuses of this kind to go on contrary to that principle. I wish now for a moment to answer the reference made by the hon. member for Selkirk to the much respected Hugh John Macdonald. The hon. member said that the name of Hugh John Macdonald was above reproach. I want to ask him the reason for that. It is because when Hugh John Macdonald made pledges he kept them ; when he laid down a policy, he carried it out. We have an evidence of that in dealing with the prohibition question in Manitoba. If I know anything of human nature, if there is one reason more than another why the people of Manitoba on both sides of politics hold the name of Hugh John Macdonald above reproach, it is because when he made a pledge, he carried out that pledge on attaining power. I do not think that backhanded compliment to this government ought to have come from one of their own supporters. I would have thought it would have been left for one of us on this side of the House. It is true, we on this side of the House have dealt with matters of this kind so many times that the hon. member for Selkirk may have thought that our power had been used up in pointing out so many broken pledges and that we would not again bring up this question of the government breaking their pledges, the good province of Manitoba may have thought it well to have one of the Liberal members take it up. They need not be afraid, however, because the members of the opposition, in their duty to the country, will endeavour to have some of these evils remedied. Now, we have had quoted to us the language of the right hon. the Premier, on this question; we have also had quoted the language of his left hand partner, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who spoke as follows
in regard to members of the civil service taking part in elections :
With those examples before us, yea, with members of the civil service eating the bread of both parties, and deliberately interfering in elections for the purpose' of aiding one political party, if they so act they must be considered as taking their political lives in their hands, and they must accept the consequences of their own acts, and the good sense of the people of the country and their natural sense of equal justice will not merely justify, but demaud at the hands of the government that they should make an example of them.
We have also bad the language of Sir Louis Davies, then a member of the cabinet, quoted by the hon. member for Marquette in the same sense. The hon. gentleman then a member of this government went the length of saying that the principle should be applied to men who interfere against the opposition as well as to men who interfere against the government-that it should be applied to all officials who interfered in any way in political matters. I do not think there can be any question that the principle should be applied to men of both political parties; and I do not expect that the government will take the strong hint given to them by the hon. member for Selkirk, and assert that a Conservative official who interferes in elections does wrong, while the Liberal official who interferes does not do wrong. I want to draw the attention of the government, in the interest of the country, to what is going to be the result if they treat this matter as a huge joke, or pass it over lightly, under the impression that no one is going to pay much attention to it. I ask them to consider if they are not doing much greater harm to the rising generation of this country by laying down these principles and pledges and then refusing to notice any violations of them than they would do by raising a duty higher than they think they should, or putting a duty lower than they think they should. It is not only tariffs or readjusting constituencies, or whether a railway commission should be appointed or not, or how much money should be spent on public works, that this House has to concern itself with. But here is a government just fresh from the country laying down the principles that ought to govern in these matters; and here is an hon. gentleman, the member for Marquette, who knows what he is talking about, who has never been known to misjudge anything stated in this House, who is noted for. carefulness in his statements, giving three specific instances of absolute violations of these principles which were thus laid down by this government. Now, we have not yet heard from the government on the subject. I would have thought that immediately on the hon. member for Marquette resuming his seat, some member of the government would have paid, not the hon. member for Marquette but the country whom they

serve, the courtesy of stating what they thought about it. They seem to think their followers from Manitoba should answer the hon. member for Marquette; but I wish to tell them that this matter is not confined to the province of Manitoba. 1 ask them to pay the province of Ontario the courtesy of explaining what this platform meant, of saying wherein we have misconstrued it, of showing wherein the three cases mentioned by the hon. member for Marquette are not applicable to the platform as laid down by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The government are not obliged to do so; but I warn them that if they think the province of Ontario is not interested in this matter, because it only happened in Manitoba, or is going to treat it lightly, they are greatly mistaken, and they ought to put themselves right before the province and before the whole Dominion. There are words in this resolution which do not appear to me to be capable of any two meanings; but I know that this government has often been able to show that things did not mean what the country thought they did. I appeal to the government to let us know distinctly and clearly what those words do mean, and wherein the cases cited by the hon. member for Marquette are not applicable. If they are applicable, let the government not be satisfied with saying that some Conservative government did worse at some other time; because that is not the question. I am not admitting or denying that they did. We are dealing with the present administration. Although the hon. member for Selkirk said that Conservative governments in the past had done the same thing or allowed it to be done. I want to point out this great moral and national difference between the two governments in that respect; that the Conservative government never made a pledge on the subject and broke it, while this government did. It does not matter, for the purpose of this argument, or his motion, whether the Conservative government did wrong or not, but it does matter whether the government of this country keeps its pledges on not. The difference between the two parties is this :	No Conservative government has ever been shown to have laid down within the four walls, of this House any speech or policy or pledge like this one made by this government. No Conservative government has ever been known to break its pledges, and then, when called to task, try to laugh the charges away, regardless to what the people may think. But just the contrary is the course fallowed by this Liberal government. It is all very well for hon. gentlemen opposite to say that it does not lie in the mouths of Conservative members to raise this question, but that answer will not go down to the people. It lies in the mouths of Conservative members to do their duty. It matters not whether the Conservative party did wrong eight or Mr. LANCASTER.
ten years ago-and I am not admitting that they did-that is not the question at issue now. We are dealing with matters of the present. AVe are dealing with the present administration and calling it to account for its failure to carry out its pledges. These pledges and principles are well laid down in the speeches of the right hon. the First Minister, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and Sir Louis Davies, and the cases cited of Thompson, Young, Jonassen and Jerome, prove conclusively what little respect this government has for the pledges on which it secured public support, and until it can be shown that these cases are not in direct violation of the platform thus laid down by the Liberal party. I shall support the amendment of my hon. friend from Marquette.
Mr. AA\ SCOTT (AVest: Assinibcia). The position taken by the hon. gentleman who has just spoken is a most, convenient one for his party. He has laid down the doctrine that the Conservative party is perfectly free to do wrong, because it never pledged itself to do right.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I did not say anything of the kind.


Mr. SCOTT.: My hon. friend has pronounced an eulogium very well deserved on the whole, of Mr. Hugh John Macdonald, of Manitoba, and then proceeded to say that the Conservative party had never made a pledge which it did not keep. This will be news to this House. Why, before the last local election in Manitoba there was given to the people on the authority of Mr. Hugh John Macdonald a platform consisting of nineteen planks, and one of those planks bound the Conservative party to keep politics out of the administration of justice. Yet Mr. Hugh John Macdonald had only been in power a few weeks when he cut the official heads off 450 justices of the peace, and replaced them by 450 Tories. On this side we have no objection to make to the advertisement of Mr. Macdonald as a gentleman who always keeps his word, but whenever that picture is held out to us, it brings to our minds those celebrated nineteen planks in the Conservative platform of December, 1899, and the fact that not one of these planks was ever adhered to. My hon. friend referred to the question of prohibition, which reminds us that although Mr. Hugh John Macdonald promised that if elected he would give the province a prohibitory law. that promise remains still unfulfilled. He also promised that the number of cabinet ministers would be reduced from five to three, yet still we have five. He further pledged himself and his party to reduce the indemnity of the members of the legislature from $500 to $300, yet the very next session they were paid an indemnity of $600. I happen to have the misfortune of living in a part of the country which is not yet a province, but

only a territory, and possibly I do not quite understand the force of the argument made by lion, gentlemen opposite regarding civil servants. I have not been favoured either with a copy of the amendment which has been put into your hands, Mr. Speaker, by the hon. member for Marquette, but if I understand his complaint, it is this, that the three gentlemen whom he named, and who are Dominion government officials, have been candidates for the Manitoba legislature. I would ask my hon. friend if that is correct ?


William James Roche: I think that there were more than three, but I mentioned three, Young, Jonasson and Watson, postmaster of South Brandon, though I am not sure whether I mentioned Mr. Watson or not. But I did not mention one-third of those I could have.


Thomas Walter Scott: It may be because I live in a territory and not in a province that I fail to see the reason of the complaint. In the North-west we have not yet introduced federal politics into local affairs. As I understand it, the pledge given by leaders of the Liberal party had reference to the interference of government officials in federal politics and had nothing to do with local politics. At all events, that is my understanding of it, and so far as I have heard no attempt has been made to prove interference in federal politics against these gentlemen. I am disposed to question whether it is proper for this House to lay down the principle that Dominion officials have not the right to exercise their franchise, and even take the platform in provincial elections, provided that it does not interfere with their duties as officers of this government.
I would not be disposed to take the position that these servants of the Dominion government have not a perfect right to take part in provincial elections. I know very well-and I think the hon. Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Muloek) will bear me out-that some of the postmasters of the North-west Territories are actually members of the local legislature. I can cite one instance-the member of the local legislature for the constituency of White wood, who was the postmaster at that point, and, I think, is yet, and, at the present time, is deputy speaker of the local legislature of the North-west Territories. However, 1 would not care to go very far in laying down a position on this subject. I merely wish to say, in support of what has been so very well and forcibly said by my hon. friend from Selkirk, that tlie Conservatives in the province of Manitoba and the North-west Territories are the very last people in the world who have any call or any right to make complaints in this matter. Anybody who knows the conditions which prevailed in the province of Manitoba and the North-west
Territories for the years from the opening of that country up to 1896, knows very well the tyranny [DOT] practiced by the government through its officials in that country. Until 1896, it was never possible for a Liberal to be elected in that country, except on one occasion. And one fact referred to by the hon. member for Marquette, the fact that liis opponent in the last election had been a Dominion official. Mr. Thompson, a homestead inspector, proved, as well as anything could prove, the difference in the conditions which prevail now from those which prevailed prior to that time. For, up to 1896, while the Conservative government was in power in the Dominion, if an official had taken a nomination on behalf of the Conservative party there is no human power that could have been used by the Liberal party that would have resulted in the defeat of that Conservative candidate. My hon. friend from Marquette also complained of the difference between the treatment that is meted out by this government to officials who happen to be Liberals and that meted out to officials who happen to be Conservatives. Well, I have some knowledge, so far as the territories are concerned at all events, of the conduct of government affairs, and, so far as I have been able to see, there is no difference in the treatment meted out by the various ministers to the officials, whether those officials are Conservatives or Liberals. But I may say that, prior to the Liberal government coming into power in 1896, the lists of civil servants in Manitoba and the North-west Territories might have been searched from tots to bottom without discovering a sign of a single Liberal in that service. My hon. friend referred to a long list of officials who, he alleged, had been dismissed by this government since 1896. I suppose he had the old Winnipeg' ' Telegram' list as a basis for his statement. 1 recollect very well that some time ago the Winnipeg * Telegram ' gave what purported to be a full list of the officials dismissed by this government in Manitoba and the North-west Territories. Trobably the hon. gentleman was correct when he placed the number at one hundred and fifty. But I recollect also, very distinctly that when 1 went over the list' I found the names of men who had died while in office, as well as the names of others who had left the service of their own volition, either to go into other lines of business or, perhaps, to leave the part of the country where they had been residing. When I analysed the list, to find the basis for these charges of wholesale dismissal of officials, I found that there was only about 25 per cent of the 'Telegram's' list who had actually been dismissed, and in all of those cases concerning which I had personal information, there was very good reason for dismissal. In most cases there had been charges formally or informally made and an investigation held, which, revealed

facts fully justifying tlie dismissal. My bon. friend (Mr. Lancaster) who hist spoke, laid down a doctrine which, if the proposal which my hon. friend from Marquette asks the House to accept, were accepted, would be most convenient for the Conservative party in Manitoba. The result would be that this government would immediately put chains on every Liberal official in the country, preventing them from taking any part in politics, from exerting any influence or, probably, even from casting their votes, while at the same time, every local Conservative official appointed by the Rolilin government would be free to go up and down the country, as my hon. friend from Selkirk says they have been doing, exercising all possible influence in the elections soon to be held.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have one other matter which is not distinctly germane to this matter which I wish to mention. It relates to the discussion which took place here last night. My hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain), in referring to a gentleman who made one of the statutory declarations which I read before the House, Mr. Trant, of Regina, stated that that gentleman was a civil servant, this being stated to give special weight to charges against him. I may say that Mr. Trant is not a civil servant in the ordinary sense of the term. A most disagreeable reference was made by my hon. friend from Peel to Mr. Trant, and I wish to occupy two minutes in making a statement in reference to that gentleman, as I intended to do last night, but was prevented. Mr. Trant has a reputation, and, like the rest of us, no doubt, is anxious to uphold that reputation. Mr. Trant spends part of his time in performing the duties of secretary to the Lieutenant Governor in Regina. When the party of the hon. leader of the opposition visited Regina, Mr. Trant, who represents the ' Free Press ' of Winnipeg-


Mr. INGRAM.: Order.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ingram) state the point of order ?


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) has no right to refer to a previous debate.
Mr. DEPUTY' SPEAKER. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Scott) is referring to a discussion which took place last night, and which is finished, and it is contrary to the rule of the House te refer to a previous debate.


Thomas Walter Scott: I accept the correction,.Mr. Speaker, and I will make no further reference to yesterday's discussion. As I understand it, I have a right to discuss any other subject at this time. As I was saying, Mr. Trant is the representative of the ' Free Press ' of Winnipeg, and was detailed by the [DOT] Free Press ' to accompany the party of Mr. SCOTT.
the leader of the opposition, as reporter on a part of their tour. He is a journalist with a reputation. For years he was editor of leading papers in India.


Andrew B. Ingram: Order. The hon. gentleman is referring to a debate that took place last night, he is referring to a trip of certain gentlemen of this House to the North-west.
Mr. MeCREARY. He is referring to the newspaper man in his capacity as a civil servant.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. gentlemdh is speaking about a certain reporter, a Mr. Trant, who enjoyed the privileges of that party which went west.


Thomas Walter Scott: I am referring to the representative in Regina of the Winnipeg ' Free Press,' and who last fall accompanied the party of the leader of the opposition. He reported their meetings for the Winnipeg ' Free Press,' and accepted the hospitality of these gentlemen, and was invited into their private car.


Mr. POPE.: No, not invited-put himself. I deny that he was invited.


Thomas Walter Scott: Mr. William Trant was in their private car, and afterwards an hon. gentleman has had the lack of decency to get up in this House and charge that gentleman, who had partaken of their hospitality, with foisting himself upon them. It will do them no political good in the North-west Territories, where the people have proper views as to what is honourable and decent conduct towards a guest. I say it is a disgrace. The hon. member for Peel last night was asked to modify his statement and he refused. Other members of the party who are now sitting in this House


Andrew B. Ingram: I rise to a point of order. Does the hon. gentleman really want this whole matter to be threshed out again ?


Richard Blain: I shall expect an opportunity to reply to this hon. gentleman.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I am afraid the hon. gentleman for Assiniboia is referring to a previous debate. I call his attention to the rule that it is never permitted to refer to a previous debate.


Thomas Walter Scott: I may explain to you that in discussing this question regarding tha civil service-


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: But the hon. gentleman was referring to something which happened last night. That is irregular. He may discuss the question before the Chair, but he must not refer to the debate which took place last night.


Thomas Walter Scott: I was really referring to something that occurred last fall in connection with the visit to the west of the party led by the leader of the opposition and Mr. William Trant-I think possibly, with these

various interruptions, I have stated about all that I intended to say with regard to Mr. Trant. He is an English gentleman, a journalist with a reputation, who was for several years editor of newspapers in India, and had been connected for several years with some of the best papers in England. In this country he is representative at Regina of the ' Winnipeg Free Press.' I may say too that he is an author of sufficient reputation to be quoted in the Encly-copedia Britannica upon the subject of trades unions. I think, under yli the circumstances-'


Rufus Henry Pope: The less said the better.


Thomas Walter Scott: Probably I have said sufficient. I was going to say that under all the circumstances, any reflections which have been cast upon that gentleman who is not in this House, who has made no offensive statement against any person in this House- I think these reflections might well be withdrawn or modified. I appeal to my hon. friends who were on that trip not to put themselves in the position of casting reflections upon a gentleman who partook of their hospitality.


Mr.   I@: I may have an opportunity of making a remark in reply to the hon. gentleman. First, let me say to the hon. member for West Assiniboia that the Mr. Trant referred to did not accept, on invitation, any hospitality at the hands of the leader of the opposition on their trip in the west.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Before the hon. gentleman goes any further, I would like to know how this matter is germane to the motion which is now before the Chair. I want to know what the case of Mr. Trant has to do with the question before the House.	.


Richard Blain: I will comply with any rule of the House, but I think it is only fair to myself to say that the hon. gentleman, when the Deputy Speaker was in the Chair, made a statement reflecting upon my diameter in this House, which I think I should have an opportunity to refute. I am sure,' Mr. Speaker, you cannot deny me that privilege.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I do not think it would be regular now to discuss that question. I have just called the hon. member for Assiniboia to order because I thought he was referring to a previous debate, the same debate to which the hon. gentleman wishes to allude to now. I must ask him not to refer to that at all.


Richard Blain: What I wish to say is entirely with reference to something that was said on the floor of the House to-day. I make no reference to any former debate.
I wish to say that the member for Assiniboia has stated that a person by the name of Trant, a newspaper representative from the west, an employee of the government, accepted the hospitality of the leader of the opposition and his party when they were on tlieir western tour last fall. I say in reply to the hon. gentleman that that statement is incorrect. Mr. Trant never received an invitation to accept the hospitality of the leader of the opposition or of any member of his party, but Mr. Trant crowded himself iu upon the car, and from one station to another lie came in and occupied a prominent seat in the car, and after several days of this intrusion, some member of the party was compelled to invite him to get out of the car. That is the kind of hospitality the hon. gentleman referred to. Permit me to say one word further; that if I wanted to get some instructions in decency and good behaviour I am sure I would not apply to the hon. member for West Assiniboia, for at no time in the history of this parliament-and I appeal to hon. gentlemen who have occupied seats in this House for many years- has an hon. gentleman been permitted to produce affidavits against the character of another hon. gentleman, without first giving notice


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hon. gentleman is still referring to a previous debate.


Richard Blain: I have not mentioned it.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I understand this matter was brought up last night, and there is no occasion for discussing it just now. I would invite the hon. member to confine himself to the question before the Chair.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 71) to incorporate the Imperial Company.-Mr. Bickerdike.	,
The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock).: It has been suggested to change the name to the Imperial Trust Company.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. I think some of the clauses will require to be amended if the name is changed.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. AV. S. Fielding).: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the Bill be referred back to the Committee on Banking and Commerce. The question of the title received very considerable attention there. If the hon. gentleman (Air. Bickerdike) desires that the name be changed I think it should go back to the committee.


Air. BICKERDIKE.: I have agreed to a change being made in the title of the Bill. AA'e made a change in the committee, and



before the Bill was through there was only about a quarter of it left.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I was informed that the title Is to be changed to the Imperial Trust Company.


Robert Bickerdike: I have uo objection.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: But I have an objection, because I am informed that there is another company of the same name.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. This question was ventilated before the Committee on Banking and Commerce the other day, and strong exception was taken to the title ' Imperial ' being assumed by this company by a representative of the Imperial Bank here, acting under instructions from the general manager at Toronto. The name was changed by the committee from the Imperial Company to the Imperial Agency. The objection is still greater to this latter change because it is said that in small towns where there is an agency of the Imperial Bank the agency is often referred to as the Imperial Agency and there would be a conflict. It would, perhaps, be better to accept the suggestion of the hon. Minister of Finance i Hon. Mr. Fielding) and refer the Bill back to the Committee on Banking and Commerce and in the meantime we will see that the bank does not raise any further objection. I understand that the Canadian Bankers' Association is entering a strong protest against the use of the proposed name. That is the information I have from Toronto.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I made my suggestion under a misapprehension. When I entered the House I was informed that it was proposed to call this the Imperial Trust Company, whereupon I said that if a proposal of that kind were made, the Bill should be referred back to the Committee on Banking and Commerce. The hon. member for Montreal, St. Lawrence, informs me that that is a mistake, that the proposal is the one which the committee has already approved of; that is to call it the Imperial Agency. I do not wish to go back on any understanding come to in the committee. If it were proposed to call it the Imperial Trust Company that would be n new proposal and I would ask it to go back to the committee, but the objection to the title ' Imperial Agency ' was considered in the committee and the committee have dealt with it. I do not know whether the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. La-Riviere) was present or not, but a gentleman appeared on behalf of the Imperial Bank and objected, but the view adopted by the committee was that the word ' Imperial' was rather a broad name that any company might properly take unless there were such words associated with it as would go to create a similarity of title. The objections of the Imperial Bank were considered, and the committee took the view th'at by chang-Mr. BICKERDIKE.
ing the name to the Imperial Agency the objections were removed.


Andrew B. Ingram: A representative of the Imperial Bank was before the committee the other day and stated his Objection, and the committee by a large majority ruled otherwise. I have no doubt the committee Will rule the same way again.
Bill reported.
Mr. BICKERDIKE moved the third reading of the Bill.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. I think it is better to leave the Bill over for its third reading until another sitting.	i
Motion (Mr. Bickerdike) agreed to, and Bill read the third time.


Robert Bickerdike: That the Bill be passed and that the title ol the Bill be changed to the Imperial Agency.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 165) to incorporate the Algonquiu Lumber and Power Company.-Mr. Gould.
Bill (No. 168) to incorporate the Chicoutimi and North Eastern Railway Company.-Mr. Girard.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed consideration of the motion of (Hon. Mr. Fielding) that the House again go into Committee of Supply and the motion of Mr. Roche (Marquette) in amendment thereto.
['. Hear, hear.\nSome resolutions reported.\nOn motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 11.30 a.m.', 'Monday, May 18, 1903.']
Mr. N. BOYD (Macdonald).: Mr. Speaker, the question that has engaged a portion of the time of the House this afternoon has been so fully, and I think, so fairly laid before the House that my mission here is a somewhat light one, and if I am to reply to the criticisms of my hon. friends from Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) and from West Assini-boia (Mr. Scott) my task wUl not be a difficult one in that respect either. I think the House will agree with me that they have not dealt with the question and that the matters which they have brought to the attention of the House will not make the position of the Liberal party any easier or place it in any better position before the country thau it was before they addressed the House. Now, the question is this :	The Liberal
party has laid down, as has been shown by the quotations which have been read from the speeches of the right hon. leader of the government (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and his lieutenants, the platform that we supposed was to be for the guidance of the party and of all government officials in the country in future. Yet, here we have, in the face of that, no less than, I understand, seven gentlemen, employees of J:he Dominion government, who have accepted nominations as Liberal candidates in the

approaching elections in the province of Manitoba.
The only excuse made by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) is the old excuse which we hear from the other side of the House repeatedly ; that tu quoque argument which is now so well known : Well, when your party was in power you did as bad or worse than we are doing. That is the answer from the Liberal benches to the majority of the charges against this government that we bring to the attention of the country. We do not forget what the Liberals promised before they got into power; we know the pledges they made to the public ; we know the criticisms they levelled against the Conservative government, and we know how they pledged themselves that when they got into power they would redress the alleged grievances against which they protested. But is it not a strange thing to see those gentlemen to-day, now that they have attained power, perpetuating in an intensified form that which they protested against when in opposition. The hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) as well as the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) told us that Mr. Jerome had not been a partisan. In order to show that these gentlemen are entirely mistaken about Mr. Jerome's character in that regard, I refer them to a letter which he wrote to the ' Free Press ' on the 30th September last. I shall not weary the House by reading that letter, but suffice it to say that Mr. Jerome takes up a column of the ' Free Press ' in criticising severely the ex-Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) who was then a minister of the Liberal government, but who was reported at the time to be not in accord with his colleagues. This would show that Mr. Jerome is so intensely partisan that he is not satisfied with attacking the Conservatives, but that he is prepared to have a fling at even a Liberal minister whose Liberalism is not up to Mr. Jerome's standard. Permit me, Sir, to give a few instances which will explain to hon. gentlemen who do not, perhaps, understand the workings of things in the west, how these officials can exercise considerable power over the voters at the time of an election. These three gentlemen :	Mr. Young, Mr. Jonasson and
Mr. Jerome, in the discharge of theii; duties, visit those who have homesteads or who get permission from the government to cut timber. They are in a position to hold forth the possibility of what they can do and what they may do in their official capacity if those people do not vote in the interest of the party they desire them to. An official in that position may, for a year or more, prevent a man from getting his homestead to which he is entitled, by saying that the settler had not quite complied with all the conditions of the Dominion Lands Act. The timber agent might, if he were so disposed, wield a great influence over the electorate, because he might say to a settler :	you
have cut a few poles more than you are entitled to, and under the power I possess I can punish you for so doing. I have a letter here from the premier of Manitoba, who says that an Icelandic settler came to him making a complaint that he had attended a public meeting which was addressed by Mr. Jonasson, and that the whole trend of that timber agent's speech was to the effect, that in the position he occupied he had the power to confer benefits on those of the electors who did his bidding. At that meeting it is alleged that Mr. Jonasson refused to permit any person to reply on behalf of the Conservative government of Manitoba. These few instances go to show the influence that such officials may use on the electors in that country. In addition to that, these men can go around campaigning and using the government money which is allowed them for expenses in doing so. The hon. gentleman from Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) and from the West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) have adduced as a sort of rebuttal evidence, the allegation that when the Conservatives were in power they did as bad or worse than the Liberals are now doing, and if the government is going to rely on such an argument as that, here and now is the place for them to say so. But what took place from 1896, when the Conservative party went out of power in the Dominion, until 1900, when the Manitoba Conservative government was returned. I have here a list of 150 Conservative employees who were dismissed by the present government of the Dominion during the period I have referred to, and before the Manitoba Conservative government came into power. And, Sir, if the Manitoba Conservatives, as has been alleged by the hon. gentleman (Mr. McCreary), did retaliate, it was, what to some extent might have been expected in view of the dismissal of these 150 Conservative officials, the majority of whom were able and efficient officers, against whom not the slightest charge could be made. I am sure that the hon. gentleman (Mr. McCreary) will not say that Mr. H. H. Smith, who was Land Commissioner for many years was not well qualified to hold his office, and was a man against whom no just charge could be made.


William Forsythe McCreary: He was not dismissed.


Nathaniel Boyd: What happened to him ?


William Forsythe McCreary: His office was abolished and he was superannuated.


Nathaniel Boyd: Yes, that was perhaps an easy way of doing it, but at all events Mr. Smith was put out of office, and the civil service list shows that Mr. Turriff occupies Mr. Smith's place, and is Land Commissioner to-day. Then there was Mr. Daniel Smith, who was a most efficient officer. He had charge of the public works in the west, and he was an active and energetic man, but he was removed from his position in the prime of life.


Mr. PUTTEE.: Surely the hou. gentleman (Mr. Boyd) does not pretend that that man was discharged without cause.


Nathaniel Boyd: What was the cause ?


Arthur W. Puttee: The cause was exposed in the police court.


Nathaniel Boyd: Then the hou. gentleman (Mr. Puttee) will have an opportunity of stating it to the House. He can get up and do so if he has any charge to make. Was there any charge against Mr. Hargrave, the ex-postmaster, who is still an able and an active man ? Could there be any charge against the postmaster of Brandon, who was dismissed for partisanship, and in whose place was appointed Mr. Campbell, ex-president of the Liberal Association, and one of the most active political workers in the place. Sir, these men were removed from office by this Liberal government notwithstanding the statement of the Prime Minister and his lieutenants on the floor of this House. In view of the fact that the right lion, gentleman declared that men such as these should not be dismissed from the public service, is it not an extraordinary thing that 150 Conservative officials were dismissed from office by this government between 1896 and 1899. When the hon. member for Selkirk speaks of 400 justices of the peace being removed, let me tell him that when the Greenway government came to office the first act of their Attorney General was to pass an Order in Council cancelling all the commissions to all the justices of the peace in Manitoba, so that you could not get a Conservative justice of the peace in the whole province to make a declaration before for election purposes or any other purposes. I do not know what the Conservative party did when they came to power, but that is what the Greenway government did. If this House, to-niglit, is going to vote down the amendment of my hon. friend (Mr. Roche), I suppose the country will know what to expect, and for our part, we will know what conduct is to be allowed on the part of government officials in the future. I think, Sir, I have made it perfectly clear that the question that is now before the House is one which is agitating the public mind in Manitoba, and which is the cause of a great deal of public discussion in the press and on the platform. I think, Sir, it would be well for the government to tell us what action they are going to take on this matter before they call upon us to vote the salaries of some of these gentlemen. If the government say these gentlemen may take any part they wish in political affairs, so long as they do not interfere in Dominion issues, it is well for us to know that, because in a short time we shall be called upon to vote the salaries of some of them, and I do not think the minister in charge of the departments in which they are employed will find fault with us if


Nathaniel Boyd: we ask the government to state distinctly what position they propose these men to occupy whether they are to be politicians in the full sense of the word, or servants of the people, who act independently of both parties. That is what we wish to know, Mr. Speaker, and before this debate is ended, I expect that we shall have the position of the government on this question clearly defined.


Thomas Osborne Davis: The hon. gentleman made a statement to the effect that there were 150 dismissals by this government between 1896 and 1898. I would like the hon. gentleman to make a list of those dismissals, and place it on the Table of the House.


Nathaniel Boyd: I have the list here, and I shall be glad to put it on the Table or put it in ' Hansard.'


Thomas Osborne Davis: Send it over here.


Nathaniel Boyd: Shall they go in ' Hansard,' or shall I read them ? I do not wish to weary the House.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: It is against the rules for anything not said in the House to go in ' Hansard.'


William Forsythe McCreary: Would the hon. gentleman not be allowed to let us see the list V


Nathaniel Boyd: I will put it in * Hansard,' and then my hon. friend will see it. I will ask the hon. gentleman to place his 700 in ' Hansard ' at the same time. I believe these names were published in the Manitoba 'Telegram ' in 1898 or 1899. In going to the library to get a copy of that paper, I found that there was no bound copy of it there. The only Manitoba papers in the library in bound form are the ' Tribune ' and the 'Free Press.' For that reason I was obliged to ask the editor of the Manitoba ' Telegram ' to tell me where I could find a list, or to send me a list of the names published at that time ; and here is the list : H. H. Smith


The PRIME MINISTER.: What was his position ?


Nathaniel Boyd: The positions are not given. The next is AV. Hargrave-


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Is that Air. Hargrave, the late postmaster in AVinni-peg ? Does the hon. gentleman say that he was dismissed ?


Nathaniel Boyd: That is the understanding.


The POSTAIASTER GENERAL.: I will correct the hon. gentleman then. Air. Hargrave was superannuated as an old employee and a man advanced in years ; and my impression is, though in this I may be In error, that he was a Liberal appointee.
1 am responsible for his retirement, and I retired him purely on the merits of the case, because of his advanced years and the ne-

cessities of the service, and on a superannuation allowance. I hope the rest of the hon. gentleman's 'list is more accurate than that.


Nathaniel Boyd: Might I ask the hon. gentleman, did he request to be superannuated ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No, he did not request it. He was superannuated because the public interest demanded it, and because he was a man advanced in years. The hon. gentleman is contending that this man was dismissed for political reasons. Not only could that not have been the case, but he has a son in the service, whom I have had great pleasure in promoting to a very prominent and responsible position in the Post Office Department, and he fills that position now. So I ask the hon. gentleman to drop that case-it is not a case of political partisanship.


Nathaniel Boyd: I do not think I will drop any of them. The hon. gentleman may explain any of them to the House that he pleases. As regards the ex-postmaster, if the hon. gentleman met him to-day, he might find it difficult to keep up with him, old and de crepid as he says he is. But that is a nice, easy way of getting rid of a man-abolishing one office in Winnipeg and creating another one with a better salary at Ottawa.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: He was between 70 and 80 years of age.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Mr. Hargrave was not a Conservative ; he was a Liberal.
Mr. BOYD (reading)-Daniel Smith, K. Grayburn, J. M. Sutherland, Miss P. Sutherland, Jos. Turenne, Mrs. Scott, Mrs. Livingstone, W. F. Jones, M. O. R. Jarvis, H. Car-stens, C. P. Cloutier, R. Dolbear, Miss Tur-nock, Miss Duff, W. R. Rowan, Jas. Reid, J. F. Tennant, Thos. Shannon, J. J. Arsenault, A. J. Baker, W. S. Cottingham, W. H. Hearn, Robt. Gunn, A. Hetherington, D. Hogg, A. M. Burgess, R. L. Alexander, P. M. Barker, G. J. Cox, J. McD. Gordon, V. H. Hesson, H. S. MacDonnell, Major Montgomery, A. T. Abbey, Wm. Laurie, and J. H. Paul, were dismissed from the Regina re-gistery office; and J. T. Stemsliorn, John Dobbin, Miss Pope, Mr. Sherwood, and John Rogers, from the Regina land office. J. R. C. Honeyman, James McAra, A. P. VanKough-net, J. A. Mitchell, William Lambert, and J. Anderson, were dismissed from the Indian Department, Regina district. Dr. Willoughby was dismissed from the Regina industrial school, and Dr. Cotton, as medical officer of the Regina jail. G. W. Almon, from a clerkship in the land office at Edmonton, and E. Brokorski, from a laud agency at Battleford. Leo Schaunus, fishery officer, Fort Alexander ; D. Devlin, fishery officer, Lake Manitoba ; A. McKay, Indian agent, Berens river ; R. La. T. Tupper, inspector of fisheries, Selkirk; A. Muckle, Indian agent, St. Peter's reserve; R. Taylor,
hatchery, Selkirk ; W. Cleland, hatchery, Selkirk; D. Miller, postmaster, East Selkirk; C. H. West, manager dredge, Selkirk; W. Taylor, dredge, Selkirk; T. R. Yardon, postmaster, McGregor; W. Thornton, dredge, Selkirk ; W. Tillson, Selkirk, dredge ; S. Davis, Selkirk, dredge ; J. Cavanagh, postmaster, Brandon; P. Daly, immigration officer; T. Ferguson, land office, Calagry; A. F. Holmes, immigration officer, C. F. Herbert, immigration officer, Calgary; W. L. Orde, land office, Brandon; J. D. Graveline, postmaster, Le-tellier; * P. Parent, postmaster, St. Jean Baptiste; A. LaSalle, postmaster, St. Pierre;
G.	T. Landry, postmaster, St. Adolphe; J. Craig, postmaster, Stratlidlair; G. Stone, postmaster, Rapid City; W. J. Bourchier, land office, Calgary; J. McGuire, Indian Department, C, Phipps, land office, Regina;
H.	Reed, Indian Department, G. Lindsay, postiflaster, Griswold; B. Hogg, immigration sheds, Brandon; Dr. Spencer, jail surgeon, Brandon; W. H. Todd, Indian industrial school ; W. IT. Hiam, Dominion lands, Brandon; Mr. Daniels, postmaster, Moosomin; C. W. Peterson, mines office, Calgary; H. S. Sherwood, land department, Westaskiwin; J. R. Thompson, homestead inspector, Calgary; S. A. Stewart, park superintendent, Banff; H. C. Ridley, land department, Kamloops; H. Green, commissioner office, A. Cates, postmaster, Napinka; A. J. Baker, lands office, Brandon; G. A. Barnhnm, assistant post office inspector, M. Fee, lands office, Winnipeg; James Bruce, postmaster, Carman; S. Shaw, postmaster, J. J. Miller, postmaster, Parkin; J. Burke, postmaster. Brookside; J. Carnduff, postmaster, Carnduff; ,T. B. Mercier, postmaster, Battleford ; P. G. Williams, Indian agent, Battleford; J. Carney, agent's assistant, Onion Lake ; J. K. Dremain, meteorological officer, Medicine Hat ; I. E. Parker, farm instructor, Fort Qu'Appelle; J. Wilson, farming instructor, Battleford; J. C. DeGear, farming instructor, Battleford; F. A. D. Bourke, farming instructor, Battleford ; J. Carney, warehouse man, J. Looby, fishery inspector, Edmonton; Dr. Orton, Indian medical superintendent, J. R. Hall, Interior Department, Mrs. Guil-mette, lands office, Winnipeg; J. Forcier, quarantine officer, Emerson; J. Secord, Crown prosecutor, A. L. Lunan, governor, Regina jail; S. A. Clark, inspector public works, Mr. Armstrong, tailor, North-west Mounted Police ; W. J. Cox, homestead inspector, J. Thompson, homestead inspector, li. W. Herchermer, commissioner, Northwest Mounted Police; Mr. Gistorne, Qu'Appelle; J. Ross, Indian agent, Saddle Lake; C. H. Harper, clerk, Saddle Lake; W. D. Beck, Crown prosecutor-, W. White, courthouse, Moosejaw; G. S. Davidson, fisheries inspector, Qu'Appelle; J. McKee, Regina jail; N. Campbell, Indian Department, Regina; B. L. Baldwinson, Dominion lands, M. Evoy, jail service, J. Bradner, jail service, R. S. Park, homestead inspector, White-

wood; M. Entemear, postmaster, Kroneau; J. B. Hawkes, postmaster, Balgonie; C. Gass, postmaster, Moosejaw; W. Wayne, farm instructor, Battleford; J. Latka, interpreter, Edmonton; Hon. Francis Ogletree, Indian commissioner, Portage la Prairie ; these are the names. In some cases the position they occupied is given, but in others they are not. I had no desire to occupy the attention of the House, but as hon. gentlemen opposite seemed to think they would like to have the names put on 'Hansard,' it is just as well they should appear there that, to a very great extent, gives the reason why the Conservatives in Manitoba, after they came into office, followed the course of action they did. If the hon. gentleman who made the statement that some 700 had been dismissed by the Manitoba Conservative government will also put a list of the names in ' Hansard,' we will have an opportunity of judging the righteousness or otherwise of these dismissals and compare the record of both parties with regard to the matter now before the House.
a commission was appointed to look into the affairs of a sheriff, but the sheriff resigned rather than go before the commission. I could show you that the other dismissals were equally all for cause, as the hon. gentleman will find if he will make inquiries. I had some experience with some of the officials of the Manitoba government last winter. When out in the election campaign last winter, I came across several Manitoba officials taking active part, not only in the canvass from house to house, but on the public platform, and using every influence in the interests of the Conservative candidate. One of these was an immigration agent, Mr. Burke, and another an immigration agent, Mr. J. J. Golden. I could give the names of scores. I notice that hon. gentlemen on that side carefully avoided replying to my hon. friend from Selkirk. He went over a list of respectable officials who were slaughtered by the Manitoba government without any cause.


William James Roche: If the hou. gentleman will pardon me


Thomas Osborne Davis: I would not take up any time of the House, Mr. Speaker, had not the hon. gentleman who has just spoken seen fit to read a list of names of officials who, he claims, were dismissed without cause by this government after it came into power. I do not know where the hon. gentleman got his information, but I think he informed the House that he got it from the Winnipeg ' Telegram.' Well, that may be a very worthy sheet, but I do not think many people would take all the statements that appear in it for gospel truth. Why, it Is not so very long ago when the hon. leader of the opposition had to contradict a report which appeared in that paper of a speech delivered by him at Mor-den. If the hon. gentleman will be kind enough to send me the list he read. I would like to go over the names and make comments on some of them. However, I caught some of the names. There is one party, Miss Duff, but Miss Duff is still in the employ of the government and has not been dismissed. Then there is Captain Cottingham, who is also still in the employ of the government.


William James Roche: I did not say Captain Cottingham, but W. S. Cottingham, of the Brandon land office.


Thomas Osborne Davis: Would the hon. gentleman kindly send me over the list, as we could not hear the names very well on this side of the House. He also gave the name of John Rogers, homestead inspector. Well, Mr. Speaker, that gentleman was paralyzed. He did not do any work for a year, during which the government kept him on and paid his salary. I caught the names of a few gentlemen dismissed in my riding, but they were dismissed for cause. One was an Indian agent, who was dismissed for giving liquor to the Indians. This was proven before a commission of inquiry. There was another case in which


Thomas Osborne Davis: The hon. gentleman will have ample opportunity after I have done, and I am treating him with the same amount of courtesy as the hou. member for Macdonald gave me a short time ago. There was a list of names read by the hon. member for Selkirk of respectable men, men up in years, who had given their whole lives to the service, and who were turned out practically to starve without any investigation, without any charge having been made against them, but simply because their places were required for others. There has never been, in the history of any province of this Dominion, anything like the wholesale slaughter of officials without cause as by the Manitoba government. I might allude to the case of Mr. Dawson, the very respectable police magistrate, of Winnipeg, whose place was wanted and whose head consequently dropped into the basket. Hon. gentlemen opposite are the last persons who can talk about the dismissals of officials. If there are officials in the employ of this government whom the people want to represent them in the legislature, that shows that the government have selected respectable and responsible men, who have gained high esteem in the community by the way in which they have carried out their official duties. When the Conservatives were in power there were very few of the officials whom anybody would nominate to go to parliament. I know of a case of partisanship previous to the election of 1896 in the district represented by my hon. friend from East Assiniboia, which is a case in point. An Indian agent of the late government was travelling around the country during election time, with two government horses hitched in tandem and a government official driving the team, and he was sitting back blowing a horn so as to call the farmers out and tell them how they should vote.


Nathaniel Boyd: That was a Conservative tin-horn partisan.
There is another case to which I wish to draw my hon. friend's attention. In the election of 1887 in my district there was a gentleman who was commissioner for the purpose of settling rebellion claims. He was drawing $15 a day from the government. I could quote the figures from the public documents if any hon. gentleman wished to have them. The campaign opened in December and was kept up until the last of March. This gentleman was sent there from Ottawa, he addressed meetings, canvassed, organized, did everything he could to elect the Conservative candidate, and all the time drawing $15 a day from the treasury of the Dominion. Take another case. There was an inspector of mounted police in my district who was at the same time appointed enumerator. I went to him and wanted to see the list, and I had a perfect right to see it, being the accredited agent of one of the candidates. But he would not let me see it; he said they had no use for Grits and that I could see no list there. And, since this government came into power that officer has been promoted to be superintendent-that is his reward for treating us in that way. I could go on all night giving cases of this kind. Now, the hon. member for Marquette has claim,ed that public officials have been nominated to the legislature. I do not know anything about them. It is only rumour. I have seen the names of Mr. Young and others in the papers, but I do not know, and I fancy that no person knows, as a matter of fact whether they are officials or not. I am not going to say that it is a proper tiling for officials to take any part in elections. But I do say that the hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House are the last persons who should talk about partisanship of officials or the partisan dismissal of offl-pials. However, if the government looks into the case, and it is found to be in any yespect as serious as the hon. gentleman trys to make out, the government, no doubt, will see to it that these gentlemen do not continue to occupy these offices. For my part, I hold that no official has any right to go out and work in an election. But I have seen it done even last winter in Manitoba, and I venture to say if the hon. gentlemen opposite had the, opportunity again, their officials, when an election came on, would be running about the country as thick as grasshoppers. But, of course, that does not justify anything of the kind under this government, and I hope they will look into the matter. -


Arthur W. Puttee: As I was not aware that this question was coming up, I shall not say more than a few words. A discussion such as we have had this afternoon can hardly be said to be of an edifying character; it seems necessarily to consist of each side charging the other
with being worse then itself. Possibly, that is inevitable under our present political system. My own opinion is that, even from the standpoint of party advantage, there is nothing to be gained by a government on coming into office discharging the employees appointed by their predecessors. But I feel equally sure that every government is in duty bound to deal with this matter purely from the standpoint of the public interest. I am pretty well acquainted with the facts in some of the cases of complaint in Manitoba that have been brought forward during the last few years. I know, as a matter of fact, there were a number of the employees of the old Greenway government who richly deserved dismissal and they got it. But it does not stop there; the very necessity of dismissing some men seem to be used as an excuse for wholesale dismissals for which there is no justification on the grounds of the public interest. One case particularly has been mentioned, that of the police magistrate for the city of AVin-nipeg. I am not in the confidence of either party there, but I can state that all parties and all fair-minded men in Winnipeg felt that the city was humiliated and that harm was done to the public service by the removal of police magistrate Dawson. A good man was removed from the public service. It matters not whether his successor was a good man or not, the fact was that a good man who was getting used to his job and able to render good public service was dismissed. I do not know what cause brought this dismissal about, but, so far as J can find out, all the public men in the pity, and the citizens generally, condemn that kind of action. Hon. geutlemen on both sides of this House have quoted full lists of officials who have been' replaced. Thie justifiable dismissals are mixed up indiscriminately with those that are purely partisan, and thus the real issue is confused. I do not regret the discussion of the matter in the House; it seems to me that it should be discussed more than it is, it should be discussed until we are sick of it, and the people of the country are sick of it, and look about for a remedy. The hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) read a list of dismissals. I noticed some names that had no business to be mentioned in this connection, for the parties were rightly dismissed, and dismissed for the public advantage. One case that the hon. gentleman mentioned was the dismissal of the public works officer under this government. I cannot speak from actual knowledge as to what was the alleged cause of his dismissal, but I know upon what it followed upon. I know that within a few weeks before his dismissal he grievously, and, I believe, uu-provokedly, assaulted a minor official in the customs house, a poor, weak old man- brutally assaulted him, as was proven in the police court. Of course, his dismissal ought to, and I believe did, follow as a

ft
.matter of course. It seems to me absurd that this case should be mixed up "with others in which there is legitimate cause of complaint. It must be looked upon as a scandal under the present circumstances that men who ate employees of the government, men, who, in most cases, have been appointed to the public service because they have records as active partisans-that is the outcome of the party system-should be candidates in another election while still holding public office. This seems to me to amount ,to a scandal because the public interest is sure to suffer. We cannot expect that, in the heat of an electoral contest these men, can or will deal fairly with the public whose work they are paid to do. But the cases of a lot of minor officials, men who work for the government only a part of every year or who draw small sums for minor services, should not be discussed in this connection. One case brought up by the member for Marquette was that of a subpostmaster in Winnipeg who is a candidate in the north district at the present time. 4 look upon that man as doing a public service in taking a sub-post office in his store. I believe he is serving the country in part at his own expense, as are some other officials. Still, I believe that every official .should accept the risk-if he takes a prominent part in politics or accepts nomination, and this action on his part causes irritation or trouble between them and the public whom he has undertaken to serve, the .department should immediately insist upon his withdrawing from the position in politics or handing back his commission to the government. That seems to me right and proper, purely from the standpoint of the public service irrespective of party politics. I believe it is 'a proper principle, even in party warfare, that was laid down in the declaration of the Prime Minister. It appears to me this is an opportune time to bring this question up in the House, because, as a matter of fact, preparations are only now being made for a general election in Manitoba. If the government are prepared tc tell us that the position stated in their declaration will be upheld, for my part I am prepared to accept it.


Andrew B. Ingram: The question involved in the motion of the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche), it seems to me, has not been discussed, but hon. gentlemen seem disposed to discuss it from a provincial, rather than a Dominion standpoint. I remember a few years ago when reference was made to provincial civil servants in the various provinces whose governments were favourable to the present government, and when fault was found with them for taking part in politics, we were told it was a purely provincial matter, that this government had no control over matters of that kind ; therefore, it was for the provincial legislatures Mr. PUTTEE.
to deal with them. Taking that view, I think we should confine ourselves to the motion before the House. Now, I know that some members of the government entertain peculiar ideas with reference to the rights of civil servants. I may refer to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who, I think, is inclined to the belief that civil servants should be disfranchised. I think he stated on a former occasion that if they were disfranchised they would not get into this trouble. But I never heard any complaint from a government supporter if they did take an active part on behalf of the government. In 1887, when a Mr. McColl was a government employee in Winnipeg connected with the Interior Department, a deputation came here from Manitoba and interviewed Sir John A. Macdonald with reference to Mr. McColl's conduct in the elections. I remember the answer given to the deputation, because I was here at the time, and it was, that unless they could find some good and sufficient cause for his dismissal, Mr. McColl would not be removed from office. Sir John A. Macdonald took the ground that an employee had a perfect right to vote, and he had no fault to find with him, whether he voted Liberal or Conservative, and would not exert any influence upon him to induce him to vote Conservative. Now I find that the late Minister of Marine and Fisheries, Sir Louis Davies, now judge of the Supreme Court, spoke as follows in 1896 :
I say when a public official not only discharges his duty as a citizen and votes, but takes an active political part in the canvas preceding the election, and makes himself in that sense politically offensive, he takes his life in his hands, and if the party which he so actively supports is unsuccessful, his political head comes off.
I think that is quite right. I think that a civil servant who takes an active part in a political election does so at the risk of his official life, and this remark would apply whether a Liberal or Conservative government were in power. Now, I find that in 1879, when there was a change of government, the ' Globe ' of the 20tb of February, 1879, laid down this doctrine :
In the public interests there are but two considerations which can Justify the substitution of one official for another, except in cases where the holder of a place has been guilty of misconduct ; the new appointee may be better qualified for the situation than the old, or he may be able to save to the country a certain sum every year.
I think if the members of the government had carried out to the present time that principle laid down by the ' Globe ' in 1879, both sides of this House would have no reason to complain. So I say that the government should make it distinctly understood that any civil servant who takes the public platform or makes himself offensive to one party or the other, takes his official

life In his hand, and would be subject to removal from office. I find this also :
From petty officers whose remuneration is small or nominal, it is idle to expect that subserviency or decorum in regard to political matters that the government could exact in the case of highly paid officials or civil servants proper.
That was the statement made here a few years ago, and I for one think that petty officers like a great many filling positions in the Post Office Department of this country, and whose remuneration is so small, should not be deprived of any of the rights of citizens simply by reason of taking an active part in politics. I think that the Postmaster General frequently finds that it is sometimes difficult to induce a citizen to fill these paid offices on account of the small remuneration attached thereto. Therefore. I do not think that we have a right to include them in the class of persons we are discussing now. What the opposition are contending for is that civil servants who are receiving fair remuneration for their ser vices should have the right to vote if they think proper without any interference on the part of the government, but in my judgment that is as far as a civil servant should have a right to go.
Now, for the purpose of straightening out one reference that was made this afternoon by the hon. member for Selkirk, a note has been placed in my hand :
Mr. McCreary said that T. A. Cuddy, former county court clerk, Minnedosa, was dismissed and J. F. Boyd supplanted him. As a matter of fact. Cuddy was and is a Conservative, was not dismissed but voluntarily resigned, as he was removing to British Columbia. Boyd has since resigned and is now in partnership in British Columbia with Cuddy.
So you see that our hon. friends, in discussing matters of this kind, make some statements that are not in accordance with all the facts of the case, and we do not know how much credence to place on that list of dismissals that was read to us. For that reason I am not in a position to discuss intelligently the causes that have led up to the superannuations, removals, dismissals or resignations that take place in the different provinces. I think that we had better confine ourselves to looking after the civil servants of the Dominion of Canada. If the government will frankly carry out the views that they expressed in 1896, namely, that they will not encourage or allow officials to take part in politics, that is all that hon. gentlemen of this House have a right to expect of them.
The POSTMASTER GENERAL fHon. Sir William Mulock). Perhaps it is to be regretted that the discussion of a very import-' gnt principle is somewhat confounded with some individual cases. The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche), who introduced this motion, has rather directed it towards the application of the principle to certain
alleged violations than to the endorsement of the principle itself. After reciting in his motion the view of the right hon. Prime Minister, which represented the views of the government then and to-day, he calls, in his resolution, for censure upon the government for not having, as it is alleged, applied this principle to a particular number of cases that the hon. member gave to this House. He named a number of persons in different departments whom he says, are violating this principle. If he had communicated to the government in advance of the motion the names of the officers in question and such information as to the complaints against them as would have enabled us to make an examination, we would, upon this occasion, probably have been in a position to discuss the merits of these cases. But I think it will be conceded that you could scarcely find a more unsuitable body to determine upon questions of fact than a House such as this when the facts are not before us and are only referred to incidentally and with more or less accuracy or inaccuracy by hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House. For example, the House is asked to pass a vote of censure on the government because it has not applied this principle by dismissing the gentlemen named. In support of that proposition we have the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) telling us that the government had on other occasions dismissed a larger number of officials, he stated it at 150, and he proceeded to read to the House a long list of dismissals. He read the list of, he says, 150 persons who, he says, were dismissed for violating the principle laid down by the right hon. Premier ; that is, that they were dismissed for political partisanship. The second name upon his list was that of Mr. Hargrave. I know all about the circumstances leading to his superannuation, and I have refreshed my memory since I put the question to the hon. gentleman, and it is impossible that Mr. Hargrave could have been dismissed by us for political reasons. He was a Liberal, appointed in the time of the Mackenzie government. He and his people were all Liberals, and he is a Liberal to-day. Nor was he dismissed. He was retired on a superannuation exceeding $2,000 a year. He was a highly worthy man, but Winnipeg lias suddenly grown in importance, and it was necessary to place a younger and more active man in charge of that growing office. Solely in the public interest Mr. Hargrave was retired. He himself thought that he was quite fit to carry on the business of his office and he regretted his superannuation. I retired him with regret, but I was convinced that it was necessary to do so in the public interests alone. When he was retired it was not to make a place for any one else, liecause there was no one in view, and the office was kept vacant for a considerable time until I could find a suitable person. I attached more importance to the ap-

pointment of a suitable person than to any political consideration, and in the selection we have made I think we have been successful in finding a very suitable officer to carry on that work. I dwell upon that for a moment to show how unreliable that list must be when the second name on it is one that I know does not fairly represent the class of cases to which this resolution refers. Yet we are asked to-night to dismiss all these officers without a trial and without knowing the facts. If we were to do such a thing I am sure none would be quicker to censure us than our hon. friends on the other side of the House.


Andrew B. Ingram: You have done so all the time.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No, we have not done so all the time. We have reasons for our act. In regard to the general principle, we have never receded from it, but, as to its application, there must be some degree of judgment exercised. For example, when that principle was being announced by the right hon. leader of the government to parliament, it had reference immediately to Dominion oases; to officers in the Dominion service who had taken a more or less active part in Dominion politics. I am not saying that the principle is to be confined to Dominion politics, but when you come to extend it beyond the range of Dominion politics one might naturally ask how far it is to be extended. There are many sorts of contests that go on in the Dominion wherein political partisanship plays a large part, and yet these contests are not Dominion in their character. For instance, we have, as in the present instance, local politics wherein more or less Dominion issues are involved and political partisanship js awakened. We can go into another arena of conflict between the people-municipal politics. It frequently happens that party politics, in the larger sense, are introduced into municipal politics. It is not many months ago since some prominent representatives of the Conservative party in Ontario advocated municipal politics in our province being run on Dominion issues.


Andrew B. Ingram: So did your organizer.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: We will admit for the moment, for the purpose of argument only, that a certain contest in a village turns upon Dominion politics. Is it the opinion of this House that this principle referred to shall be applied to municipal politics ? If so, there are other forms of contests wherein political questions and political partisanship will more or less play a part. I am not saying where the rule shall apply, nor would it be wise, I think, to circumscribe the rule or to define it, but it must, I think, be limited to a general and useful application. In my opinion, the first consideration on the part of any government


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: in dealing with its officers is to see that they render efficient service to the government which employs them. That is due, not only to the government, but to the people, whose servants they are, and I take the view that a public servant should be persona grata to the community, and that it is unwise for him to take part in. any conflicts in regard to the questions that divide the people into more or less hostile parties, making it unpleasant for some patrons of the office which he occupies to have to deal with such an officer. Take the example mentioned by the hon. member from East Elgin (Mr. Ingram), who discussed this question temperately) and fairly, in regard to postmasters. I only illustrate the point that he sought to make in regard to postmasters enjoying a merely nominal salary. He thought that they should be allowed to enjoy all their civil rights untrammelled by any such rule as this. Let me give the illustration of a case of which I have knowledge, and we will see whether it would be safe in the public interest to tell all postmasters enjoying a merely nominal salary that they might be at liberty to engage in political struggles. I have had a complaint made to me that a certain postmaster enjoying a nominal salary-we will call it $20-a mere trifle, was an active member of a local political organization at these corners. The committee connected with the revision of the voters' lists met at the post office, and the postmaster himself was so deeply interested in the question of party politics that he intercepted a large number of the notices of appeal to the judge, with the result that one party failed to get the evidence before the judge and all the appeals were thrown out.


Robert Laird Borden: That was misconduct.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Of course it was. But the fact that this officer took an active part in politics kept alive in him that partisan spirit, and he yielded to the temptation and misused his office, being for the moment more anxious to promote the interest of his party than to discharge his duties towards the public.


Andrew B. Ingram: I do not think that a man who would make a capable and competent postmaster would sacrifice his citizenship for the sake of $20 a year.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I am merely giving reasons why it is impossible to determine by the degree of salary or the supposed importance of the office, whether or not this rule should apply. I believe that the rule must be, that under no circumstances must a public officer be allowed to place the public interest in a secondary position. No matter how trifling the salary may be, if a man takes a public office, the country is entitled to have him give his first consideration to the public service. Another case comes to my mind where a

postmaster under a similar temptation altered the date of a number of letters containing notices for a political meeting with the result that the meeting did not take place. Therefore, you will see that no matter how trifling the position may be, it is not safe to allow a man to take part in political strife.


Mr. CLANCY.: Did the Postmaster General make no dismissals except for offences of that kind.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: X am not discussing the abstract question, and if my hon. friend desires to discuss any particular dismissal made by me I shall be pleased to discuss that with him.


James Clancy: The Postmaster General will have an opportunity later on.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No doubt. But, when we are discussing a question of this kind on which there is no difference between us as to the principle involved, it would be inopportune to cloud the issue by discussing particular cases. I can understand that more or less feeling is injected into this discussion, because we are told by the hon. gentlemen opposite that the question comes up at the instance of the premier of Manitoba, who reports that some Dominion officials are taking part in the expected provincial campaign. The hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) stated that certain Dominion officials had used their office to bring undue influence to bear upon the electors. He told us that one went to the homesteaders and brought such pressure as an officer could bring because of their being indebted to the Crown, and in another case he referred to influence being brought in connection witli timber licenses. All I have to say is that such conduct as that is highly censurable, indefensible and inexcusable, and will not be tolerated by the government. One can hardly conceive of a public officer committing a more gross interference with the liberty of the elector, than to endeavour to intimidate him by informing him of his indebtedness to the Crown, of his obligations to the Crown, and intimating to him that it may be better or worse for him according to the way he may vote. If any officers in the employ of the Dominion government are guilty of any such offence, I am sure that I can say on behalf of the government that the government will not overlook such conduct. My hon. friend has referred to two cases in my department-one of which is the case of Mr. Stratton, who he said was connected with a newspaper. I do not know what would be the proper way of treating a man who Is connected with a newspaper; whether he ought to be dismissed or whether he ought be given the opportunity of withdrawing from one or the other, or whether it would be proper under the circumstances to permit him to continue his paper. There are circumstances particular to each case which would have to be considered. You may fill a dock with accused persons but you cannot dispose of them all by the same tribunal and the same trial, unless they are jointly concerned in the same offence. Each case has to be fairly considered and tested and dealt with according to the existing law. The existing law applicable to such cases is set forth in the speech of the Premier, recited in the resolution, and that law will be properly and justly and equitably applied to all cases brought to the attention of the government. I do not know whether my hon. friend (Mr. Roche) on reconsideration, will deliberately ask us to-night to decide to dismiss these men. I do not know if he will persist in asking us, to here and now dismiss them or promise to dismiss them without knowing the facts. I am sure that no fair minded man would ask us to prejudge the cases, and to decide now without our knowing the facts what sort of treatment should be extended to these officers. I have only to say in conclusion, that we will deal with them in harmony with the principles laid down in 1897.


William James Roche: I would like to say to the Postmaster General that I brought at least two of these cases to his attention some weeks ago.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Which two please ?


William James Roche: Mr. Watson, postmaster and secretary of the Liberal Association


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: In what way ?


William James Roche: By the way of questions I put to him. X drew his attention to the fact that Mr. Jonasson was a homestead inspector and candidate, and that Mr. Watson was secretary of the Liberal Asociation, postmaster and candidate for South Brandon.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Well, Mr. Speaker, I never until this moment was aware of any of these officers being involved in local politics. That hon. gentleman (Mr. Roche, Marquette) may have asked me some questions, but it never crossed my mind that these men were trangressiug any law. I never heard of their being identified with party politics, and I do not think the hon. gentleman will find that in any of his questions he for one moment suggested that these men were engaged in party politics.


William James Roche: Yes, Sir.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Will the hon. gentleman read the questions ?


William James Roche: X read them in my speech, but I have not got them at hand at the moment.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: If my hon. friend desired me to look into these cases with the view of announcing to-night what action should be taken it would be fairer if he had pointedly called attention to the matter in advance, so that I might try and inform myself as to the facts. I have only to say that till the hon. gentleman made his speech, I had no knowledge whatever even of the existence of any of the persons named, although I might as a matter of form have answered questions bearing upon the matter.


Robert Laird Borden: I remember an instance described by Dickens when Mr. Samuel Weller was advised by his father as to how he should spell his name.
' Spell it with a 'wee,' Samivel, said the old gentleman, and Samuel being asked by the judge whether he could see his father in court immediately looked up into the ventilator and said that he could not. The attitude of the Postmaster General with regard to these men in Manitoba reminds me of that incident. He does not want to see them, although he is sharp sighted indeed about seeing certain individuals who happen to be opposed to the Liberal party, and against whom accusations of this kind are made.


Robert Laird Borden: And yet my hon. friend the Postmaster General lias not yet awakened to the fact that there are officials of this government participating in an active way in the present political campaign in Manitoba; and my hon. friend, with the most delightful frankness, suggests that we must not prejudge these men or dismiss them without au investigation ? How many men have been dismissed since 189G without investigation ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: None, without our knowing that there was good cause for dismissal.


Robert Laird Borden: And our knowledge is very much keener sometimes than it is at other times. Why, the very case I refer to that took place only two years ago, was a case in which one of the most respectable men in the city of Halifax was dismissed without having the slightest opportunity of saying a single word in his own defence, upon the flimsiest kind of declaration, that the declarant knew that he had been canvassing.


Mr. ROCHE (Halifax).: Would the hon. gentleman be kind enough to give me his name ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not think that is a fail* observation.


Robert Laird Borden: I will show my hon. friend whether it is a fair observation or not. Since 1900, in my own county, a postmaster was dismissed without any opportunity whatever-although he demanded it-to make his defence. He was dismissed ? flimsiest possible declaration of an individual in his neighbourhood that he knew the postmaster had been canvassing.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: You are discussing the other cases now.


Robert Laird Borden: I am discussing a case which I take the liberty of bringing to the attention of the Postmaster General for the purpose of pointing out to him how much keener his vision is in some cases than it is in others.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I am afraid that is a very common complaint.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax), friend addressing me ?
Is my right hon.


The PRIME MINISTER.: No. I merelv remark that it is a general defect.


Robert Laird Borden: I think it is, particularly on that side of the House. My right hon. friend's vision is most oblique m regai-d to matters of that kind. I may ,sa?	names of these men have been
published for weeks as candidates in the province of Manitoba, not only in Conservative organs, but also in Liberal organs.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I never heard of it.


William James Roche: ilr. BORDEN (Halifax). Mr. Robert Kaulbach, postmaster of Middle Musquodo-boit.


William Roche: I will give an account of what he did afterwards.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know personally what he did, but I asked the hon. Postmaster General to bring down all the papers on which he acted, and tiiose papers contain nothing more nor less than what I have stated; because I have copies of the papers in my possession, they having been brought down in response to the motion which I made in the House for the purpose of obtaining the documentary evidence on which that man was dismissed. If there was anything further on account of which he was dismissed, all I have to say is that the hon. Postmaster General was recreant to hisi duty in not bringing it down, when 1 _ asked for all the evidence on which Air. Kaulbach had been dismissed from his position as postmaster. If the hon. gentleman knows anything more, the bon. Postmaster General did not communicate it to me, as it was his duty to do, when I moved for all the information on the subject.
Now, no one is asking the government to promise to dismiss these men. The resolution does not ask that. It simply asks the government to apply to these men in the province of Manitoba exactly the same principles that they announced in 1896, and on which they have acted so many times since. It is only in respect to the non-application of these principles that the resolution casts any censure on this government. I do not deny that mattei-s of this kind are a source

of difficulty to any government. I have no doubt whatever that they have been a source of difficulty to this government, and I have no doubt that pressure has been brought on this government to dismiss men who are still in office. But I do say that the government have yielded to pressure of that kind in a great many cases when I think it would have been better if they had held their hand or had allowed the officials the opportunity of being heard in their own defence before being dismissed. But that is not the question we are dealing with tonight. The question we are dealing with to-night is whether the government meant what they said when they laid down certain principles in this House in 1896. This resolution follows the matter up logically from beginning to end, and I will take the liberty of reading it, as it has been referred to by my hon. friend the Postmaster General. The quotations made in the resolution are only a few of many which I have under my hand, some of which have been made since the election of 1900, and in which exactly the same principles have been laid down by the right hon. leader of the government. What did my right hon. friend say in 1896 ? He said :
Now, when we find an officer in the civil service, however good a servant he may have been, however faithfully he may have discharged his duties, hut who has been an active politician, who has taken part in the election, offensively and actively, and before the eyes of the whole community, that official has become a scandal in the eyes of the community, and I have no hesitation in saying that he cannot be trusted to render faithful service to this government Where there is a government officer, he may hold his opinions, I do not care what they are ; they may be Liberal or Conservative, X do not care ; he may go and vote, and I will not inquire how he voted, but when he is seen on a public platform, when he takes part in party processions and is actively and offensively prominent as regards party candidates, that man has taken his life in his hands, and no one can have a word to say if he is dismissed from the service.
M.V right hon. friend either meant that in 1896, or he did not mean it. If it is a good principle to be applied in 1896-and it was applied in that year and the following years-it is an equally good principle to be applied now, and to be applied in the province of Manitoba as well as in other parts of Canada. Then, the first lieutenant of my right hon. friend, the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, used language even more emphatic when he said :
With members of the civil service eating the bread of both parties, and deliberately interfering in elections for the purpose of aiding one political party, if they so act they must be considered as taking their political lives in their hands, and they must accept the consequences of their own acts, and the good sense of the people of the country and their natural sense of equal justice will not merely justify, but demand at the hands of the government that they should make an example of them.
The resolution after having quoted these expressions proceeds as follows :
That other members of the government, during that session and subsequent sessions, expressed the same views.
As my right hon. friend's memory of these matters may not be very good, I would like to quote some further remarks made by himself and by his colleagues bearing on the same subject. The right hon. gentleman himself, on the 1st of September, 1896, said this :
I have no hesitation in saying at this time that if anVifficer in the service chooses to he a politician, he shall be given every opportunity by this government of being a politician. What is the cause of the abominable practice which has been stigmatized in the States, that to the victor belong the spoils ? Why was it that after every Presidential election attended by a change of parties in power, the whole civil service was cleared off, the whole body of servants of the government were forced to resign or be dismissed ? The reason is obvious, the reason is that every officer under the American system was an active politician, and being an active politician it was quite natural that when the opposite party came to power the man who had been an active politician could not be a trusted servant of the government whom he had opposed.
Then, the Minister of Trade mid Commerce, dealing with the question of what is offensive partisanship, said :
There is not much difference, there may be a difference as to the definition of * offensivenes.' I should be disposed to consider, and I think I said so at the time in accordance with the principle which the hon. gentleman lays down here, that a public servant went outside of his duty and was ' offensive,' using the word in a legal sense which might properly enough apply to him, if he became a member of the committee of a candidate, or if he were canvassing actively against a candidate, I think that wculd be stepping outside the limit which has been laid down by hon. gentleman on both sides of the House.
Then he proceeds to discuss the question, whether civil servants should not be altogether disfranchised, showing that he was not referring to Dominion elections alone, but was dealing with the general question whether civil servants should interfere in political contests at all. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce again said :
It is perfectly well known, because hon. gentlemen opposite are aware that the proposition now laid down has been stated over and over by hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House, that where a civil servant chooses, besides exercising his undoubted right to cast his vote as he pleases, to interfere actively in elections, he must of necessity take the consequences of his own act.
And my hon. friend as late as the year 1900, when discussing the case of a certain gentleman in connection with the federal election in Gaspd. said :
Both sides of the House will agree that officers of the government should not take part in
3195 '

politics. There is something repugnant to fair-play when we see an officer of the government paid with public money, using his position amongst his friends and neighbours, where Ms connections may give him influence, for the purpose of favouring one political party.
My right lion, friend can see that there is in Manitoba the spectacle of a number of the officials of this government actively taking part in politics. Sly lion, friend the Postmaster General says that it is a provincial contest, but he admits that Domin ion issues are, to a considerable extent, involved.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I did not say because I did not know, but wo may presume that they are.


Robert Laird Borden: I understood him to say that they were, but at all events there is no doubt that in Manitoba there is a contest going on in provincial politics between the two great parties of this country. Surely we are not to have the principle laid down that Dominion officials are to be at liberty to take an active part in provincial politics and that provincial officers are at liberty to become active partisans in Dominion politics. Every one of the cogent reasons advanced by the right hon. gentleman and the lion. Minister of Trade and Commerce applies equally to the public officers, whether they display their active partisanship in Dominion or in provincial contests, and I do not imagine that any hon. gentleman on the other side will undertake to draw a distinction of that kind. The resolution proposed by the hon. member for Marquette proceeds as follows :
The government, acting upon the principles and rules so laid down, have since dismissed a very large number of officers on the ground of alleged partisanship.
There is no question about that. Every one in this House knows that to be the case, and that it has been justified over and over in this House by hon. gentlemen opposite. Then the resolution proceeds as follows :
That an application of the principles and rules so laid own for the guidance of public officials would result in the dismissal of those officers of the government who have become ' a scandal in the eyes of the community '-
These are the right hon. gentleman's own words :

by taking an active offensive and partisan
part in the election campaign now being carried on in the province of Manitoba, and who, while * eating the bread of both parties ' ' are deliberately interfering in elections for the purpose of aiding one political party.' This House regrets that the government has not seen fit to deal with such officials in accordance with the declarations of principles so made and so often acted upon.
It seems to me that the resolution proposed by my hon. friend from Marquette is one which ought to commend itself to Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
the government. There may be something in the use of the word ' regret ' which implies a censure on the government. However, I have no doubt that my hon. friend from Marquette, if the government object to the use of that word and desii-e to affirm the principles laid down by the Prime Minister in I89G and again in 1900, would use some other word which would not be offensive to the government, in asking it to declare that these principles still prevail. If we are to have a non-partisan civil service in this country, it will not do for the government to lay down in 1890 principles such as were then laid down by my right hon. friend and to act on those from 1896 to 1903, and then in the year 1903, when the officials of this government by the dozen are in Manitoba taking an active part in the elections, calmly hold its hands and shut its eyes and say that it knows nothing about it. My hon. friend the Postmaster General suggests rather than says that the government does not know anything about those officials.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I made a very positive statement on the subject.


Robert Laird Borden: The government knows about these officials just in the same way that it knew about the acts of the exMinister of Public Works. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister thought that statements published in the newspapers of speeches were sufficient to justify him in dismissing a minister of the Grown. Yet the hon. Postmaster General shuts his eyes to what is going on in the public press. He is blind to the fact that in Manitoba the names of these men are paraded from day to day in the public press or that province, on both sides of politics, and tells this House that the government have not had time to consider the question. What was denounced by the right hon. gentleman in 1896 can go on now, and the government seek to shrink responsibility by saying that they are absolutely surprised to learn that any of their officials in Manitoba are actively engaged in the political campaign going on in that province. No such pretense can save the government. The government know what is going on just as jyell as we do. They and their friends read the newspapers. These things are brought to their attention. They know every fact with regard to these men just as well as hon. gen tlemen on this side. These are facts of public notoriety. They are scandals which have been talked about in Manitoba for the last four or five weeks, and during all that time this government, which has ben so zealous since 1896 that its civil service should be free from all partisanship, will not lift its finger to suppress political partisanship on the part of civil servants, but says it knows nothing at all about it. I do not believe that any evasion of that kind will stand the government in good stead. I am bound

to assume that they meant something by the declaration they laid down in 189G. I am bound to assume that these declarations were not mere cant, and if not, the government should have taken some action before this and have made some investigation into these matters published to the world in the press for weeks past, and should compel their public officers in Manitoba, who are paid by both parties, who are eating the bread of the people of this country, to refrain from taking a partisan part in the political affairs of this country. I think that the resolution of my hon. friend from Marquette is one it was his duty to make as a representative of the province of Manitoba, and one which should commend itself to every one who believes that the government, in laying down the principles it did in 1896, was sincerely and honestly expressing its convictions and not making a mere excuse for getting rid of its political opponents.


Mr.   W@: I shall not venture to discuss the part taken by Dominion officials in the local elections of Manitoba, for that is the subject about which X know nothing. But when hon. gentlemen opposite declare that it is a horrible outrage that officials of this government should take part in the local elections on behalf of Liberal candidates, is it not as great an offence for officials of this government who are Tories to canvass and use every partisan means against the government which is now in power and which is their master ? Now, if that principle prevails in Manitoba it ought to prevail in Nova Scotia and every other province. With regard to the special incident mentioned by my hon. colleague the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) I do him the credit of saying that I do not think he knows anything personally of the circumstances. He speaks on the basis of what has been reported to him. But I think I know something personally on the subject, because X know the person and I have been present in the locality during several elections. In 1896 the Liberal Conservative party was in power. What the gentleman did during the election then I could excuse, because his patrons and friends were in power, and I do not think it is so great an offence for an official to work or use his influence for a government in power as it is for him to canvass against the government. This gentleman was petitioned against to me; the request was sent to me signed by a number of individuals that he should be dismissed. I said I could not recommend the dismissal on such grounds. The fact that an officer was a Tory, that he was opposed to the government, that he had voted against myself, was not a sufficient ground for dismissal. 1 was furnished with affidavits of three or four reputable people that this man had canvassed against the nominee of the present government, and that his house was
headquarters for the Tory party in that district. On that ground I recommended his dismissal; and I take the liberty of saying that if I discover other postmasters of this government who are guilty of the same proceedings, I will recommend the government to dismiss them also. Now, in the county of Halifax-and I think the same is general throughout Nova Scotia-the postmasters and other government officials are largely Tories. So far as I am concerned, while they do their duty they can vote Tory if they please. They ought to support the government in power, but I shall not move hand or foot against them if they exercise their franchise and do not become partisans. But if they go out of their way to canvass voters, to use their influence against this government, when the matter is brought to my notice by responsible and reputable men, I shall probably move for their dismissal. On the same principle hon. gentlemen opposite have called for the reprobation of officials that work against the government in Manitoba.


Robert Laird Borden: Then, you will vote for this resolution ?


Mr.   ROOXIE@.Halifax: Oh, of course, you will vote with us too. I would like to say further that, at the time of an election, these postmasters in the county of Halifax are apt to keep literature sent out by the Liberal party for digestion at some future period, while all the Tory literature is very quickly circulated. I think a thing like that should meet with the reprehension of my hon. colleague (Mr. Borden, Halifax). No doubt his voice will be raised against it. But if I find a case of that kind and the facts are made known to me by reputable individuals supported with affidavits, I will take the liberty of moving the government to dismiss him. Every man, so far as I am concerned, shall be free to exercise his franchise according to his own ideas. But when an official of the government goes out of his way to arouse the prejudices of the people against the government and makes the post office the headquarters of the opposition party, I will move for his dismissal.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: If my hon. friend (Mr. Roche, Marquette) who has moved this resolution were really in earnest, if this object was to have the principle he affirms put in practice, he will admit, on reflection, that he has selected the very best course that could be selected to prevent the adoption of his idea. He complained that certain officers of the government in Manitoba are interfering in the elections in that province, and the first thing he does to bring the matter to the attention of the government is a motion of censure. My hon. friend shakes his head. Well, what else has been done to bring the matter to the attention of the government ? He gave his answer

a moment ago to the lion. Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Muloek). He says that a few days ago he put some questions as to whether the Postmaster General had been informed of such and such matters. But if my hon. friend the Postmaster General did not take that as an intimation that the object of the hon. gentleman was to bring it to his attention that these officers were openly violating the rule laid down by the government, the hon. gentleman has only himself to blame. It is impossible to admit the doctrine laid down by the leader of the opposition on this point. He stated that the government should have known, forsooth, that there were certain officers of theirs who were candidates and taking part in the election, as was a matter of public notoriety, and their names appeared in the newspapers. But does the hon. gentleman contend that when I read the ' Telegram ' or the ' Free Press,' or any other Manitoba newspaper and see the name, for instance, of Thomas Young in the list of candidates, that I am to know that this Mr. Young is an officer of the government ? Is it to be seriously said that, looking at the newspaper and without any other information, we should know that this candidate is one of our officers upon whom we should have our eye and should see to his withdrawal from the candidature. Surely it is only reasonable to expect that, if my hon. friend on the other side has fair reason to complain that certain officers of ours are not acting up to the rules which we have laid down with regard to official conduct, it would be their business to call the attention of the government to the matter in some other way than by a motion of censure. If he had done this we should have looked into the matter. But from the statement he has made to-day I am not prepared to say I would act upon the recommendation he has made. He has selected especially three instances, those of Mr. Martin Jerome, Mr. Jonasson, and Thomas Young. As to the first instance, that of Mr. Martin Jerome, the hon. gentleman ought to know himself, in fact he cannot but know, that Mr. Jerome does not come within the category of those upon whom he wishes to invoke the censure of the government, for he is not a member of the civil service. Mr. Jerome is sometimes employed by the government, but he is not in the regular service and does not receive his cheque every month as the members of the civil service do. He has been employed from time to time by the government as a bush-ranger or in some such capacity. The hon. gentleman knows that, under such circumstances, the government has no control over Mr. Jerome and cannot call upon him to desist from being a candidate; the government has no more power over him than it would have over my hon. friend (Mr. Roche) if he were a candidate, as he will be some time. Therefore, as to this first Sir WILFRID BAURIER.
case, the hon. gentleman will find that it would have served a good purpose if, before bringing his motion in the way he has done, he had called the attention of the government to the alleged dereliction of duty on the part of Mr. Jerome.
Again, take the case of Mr. Jonasson. Mr. Jonasson, I understand, is one of our officers, I do not know in what capacity, but he is in the pay of the government. He ought not to take any part in any politics. I say deliberately that for my part I feel as strongly now, in 1SX)3, as I did in 1896, that when a man has taken a position in the civil service, he should take no part whatever in politics. He becomes an officer of the public, receiving the pay of all parties, he owes his services alone to the position which he occupies. If he wants to vote let him vote, but let him exercise his franchise in a way that will not be offensive to anybody. I say now that whenever one of our officers has been guilty of dereliction of duty, and when his name and the circumstances have been called to our attention, we shall ask him to explain whether the charge is true or not. Some time ago Mr. Robliu, the premier of the province of Manitoba, called attention to this case. I have not heard his speech, only the summary of it given to us this afternoon by the hon. member for Marquette, and he stated that it was the duty of this man either to withdraw from the political field or to withdraw from the service. Well, we cannot dismiss him unless the matter is brought to our attention. As to the case of Mr. Jonasson I understand that he has taken part in politics, as stated by the hon. member for Marquette, and in his case we shall cause inquiry to be made. But I must say that the situation is very peculiar in the province of Manitoba. There is no province in the Dominion where the political axe has been so active as in Manitoba. We have just been told that 150 dismissals have been made in Manitoba between 1896 and 1900 by this government. Sir, I challenge the accuracy of that statement, I deny it in toto. I am satisfied that the hon. gentleman from Macdonald has been misinformed. It is a long list to go through, but we have already seen three or four instances where he was shown to have been led astray, and I am satisfied that if this whole matter were investigated he would be found to be astray in one-half his cases, even more than one-half. But I do not admit a single case where we have been derelict, either in Manitoba or elsewhere, I do not admit there has been a single dismissal except for cause. But in the province of Manitoba, unfortunately, there have been dismissals by wholesale. At this very moment when my hon. friend from Marquette, in a moment of exasperated virtue, asks us to call upon our officers to withdraw, to stay their hand- at this very moment I have information that officials of the local government are openly

taking part in elections. It may not be true, I hope it is not true; but I am inclined to believe there is some truth in it, according to a speech which we had this afternoon by the member from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster). He gave the whole case away when he stated of his own party : We have made no pledges in that matter, we have no policy and no principle in that matter.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I did not say that, that we had no principle in the matter.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I must be candid with my hon. friend, I am glad to hear that he repudiates the doctrine. But though he did not say that in so many words, he did say this : We have made no declaration on this point, but the government have made a declaration on this matter and they must be compelled to live up to it. Then by implication, if the Conservative party have made no declaration, therefore they are at liberty to do as they please. If my hon. friend does not admit that kind of logic, at least it is applicable to the case. But I am glad to accept his disclaimer, not only in words but in spirit also, that they have no principle in the matter. I believe that he wants us in the province of Manitoba to live up to our doctrine, and we shall take good care that his own side also shall live up to that doctrine, which seems to meet with his approval. I have only to say with regard to this motion that 'it is a vote of censure where no censure whatever has been incurred. With regard to the information which the hon. gentleman says he gave to the Postmaster General, my hon. friend has just given me the question which the hon. member for Marquette asked the minister a few days ago :


Mr. ROCHE (Marquette) asked :: 1.	Is Mr. S. Jonasson an employee of the De-partmeiit of the Interior, in the province of Manitoba, as forest-ranger or homestead inspector ?
2.	If so, is the government aware that he is the Liberal candidate for the constituency of Gimli in the ensuing provincial elections ?
3.	Will his services be continued by this government while he is engaged in party politics.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	The government has no information that Mr. Jonasson is a candidate for Gimli.
3.	If he is a candidate, he will not be continued as a salaried official of the department.


Rufus Henry Pope: The Postmaster General seeks to obscure the evidence of dismissals that have taken place from time to time in various parts of Canada. These chickens will come home to roost, Mr. Speaker, and no doubt the hon. gentlemen will live to regret many times the action they have taken in many individual instances during the years they have been in power. When the statement is made that every dismissal of postmasters and others has been made for good cause, Sir, 101
I take exception to that statement in so far as our district at least is concerned. I am not going to speak for the province of Manitoba, but for the section of country from which I come. There have been dismissals made without cause, without the slightest cause, and which do not redound to the credit of the Postmaster General or of this government. The Postmaster General is perfectly aware of the fact. I brought it to his attention at the time, that when Miss Angus was dismissed no cause whatever was alleged. That young lady kept a country post office, on her salarv depended her own livelihood and that of her mother; and the government committed a cruelty in dismissing her which shall never be forgotten in that section of the country, or in this House, so long as I am here as the representative of that constituency. I am perfectly willing that this government or any other should enjoy the legitimate fruits of power. I do not object to that, I expect them to do it. I expect them to reward their friends. I do not object to that so long as they do not interfere with the public interest. But when they do, of course they must expect to be subjected to the criticism to which they are entitled. But, Sir, when they go out of their way to serve miserable, low, sectional, party interests, in some small communities that should be beneath the consideration of any department or any minister, when they descend to that depth, they must expect to be criticised and blamed for it. I would call the attention of the right hon. leader of the government to the fact that he only read one of the answers to those questions. It is peculiar that even in this House, where books are open and where more than one man can read, we should find the right hon. leader of the government forgetting himself and the high dignity of his position to such an extent as a partisan that he has failed in his effort to be fair. We find him reading one question put by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche), the answer to which gave an opportunity of applause from the hon. gentlemen who sit behind him. The answer to that question was :
If he is a candidate, he will not be continued as a salaried official of the department.
Applause from hon. gentlemen behind. But, the other question is this :
1.	Is the government aware that Mr. John Watson, postmaster at Nesbitt, Manitoba, is the president of the South Brandon Liberal Association ; and the Libera] candidate for that constituency in the ensuing elections in that province ?
2.	Will his services be continued by this government while he is engaged in party politics?
. The POSTMASTER GENERAL CHon. Sir William Mulock). The department has no information whatever as to whether Mr. John Watson is the president of the South Brandon Liberal Association or the Liberal candidate for that constituency in the ensuing elections in that province.



That does not say what is going to happen to him. If the right hon. gentleman had read that one would he have received that applause ? I do not believe he would have received it. I would like to know from the hon. Postmaster General how much correspondence he has in regard to this man being a candidate. This was on the 8th of April, and it is now the 15th of May. It takes three or four days to communicate with that part of the country and the hon. Postmaster General has had five weeks in which to ascertain the facts. I would like to see the correspondence brought down and placed on the Table showing how much interest the hon. minister had taken in that question during the past five weeks. I will venture to say that he has taken none whatever. I am sure the hon. gentleman has never thought of it and never intended to think of it again if this debate had not been 'brought up. Now, the right hon. leader of the government says :	You are
in great haste. You should have prepared your resolution in other terms if you wished to win the object you seem to seek. There was a question asked in regard to Mr. Jerome in 1899, by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche) and what was the answer to it ? The right hon. gentleman says:	We pay him spasmodically. We
pay him when it suits our purpose. When we can have some excuse for rewarding this political tool we pay, but when it is inconvenient, when there is an election on hand, when we want to have our hands clean so that we can hold them up to high heaven and say :	Look at the grand principles that were laid down by this government two or three years ago. When we want to stand in that sort of atmosphere we do not pay Mr. Jerome. We pass over thirty or sixty days and then we give him his back-pay because that gentleman receives, as bush-ranger, or forest-ranger, the pay which is good enough for any man. He is receiving a great deal more to-day than he would as a legislator of the country and he is under a far greater obligation to the political organization that creates this government than he is to his legislative duties so far as measuring it by dollars and cents is concerned. The hon. Postmaster General claimed great credit for the easy way in which he has disposed of the venerable ex-postmaster of Winnipeg. He seemed to think that he had got rid of that gentleman in most beautiful style, in a way that should have felt comfortable to the poor old man. He removed him because he was getting old. He was as strong and vigorous as he is to-day. Every man who goes to Winnipeg and sees him knows that he is one of the examples that is pointed out, and as we go there we are reminded of the great fight that took place for a whole year between Mr. McIntyre and Mr. Conklin as to who should get the position vacated by the postmaster. That was the question


Rufus Henry Pope: at issue. They would have dismissed the postmaster a year before they did if they could have arranged for his successor. That gentleman enjoyed his salary for a year longer than was intended. lie would have been officially executed by the lion. Postmaster General twelve months previously and he would have been relieved of the pain and trouble that worried him so much. They worried him so that he remained in office for over seventeen years and is still alive and in good health, I wish the hon. Postmaster General would prescribe some such worry for me. In 1899 the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche) asked :
1.	Is Mr. Martin Jerome an employee of the Interior Department in the province of Manitoba as forest-ranger or in any other capacity ?
2.	If so. is he the same gentleman who is the Liberal candidate for the constituency of Carillon in the ensuing elections in that province?
3.	Will his services be continued by the government while he is engaged in party politics ?
This is the answer :


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Mr. Sif-ton).: 1. Mr. Martin Jerome is an employee of the Interior in the province of Manitoba as forest-ranger. 2. Inquiry has elicited the fact that Mr. Jerome has been tendered but has not accepted a nomination for the legislature.
3.	Should Mr. Jerome accept the nomination his employment in.his present capacity will cease.
That was' in 1899. Do you not see how they got out of that 1 It does not say anything about his being elected. If he were elected then he would become intensely useful to hon. gentlemen opposite, and they could not afford to get rid of him. Mr. Jerome was the gentleman wh6 commanded the situation in this case-not the government. The government were bound to keep Mr. Jerome. If he had been defeated and driven from politics they possibly could have afforded to sacrifice him as they did that poor old gentleman who represented the splendid Liberal principles of Alexander Mackenzie's time, but who had to make way for Mr. McIntyre who wanted that office. I shall be pleased to read a letter to the right hon. gentleman which will interest him and I am sure it is one in which he will have some faith. It is addressed to the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Boyd), and it reads as follows :
Premier's Office,
Winnipeg, May 4, 1903.
N. Boyd, Esq., M.P.,
Ottawa, Ont.
My dear Boyd,-I have your letter of the 30th April and have noted its contents. Am pleased to see that the party purposes to compel the government to make a declaration as to the propriety of homestead inspectors, particularly in the country canvassing and using their positions as officials of the Dominion government to intimidate electors into voting against convictions and further charging up their expenses in connection with canvassing and organization meetings, as an expense in discharge of official duties. It certainly is the greatest outrage that has ever been perpetrated in this country and

I cannot believe that Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who so far as I know him, is an honourable' man, will permit this sort of thing to continue. There is no question about the facts, they are absolutely indisputable and therefore you and others can make as strong statements as you like, as to what they are doing. Only on Saturday an Icelander came in 40 miles to report to me a meeting that he attended when out north of St. Laurent at which Captain Jonasson was present and spoke, but would not allow a single representive of the government a moment of time in which to address the meeting and the burden of his cry was his ability to do them favours as homestead inspector. These are the reports that come to me by men that feel the effects of his presence. I have not yet seen Powers or Barrett, but I presume will in the course of a few days.
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd.) R. P. ROBLIN.
Those are facts. Those facts can be ascertained by this government. Why, to say that this government know nothing of what is going on in Manitoba, to say that they have no interest in the election in Manitoba, when the hon. Postmaster General can stand up in this House and say that he is one of the members of the Liberal government that has no knowledge of what is going on in Manitoba, that he does not read the public press the same as other people in this country, is something that it is hard for hon. gentlemen on this side of the House to accept. Why, Mr. Speaker, he reads it here half the time in our faces when we are talking to him. I believe the Postmaster General to be a great reader of newspapers. I have seen him spend hours reading them In this House when we wanted his attention. Surely he must read something besides the Toronto ' Globe ' and the Toronto ' Star.' X feel positive that the Postmaster General made a mistake, and that if he ever gets an opportunity he will never make that speech of his over again in just the same way. He is a reading man. He knows that there is an election pending in Manitoba; he knows from the questions which were put to him by the hon. member for Marquette, and which he answered, that these gentlemen are candidates and employees of this government. He knows it from the letter which I have read to-night from the hon. Mr. Roblin. He knows that his friends behind him have made no defence to-night. True, they have said that we did the same thing, but two wrongs do not make a right, and that is no argument. He knows that his own supporters do not get up to defend him to-night, and he knows that they know that there is an election in Manitoba and that these men are candidates in that election. The minister must be franker with this House. Perhaps it is that they are sorry for the principle they have laid down. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that every time the Postmaster General attempts to tie himself up to high minded principle he is sorry for it, and the same thing ap-101$
plies to the Prime Minister, and to the other members of the cabinet. During their whole political life they have been trampling under their feet every principle that they had, whether in power or out of power. Sir, there is a sacred principle involved in this resolution, a principle set forth in the very words of the Prime Minister, and we ask him to enforce that principle, and to vindicate his words. X ask him for the sake of himself, for the sake of his government, and for the sake of the country to enforce that principle without hesitation, and not go back on his words again. If there is a word in that resolution that he would like to have struck out let him ask the hon. member (Mr. Roche) to strike it out, and my hon. friend will do so. But, above all, let the Prime Minister enforce his declared principle which is recorded in his own words in the pages of ' Hansard.' Let the right hon. gentleman enforce this principle, I say it again, and let him declare to the people of this country that the first duty of himself and his government is to represent the people of Canada, whether they be Liberals or Conservatives, or Grits or Tories.
House divided on the amendment (Mr. Roche of Marquette).
YEAS :
Messieurs
Birkett,	MacLaren (Perth),
Blain,	McIntosh,
Borden (Halifax),	Morin.
Boyd,	Pope.
Clancy,	Richardson,
Cochrane,	Robinson (Elgin),
Earle,	Roche (Marquette),
Haekett,	Sherri tt,
Halliday,	Tolton,
Lancaster,	Vrooman,
LaRiviSre,	Wilson.-22.
	NAYS :
	Messieurs
Angers,	Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),
Archambault,	Lavergne,
Bazinet,	Law,
Belcourt,	LeBlanc,
Bernier,	Loy.
Bickerdike, ,	Macdonald,
Borden (Sir Frederick), MacKinnon,	
Bourassa,	Macpherson,
Bourbonnais,	McCreary,
Brown,	McEwen,
Bureau.	McGugan,
Campbell,	Malouin,
Carroll,	Marcil (Bonaventure),
Champagne,	Martineau,
Christie,	Mayrand,
Copp,	Mignault,
Costigan,	Mulock (Sir William),
Davis,	Paterson,
Delisle,	PrSfontaine,
Demers (St. John),	Puttee,
DesJardins,	Reid (Restigouche),
Douglas,	Riley,
Erb,	Roche (Halifax),
Ethier,	Ross (Victoria, N.S.),
Fielding,	Rousseau,
Fitzpatrick,	Russell,
Fortier,	Scott,
Gallery,	Stewart,

Qeoffrlon,
Gibson,
Gould,
Heyd,
Holmes.
Hughes (King's, P.E.I.), Wade, Johnston (Cape Breton), Wallaee.-Lang,
Sutherland (Oxford), Talbot,
Tolmie,
Tucker.
Turgeon,
-71.
Ministerial.
Grant,
Harty.
Beith,
Dugas, Lemieux,
PAIRS :
Opposition.
Bennett,
Thomson (Grey), Johnston (Cardwell), Hale,
Sproule,
Maclaren (Huntingdon), Lennox,
Mackie,
Wright,
Ross (Ontario),
Tobin,
Guthrie,
Sutherland (Essex),
Morrison.
Blair,
Pra'ser,
Chariton,
McColl,
Emmerson,
Johnston (Lambton)
Dyment,
Hyman,
Cartwright,
(Sir Richard),
Logan,	_
Thompson (Haldimand), Ingram, Calvert.	Taylor,
Bdland.	Alcorn.
Bruneau,	Avery,
Carbonneau,	Barker,
Cowan,	Brock.
Demers (Lfivis),	Broder,
Farquharson,	Bruce,
Fisher,	Monk,
Gallery,	Cargill,
Gauvreau,	Carscallen.
German,	Casgrain,
Girard,	Clare,
Harwood,	Clarke,
Kendall,	Culbert,
Laurier (L'Assomption),Ganong,
Rosamond,
La veil,
Reid (Grenville),
Ball.
Porter,
Northrup,
Gourley,
Henderson.
Bell.
Tisdale,
Ward,
Fowler,
Simmons,
McCormick.
Gilmour,
Tupper,
(Sir Charles Hibbert) Lefurgey,
Sifton,
Lovell,
McCarthy,
McCool,
Mclsaac,
McLennan,
Madore,
Marcil (Bagot),
Matheson,
Meigs,
Oliver,
Parmelee,
Power,
Proulx,
Stephens,
Ross (Yukon), Schell,
Haggart,
Hughes (Victoria), Kaulbach,
Kemp,
Kendry,
Kidd.
Leonard,
Maclean,
McGowan,
Calvin.
Osier,
Pringle,
Robinson (North), Roddick,
Seagram,
Smith (Wentworth), Wilmot.
Amendment negatived, and House went into Committee of Supply.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the hon. gentleman propose actually going on with supply at this hour of the night ?


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: The night is quite young.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend's idea about the night are not very creditable


Rufus Henry Pope: to his habits. My ideas of it would lead me to take the very opposite view of the situation. As we have been sitting pretty late several nights this week. I do not think it is advisable to go on with the estimates.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We have been having very entertaining discussions, but we have not been doing very much work. I hope my hon. friend will now give us a chance to do some work.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know what my hon. friend calls work. We have been discussing matters of great public interest, and I Would like to remind him that the fact that last evening was wasted was due entirely


Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.).: To the teapot.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend from Victoria cannot forget that teapot. I think he is really desirous that it should be brought here and placed on the Table in order that hon. gentlemen might enjoy the benefits thereof. If it is placed there, I am sure that it will be placed near my hon. friend from Victoria, and that he will have the first opportunity to test it.


William Ross: I think it would be well to place it in the museum.


Richard Blain: Along with the hon. gentleman's certificate of superannuation.


Robert Laird Borden: We have been sitting very late, and I really think the hon. gentleman should not go on.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We might take a few items. It is only half-past ten o'clock.


Robert Laird Borden: The fact that my hon. friend cannot see exactly what time it is, is an indication


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am trusting to the opposition clock, which is perhaps unreliable.


Robert Laird Borden: The opposition clock happens this time to agree with the government clock, which says it is twenty minutes to eleven.


Mr. FRASER.: Go on ; we will have a holiday next week.


Robert Laird Borden: This is the first time that I have known ray hon. friend from Guysborough to be eager for work. I must ask, at any rate, that we should not do what we did last night-go back and do a lot of work over again.
RiviOre Chateauguay-dredging, $5,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I was asked to let this item stand until I could give information as to what money had been spent on this work previously. The return shows that the work was commenced in 1875-6, and it has been continued

almost every year since, the total amount spent up to the present time being $47,142.


Hr. MORIN.: Is that river navigable at all.


The MINISTER OF RUBRIC WORKS.: I understand that it is.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: It may be navigable for Indian canoes, but that is about all. Is it navigable for any steamer or yawl boat or ships of any kind ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If my hon. friend is familiar with the locality, he will know that there is a line of steamers from Lachiue to Beauliarnois on that river. I judge from the various expenditures made from 1875 that this is a warrantable expenditure. The dredging lias to be continued, as the channel is continually filling up.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: I may say to the hon. minister that I know nothing about that river, but I know a great deal about the country generally. From the landing to the St. Lawrence the distance is very short, and I cannot see how the river can be navigable except for small boats.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend is mistaken.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: To what extent am I mistaken, will you please tell the House ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My information is that steamers drawing six or seven feet of water are running daily on that route.


Mr. BROWN.: The steamers run from Beauliarnois to Chateauguay, from there to Lachine, and from there to Montreal, and return by the same route to Beauliarnois.


James Clancy: I would like to ask the Minister of Public Works if he has a report of the engineer with regard to this expenditure generally 7 If so, what is the nature of the report ? Is it a report for work to be done during the present yeai-, or does it cover the expenditure for several years ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is an estimate of the cost of the work for the coming year. There has been some expenditure almost every year. The information from the engineer is that the soil is sandy and the channel fills up, and so long as there is navigation on the river, the dredging will have to be done almost every season.


James Clancy: What engineer made the report ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief engineer of the department.


James Clancy: What is his name ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Mr. Lafleur.


James Clancy: There was an expenditure of a considerable sum last year. Was there a separate report for that expenditure ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief engineer informs me that he has a report every year regarding this work.


James Clancy: Does that report set out specifically each year the character of the work to be done ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: All the reports received from the resident engineers must show what work is necessary and where.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman says that he has a report of all the work done last year, and another one of the work proposed to be done. Will the hon: gentleman lay those reports on the Table ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Certainly, I shall only be too pleased.


James Clancy: Is this work one which has to be repeated every year ? Does the river fill up every year and have the materials to be removed ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There appears to have been done almost every year some dredging on this river.


Robert Laird Borden: Is the sum voted actually used in dredging every year ? A few days ago we were told that money voted for the purpose of dredging had been actually used in the construction of roads.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I shall be very pleased to have all the particulars concerning any such case.


Robert Laird Borden: That statement was made on the vote for dredging in the lower St. Lawrence. The ex-Minister of Public Works said he had found out too late that a certain portion of the vote had been expended in the construction of roads.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I shall inquire into that. The money voted now will be used for the exact purpose for which it is voted.


Robert Laird Borden: There is some increase over what was voted last year.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: $3,000 were voted last year, and I am informed by the chief engineer that this amount is really necessary, as there is a great obstruction there to navigation.


Mr. RICHARDSON.: This seems a considerable outlay for the purpose of accommodating one small steamer. Are there any other boats on the river and to what extent is the navigation of this river serviceable ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am informed that there are other boats, but this is a regular line which runs daily.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: How far up the river do the boats go from the St. Lawrence ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: A'bout twelve miles.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: I thought it was a small river.


James Clancy: I would like to ask the hon. minister if the character of the work is such as to require the same exi>enditure every year ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, I find that the amounts vary. In 1875-6 the amount was $1,GS0. In 1883-4 it was $4,290; in 1887-8, $3,214; in 1890, $757: in 1897-S, $5,242; in 1898-9, $4,725; in 1900, $3,700; in 1901-2, $3,530.


Mr. COCHRANE.: Is this river utilized for any other purposes than to accommodate a small passenger steamer ? Is there any commerce on it of any kind V


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am informed that there is a very large trade done there with Montreal.


Nathaniel Boyd: The hon. gentleman should be able to give some information about what that trade is when lie asks for a vote of this amount. What is the volume of the trade done ? When we are asked to spend $5,000 per year in dredging this river, we ought to know what trade there is to warrant this expenditure. We have rivers in the Northwest we would like to see improved, but we can scarcely get a dollar for that purpose. $4,000 or $5,000 per year is pretty nearly all we get for public works in the Territories. And on this little river, twelve miles long, we are spending $5,000 per year.


James Pollock Brown: During the summer months at Chateauguay and Ste. PliilomSne, there is so much freight that this boat cannot carry it all. Three years ago the water became so low that the people did not know wliat they were going to do, and were it not for the dredging every year, it would be impossible for boats to touch at that point.
The boat from Beauharnois touches there every morning, and that is the only shipping'point in that vicinity, by which the people can send provisions to Montreal.


Andrew B. Ingram: Who are L. Cohen & Son ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: They are the proprietors of the dredge doing the work.


Andrew B. Ingram: Is that the Little Giant ? The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. Yes.


Andrew B. Ingram: Will the hon. gentleman tell us the capacity of the ' Little Giant ' ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Six hundred yards.


Andrew B. Ingram: What price does the government pay for a dredge of that capacity tier hour ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Eight dollars per hour.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: 


James Clancy: Is not that a high price for a dredge of that capacity ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is the price that has been paid for many years.


Andrew B. Ingram: Does that include scows ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, that includes the whole plant.


Andrew B. Ingram: Where do they dump the sand taken out of the river ? As I understand it this must be dredged every year. Does that mean that the material is dumped at a place where it will be likely to get back again ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The sand is deposited in deep water in the river St. Lawrence.


Andrew B. Ingram: At what distance ?	"


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: About three miles.


James Clancy: How long has the dredge been at work there ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief engineer is not able to give me that information exactly. It has been there . for a good many years.


James Clancy: I suppose this is a case of a gentleman having what is called a soft job. I notice that in 1901 there was a vote of $6,000 taken for that work; in 1902. $3,000, and now in 1903-4, $5,000 is being asked. These are the amounts in the main estimates, probably if I examined the supplementary estimates I should find other votes as well. Certainly the government ought to be able to show that there is very important traffic on that river. The keeping up of an expenditure of this kind year after year becomes a very serious question. Here we find an average of about $5,000 a year spent for three years. There should be very important traffic to warrant such important expenditure. My hon. friend from Macdonald (Sir. Boyd) has pointed out that in the province of Slanitoba. there are very pressing works there for which it does not seem possible to get a dollar, and I know of many urgent cases in Ontario. I am not trying now to raise any sectional issue. But, wherever such work is located, where so much is spent there ought to be urgent public reasons for it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) might go back to 1883, 1884, and 1S85, if this is an undeserving work. Tlie hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) is an old member of the House, and he might go back ten or fifteen years, during which nearly the same amount of money was spent from time to time on this work. Of course, that is no justification, if the work is not a proper one, but I have heard no intimation that it is not. The chief engineer informs me that the reason we are asking this amount this year is that there

is a rocky skoal to be removed, which will lessen the future expenditure necessary. If that is correct, I hope the hon. gentleman will see that it is better to spend a little money and try to do the work properly than go on as we have been doing for the last twenty years, spending money and not doing any good. The chief engineer tells me that if this money is spent, the same expenditure which has gone on, the amounts which have previously been expended will not be required in the future.


James Clancy: Perhaps the engineer will explain what was done with this $6,000 in 1901, when there is still this rock to be removed and $5,000 is being asked tills year ? I do not know whether that money was spent, but the vote was asked. Was it to remove part of this rock, or has the engineer discovered all of a sudden that there is this rock requiring an expenditure of $5,000 for its removal ? My hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) is too good a business man. and too logical, when he thinks proper to be logical, to use as a justification for useless expenditures now, the statement that there were useless expenditures under the former government. I do not think we can afford to carry the mistakes of either the Liberal or the Conservative governments. We must judge our expenditures by the advantage they yield to the public. I hope the hon. gentleman will not lay down any contrary principle. Speaking for myself, I am not here to defend a single act, either deliberate or mistaken, with regard to previous expenditures in this country. It is our plain duty to see to it that the public money is expended only upon works necessary in the public interest. Now, if there is any traffic in this river, it would seem to be of a feeble character, for the hon. gentleman has not told us what it is as a justification of this expenditure. Even though the traffic is small, if this expenditure completed the work, it would be a different matter. But, if we are to go on with large expenditures year after year for no better reason than that advanced by the hon. gentleman, I venture the opinion that we have no real reason for the voting of this money at all. We have come to the time in Canada, when, so far as taking the public money for merely political purposes is concerned, we can afford to retrace our steps. If the former government has been guilty of expenditures of that kind, that is no reason why the Liberal party should pursue the same course, or why, pursuing it, they should cite the actions of their predecessors as justification for what they are doing. Our expenditures are becoming more pressing; new districts are opening up and demands are becoming greater than our revenues will meet. We have come to the time when both parties can afford to learn by the mistakes of the past. I am not making charges, but, I fear that neither side can hold themselves guiltless in this respect. I know there is always some difficulty in a government resisting pressure from the outside. I know that there are many cases that are meritorious probably while there are others in regard to which extreme pressure is brought to bear for the purpose of having an expenditure made that governments have to yield to.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I said most emphatically that it was no justification for asking a vote to say that it was an improper expenditure in the past. I did not use that as an ai'gument why the amount should be voted, but, the other night, when the subject was under discussion, I was asked by an hon. gentleman opposite how long this dredging had been done on this river, and in answering the question, I said I did not think it should be considered an improper work. I said that parliament had voted an appropriation for such a long time that it must be a justifiable work, not as the hon. member for Both-well states, for improper or for political purposes. I may mention that the constituency was a Liberal constituency while the late Conservative government made this expenditure.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: Circumstances may have changed very materially.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not think my hon. friend (Mr. Cochrane) will say that this amount was spent for the purpose of influencing this constituency. The only argument I used was that this work, having been carried on, it was fair to assume that it was a necessary work. There has been no statement made in this House or out of it to indicate that there has been anything improper about it. I was acting on the advice of the chief engineer of the department in regard to it. I dare say that the former ministers must have asked for an appropriation for this work because they thought it was a desirable work.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: I think the hon. Minister of Public Works will readily conceive that circumstances may have changed. I am not talking about the political complexion of the constituency, because, in discussing these questions, we should take a broader view than that altogether. We can readily believe that in years gone by, that river was a more important means of communication for the people and their produce than it is to-day, from the fact that they may not have had railway facilities in the years gone by. Now, Mr. Chairman, I am sure that you will agree with me that the traffic cannot be very great on a river that only serves seven or eight miles of territory. We are spending $5,000 a year. I will venture, with assurance, to say that $5,000 will carry all the commodities raised on twelve miles of river to market by railway, and I understand there is a railway crossing that river and running to Montreal. This question should be looked into. I do

not know but that there was timber floating down that river in former years, for which it was important to have this dredging done. 1 want to say to the hon. gentleman that it was his business to have criticised the expenditures of the former administration, not ours. I venture the assertion that these expenditures were pretty severely criticised, because former governments were more severely criticised for their expenditures than the hon. gentleman and his department are by the present opposition to-day.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That is the reason I assume the expenditure must have been all right, because, I suppose, it would have been criticised before if St had not been considered a proper expenditure.


James Pollock Brown: Mr. Chairman, I may say that twelve or fourteen years ago there were two steamers, the * Filgate ' and ' Cliateau-guay ' plying between Beauharuois, Chat-eauguay, Lachiue and Montreal. Since the building of the New York Central Railway there is a certain amount of traffic which finds its way to the railway station and goes by railway. Now, there is only one boat plying between Beauharnois, Chateauguay, Lachine and Montreal daily, carrying farmers' produce from Chateauguay and Lachine to Montreal. I may also say that the excursionists who come out to Lake St. Louis find it much more convenient to take the boat in the morning than to wait for the New York Central train which arrives at Montreal at 9.45 a.m. The boat often finds itself unable to take all the trade that is offered, and in fact it would almost pay to put another boat on the route.


Andrew B. Ingram: Who owns the boat ?


James Pollock Brown: It is owned by a company. I cannot tell you who are the owners. It is called the ' Chateauguay.'


Andrew B. Ingram: Can you tell us the tonnage of the boat ?


James Pollock Brown: I cannot tell you that.


Andrew B. Ingram: Can you tell us the draft of the boat, or anything about it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That information has already been given.


Andrew B. Ingram: It draws six feet of water, I am told. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Brown) has told us that this steamboat is used for the purposes of certain citizens of Montreal in going up and down the river.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, that was not the statement I made.


Andrew B. Ingram: No, but that was the statement of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Brown).


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Nor did my hon. friend (Mr. Brown) say so. He said that it was used by excursionists.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: 


Andrew B. Ingram: Will the hon. member for Chateauguay make himself plain on that point ?


James Pollock Brown: The steamboat ' Chateauguay ' takes people from Chateauguay and St. Philippe. There is a large amount of produce shipped from these points. The New York Central will not place cars on their train to accommodate the people there, and they send their produce by this boat in the early morning. It is for the accommodation of the farmers, and the boat can hardly carry all the produce which is offered to it in the morning. Sometimes five or six loads of hay and 300 barrels of apples have to remain on the wharf for two or three days.


James Clancy: What class of produce is being sent from there now that so completely overtaxes the capacity of the boat V


James Pollock Brown: Hay, at this season of the year.


Mr. GEOFFRION.: I may say that there are not only boats carrying passengers from these points. There are tow boats taking barges. There is a very great amount of hay shipped to Montreal from that locality. There are fruits, and there is a great amount of other trade taken from points which are not served by the railways. I am not so familiar with the locality as the hon. member for Chateauguay (Mr. Brown), but I know for a fact that tug boats are going there, getting barges and taking them to Montreal loaded with grain and hay. The people of these parishes who are not served by the railways are obliged to bring their hay and load it on these barges. There is a large amount of freight coming out of this twelve miles of territory, not six miles, as some hon. gentleman has stated. There are twelve miles of that river that must be dredged, and if it is not dredged, we will have to close up the river, which would preclude the people of several parishes from sending their freight to the city of Montreal, for instance, fruit. Without a railroad these people could not ship their fruit. I think this is absolutely necessary. I suppose it must have been taken into consideration by the late government, and rightly so. That work must be done every year, or else the river must be closed to navigation, to the great detriment of these people.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: I quite agree with what the hon. gentleman has just said. But I want to repeat what I have always said in this House that the government are neglecting some other places. There is the New York Central Railway running from Montreal through that and other localities, and there is the other road called the Adirondacks, which goes up into that country.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It is the same road.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Well, if you don't know I do. Of course it is very handy to

have a railroad built through every parish, by every church door and to every farmer's house, I admit that. But why is it that in the county of Dorchester the government has never given one cent to build a railroad, the only road we have there is the Quebec Central. People have subscribed and given money and labour to build a road. I must tell you this much, that we have from fifty to seventy-five miles to go to the city of Quebec and we have to haul our stuff with horses. We have been asking ever since I have been in this parliament- nearly seven years-for help from this government to build not in the county of Dorchester, but in the county of Beauce, nine miles of road. This nine miles of road would serve over 19,000 people in the counties of Beauce, Dorchester and Bellechasse. Yet I have failed to obtain one cent of help from the government to accommodate the people of these three counties. The people of Bellechasse have to haul forty miles, the people of Beauce have to haul thirty or forty miles, and the people of Dorchester, thirty or thirty-five miles in order to get to a railroad. We have never asked the government for any help except to build that nine miles of road. There is not a bridge to be built on the route, it is an easy route to build upon, yet we are refused assistance. I have worked for this road ever since I came to this House. I have tried to get both members from the county of Beauce to work for it. I do not know whether they have or not, but they tell me they have. I say plainly to this House it is a shame for the government to treat one county better than another. We all help to support this government with our money, and we should be treated alike, if not alike, then as nearly so as possible. Now, I would like any one, young or old, rich or poor, to show me where or when this government has ever paid one cent or one dollar towards helping the people in the county of Dorchester. We built a court house, the county built it. A few years ago I asked the ex-Minister of Public Works to give us $200 for a county bridge; not one cent did I get.


Mr. BUREAU.: Was it the Minister of Public Works for the Dominion or for the local House that you asked for assistance ?


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Mr. Israel Tarte, the hon. member for Montreal, was the gentleman.


Mr. GEOFPRION.: For a court-house in your county ?


Jean-Baptiste Morin: No, for a bridge. I see there is an ice pier to be built at Richmond, well we will see about that soon. We have rivers running through my county as big as the St. Francis river at Richmond, logs are floated on that river, on both rivers. Neither one of them is navigable. Here is an item for a pier, but when I ask for $200 to build a
county bridge, after four bridges had been washed away and the people got tired of building, I was refused. I suppose if I had been a Liberal I might have got it; but I was not, and I will not be.
Harbours and rivers, Quebec, chargeable to capital.-River St. Lawrence ship canal, $515,800.


Andrew B. Ingram: I think, in view of the lateness of the hour, and that some representatives from Quebec who wished to discuss this item are absent, we had better adjourn.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Perhaps the proper thing to do would be to accede to the request of the hon. gentleman. At the same time, I think some little consideration should be shown to the minister. This is the fifth or sixth time this vote has been called and asked to stand on account of the absence of one or two members. While I would be willing always to wait for an absent member, I think there ought to be some reasonable consideration shown to the public business. I ask my hon. friend if it is not right, after the item has been postponed several times at the request of hon. gentlemen opposite, that at last we should get down to business.


Robert Laird Borden: I am bound to agree with the Iron, the minister to this extent, that I think perhaps there is too much of a habit on both sides of the House to spend only a small portion of Friday in Ottawa. The result of that habit, which is not peculiar to either one side or the other, and which has been in force for many years, is that we practically have only about three days in the week to do our work. I for one would be very glad if some change would be made in that respect, so that we should have five days to do the work.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: I want to point out to my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works, that the delay in getting through with his estimates has been the result of matters requiring to be brought to the attention of the House with the perfectly fair object of having them discussed. For example, the day before yesterday we discussed the Treadgold concession, and although we may differ in opinion about it, no one will say that it was not a proper matter to be discussed.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: To-day we have been discussing an important matter brought before us by my hon. friend from Marquette. Yesterday the minister would have got into supply and probably substantial progress would have been made, were it not for a cause which was not in any way due to members on this side of tile House, and on account of which the time was taken up with matters which were not very, profit-

able to tbe country or to any of us. While I agree that there is some force in the hon. minister's remarks, still I want him to remember the circumstances which I have brought to his notice. It is a fair proposition that some day should be fixed for the discussion of these items, and that the House would be so notified. If he will communicate to me now, or at any later time, his views with regard to that, he will find us disposed to give him an opportunity to have the items discussed in the committee, and discussed in such a way that he will not be brought here from day to day; although as a matter of fact, I suppose we are entitled to his presence in the House during a considerable portion of the time. In any case, it is always a great pleasure to have the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) here.
The MINISTER OF PUBT/IC WORKS. I agree that it is my duty to be here all the time, and I am perfectly willing to discharge that duty. I think, however, that these gentlemen who asked for three or four adjournments should remain here as well as the rest of us. No doubt there ought to be given a reasonable time to discuss the estimates.


Matthew Henry Cochrane: The hon. gentleman who kept us all day yesterday discussing the teapot, has not been in the House tonight.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It Was the absence of one or two members who asked items to stand, that I spoke of. That is hardly fair to the rest of us. They are absent on their own pleasure or business and they should not prevent ns from carrying on the business of the House. If I ask the House to sit a little late some night when these gentlemen are present, I hope no objection will be taken.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 11.30 a.m.

Monday, May 18, 1903.