1904-07-13

POST OFFICE ACT-AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Sir WILLIAM MULOCK (Postmaster General) moved for leave to introduce a Bill (No. 153) further to amend the Post Office Act. He said : This Bill covers a number of details that will be more thoroughly understood when it is printed and in the hands of members. Section 6, I may mention, extends the time for letter-carriers to avail themselves of the privilege granted by a previous Act to come in under the new system of payment instead of the old system. Another section 10, makes provision for an allowance to letter-carriers for transportation in cities. There are no radical changes introduced. The other provisions will be better understood when the Bill is before the House.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read a first time.

Hon. CHARLES FITZPATRICK:: (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce a Bill (No. 154) to amend chapter 61 of the Statutes of 1903 respecting the Revised Statutes of Canada. He said : The object of this Bill is to correct two clerical errors that occurred in the Act passed last session with respect to the revision of the Statutes. In sections 4 and 11 the revised roll is spoken of as the last amended roll, and as there is only one roll this is likely to lead to confusion. There can be only one roll as respecting the Statutes, and this is to avoid any possible confusion respecting the use of this word in the Statutes.


Mr. SPROULE.: Do you mean by the change to say that it shall not be the last revised roll ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: In the original statutes it is called the last roll ; in the amended statutes it is called the amended roll, and there cannot be an amended roll under the Revised Statutes.


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


Mr. CLARKE asked :: 1.	What action, if any, has been taken by the Department of Labour or the Government to deport the aliens brought in under contract to work on the surveys of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway ?
2.	What action, if any, has been taken to prosecute the officials of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway who have pleaded guilty or been proved guilty of violation of the Alien Labour law ?
Hon. Sir WILLIAM MULOCK (Postmaster General.
1.	The Department of Labour has from time to time received some communications from His Honour, Judge Winchester, reporting certain employees or officials in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific as liable to deportation, and these reports have been tranmitted to the Department of Justice to be acted upon, and I think they have been acted upon.


Mr. CLARKE.: What action has been taken on them ?


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: The Minister of Justice will explain that. In answer to question 2, the law does not provide for the government prosecuting In such eases as are referred to in this question.
Hon. CHARLES FITZPATRICK; (Minister of Justice). So far as I am concerned, my action has consisted in signing warrants authoring the deportation of those persons reported upon by Judge Winchester.


Mr. MACLEAN.: How many of these were issued ?	.


Charles Fitzpatrick: 1 cannot say exactly, six or seven.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Were they minor officials ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: They were persons bolding important positions, I think divisional engineers and persons who were in charge of surveys. I do not remember exactly their positions, but they were all persons of importance.


Edward Frederick Clarke: They were brainy enough to get out before the warrants were served 5


Charles Fitzpatrick: I was not very anxious to cause tbeir arrest provided they were willing to leave the country.


SALE OF TIMBER BERTHS.
Mr. W. J. ROCHE asked :: 1.	What timber berths have been disposed of in the Duck Mountains, in townships 32 and 33, ranges 27, 28 and 29, during the past year ?
2.	When were they put up for sale ; where advertised; and the amount received for same?
3.	What are the names of the purchasers.


Hon. CLIFFORD SIFTON (Minister of the Interior) :: 1.	One timber berth only has been disposed of in the Duck Mountains in townships 32 and 33, ranges 27, 28 and 29 during the past year. During that period a large number of permits have been issued in favour of settlers to cut timber for their own use on their land, and a permit was issued in favour of the municipality of Swan River to cut a considerable quantity of timber for municipal purposes.
2.	The advertisement inviting competition for the berth in question, which is No. 1148, was dated the 9th of February last, and a copy thereof was inserted in ' The Dauphin Press,' published at Dauphin, and a copy was sent to the postmaster at Dauphin, with a request that it be posted in a conspicuous place in his office. In addition to this a number of the printed copies were sent to the Crown Timber Agent at Winnipeg, for distribution among such persons as he might think were interested in timber matters. Printed copies of the advertisement were also sent to the several individuals and companies interested in timber matters, who have had their names placed upon the mailing list of the department. The amount of the bonus paid for this berth was $1,010.
3.	The successful tenderer was Mr. Alexander Keiller, of Swan River, Manitoba.


THE DREDGE ' RICHELIEU.'
Mr. MONK asked :: 1.	How long has the dredge ' Richelieu ' been lying at the wharf at Sabrevois ?
2.	What is the cost of maintenance per day of the said dredge ?
3.	What is the wage-bill per day of said dredge ?
4.	How many men are employed aboard of the said dredge ?


Hon. CHARLES HYMAN (acting Min-ter of Public Works) :: 1.	The dredge ' Richelieu ' was detained at Sa'brevois during sixteen working days, in order to complete repairs and painting.
2.	About $25 per day while working.
3.	$13 per day.
4.	Ten, including tugmen and scowmen.


Edward Frederick Clarke: PAYMENT TO THE C. ROSS CO., OTTAWA. Mr. CLARKE asked :
1.	For what materials or work was the sum of $2,300.24 paid to the C. Ross Company, of Ottawa, as described in the Auditor General's Report for the year ending June 30, 1903, on page V-105 ?
2.	On what portion of the Parliament Buildings was the said amount expended, and by whose order was the expenditure made ?


Hon. CHARLES HYMAN (acting Min-ter of Public Works) :: 1.	For furniture, carpets, rugs, curtains, drapery, upholstering, linen, bedding, &c., &c.
2.	Purchased for the House of Commons, mostly for the Speaker's apartments, by the authority of the Minister of Public Works.


WORKSHOPS ON CORNWALL AND WILLIAMSBURG CANALS.
Mr. LENNOX asked :: 1.	Has the government built the workshops for serving the Cornwall and Williamsburg canals, referred to in Mr, Schreiber's fetter and statement on page 33 of Vol. 1 of the Auditor General's Report for the year ending June 30 last ?
2.	If so, are the shops completed, and if so, when ?
3.	How many men are employed, and are they employed the year round ?
4.	Are these shops operated by electricity ? If so, to what extent, and when was it turned on ?


Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals).: The workshops are not yet built, but tenders are being invited for the work.


GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC SURVEYS.
Mr. LENNOX asked :: 1.	Has the government placed surveying parties between Moncton and Winnipeg, to explore, survey and locate the line between these points ?
2.	If so, when, how many parties, and how many men are engaged ?
3.	If not, why not ?
4.	Has the govenment taken the survey of
the eastern division out of the hands of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company ?	-
5.	If so, when ? If not, why not ?
6.	Has the amount to he paid or allowed to
the company, in respect of surveys, been settled or agreed upon ? If so, what is the amount ?	.
7.	In any case, what is the amount claimed by this company?
Hon. H, R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals) :
1.	The government have not placed surveying parties between Moncton aud Winnipeg to explore, survey and locate the line between these points.
2.	Number one answers this question.

3.	Because arrangements are not yet ripe for so doing.
4.	No.
5.	Number four answers this question.
6.	No.
7.	Not aware of any claim having been made.


THE CATTLE-GUARD COMMISSION.
Mr. LENNOX asked :: 1.	Has the government allowed Mr. F. W. Holt, Cattle-guard Commissioner, tor his services anything by way of extra allowance ?
2.	Has the government finally determined not to allow Mr. Holt anything by way of extra remuneration ?
3.	In claiming extra remuneration, and in support of his claim, Mr. Holt, in a letter of January 7, 1904, to Collingwood Schreiber, Esq., says : ' When the tests were completed, we had not then found a thoroughly satisfactory guard, &e., &e. It then became my duty to; find out the reason. The only way to do this was to study the structure of the animal, as a piece of mechanism. This has been done, as to his anatomy, by the veterinarian as a surgeon ; but I have been unable to find an idea expressed as to his capacity as a machine, other than in his ordinary walk, in emergency motions, as in passing a cattle-guard. And it was from this point of view that I have had to treat it. In making this search, I have found there is very little literature available to the general reader, &c.' Has the government, in considering the question of extra compensation referred to, taken into account the claims of Mr. Holt as an expert in the matter above set out ?
4.	Did the services of George Robertson, Esq., as commissioner, from 4*igust 16, 1892, to February 13, 1903, 181 days, include a Sunday service as such commissioner ?
5.	Was Mr. Robertson paid for his services for said 181 days at the rate of $5 per day and his expenses, Sundays included ?


Hon.  H. R.@: EMiMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals) :
1.	Mr. Holt has been allowed tbe salary upon which he was engaged with reasonable travelling and living expenses when absent from home.
2.	The government see no reason to grant him extra remuneration beyond the sum per day agreed upon when he was employed.
3.	Mr. Holt was engineer and as such the rate of his salary was agreed with him when engaging him. Not aware that he was an expert in cattle-guard construction.
4.	Mr. Robertson was paid $5 per day for days he actually worked, which did not include Sundays, and reasonable travelling and living expenses when absent from home.


FLOUR STANDARDS.
Mr.  E. D.@: SMITH-by Mr. Taylor-asked :
"1. When were the flour standards last set ?
2.	Is it the intention of the department to have them set this year ?
3.	If not, why not ?


Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister) :: 1.	On June 3rd, 1903.
2.	There would seem to be no necessity lor further standards until a new crop comes in.
3.	Answered by No. 2.


SPEED OF MAIL STEAMSHIPS.
Edward Frederick Clarke: What was the average speed per hour made during the year 1903 by steamships carrying British and Canadian mails from ports in the United Kingdom to Canadian ports ; and from Canadian ports to ports in the United Kingdom, respectively ?


Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister).: The average speed made during the year 1903 was as follows :
West bound-
Summer-'Moville to Rimouski, 12-7 knots per hour.
Winter-Moville to Halifax, 9 9 knots per hour.
East bound-
Summer-Rimouski to Moville, 13'2 knots per hour.
Winter-Halifax to Moville, 11'6 knots per hour.
Duty on tobacco.


Mr. BELL asked :: 1.	What amount of duty, excise and customs,
was paid on tobacco in the years ending June 30th, 1903 and 1904.	.
2.	What part of these duties was due to the increased duty imposed by the tariff of 1897.


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Inland Revenue) :: 1.	Excise duty, year ended June 30th, 1903, $4,883,552.59. The amount for 1904 cannot lie given, as returns from outlying divisions are not yet all received at department.
2.	From excise $1,513,968.28, made up as follows : From foreign raw leaf tobacco, 81,249,569.17 ; from additional duty on cigarettes made from foreign raw leaf, 8264,309.11.



DEATH OF MR. JOHN McINTOSH, M.P.

Wilfrid Laurier: The press has already informed the members of this House that it has been our misfortune to lose one of our colleagues, in the person of Mr. John McIntosh, member for the city of Sherbrooke. Mr. McIntosh has been carried away after a severe illness which had lasted for many years ; in fact, when Mr. McIntosh entered this House, some four years ago, he was already suffering from the illness which finally caused

his death, and at that time, as I am personally aware, it was only his strong attachment to his party and his long and well-deserved popularity in the city of Sherbrooke, which induced him-nay, rather compelled him-to accept the candidature and become a member of this House. Under such circumstances, it was not possible for Mr. McIntosh, as a member of this House, to give us the full measure of his abilities or to enable us to judge what sort of man he was. I do not believe that even to his friends on the other side of the House the real man was fully known. Perhaps in this sense I was more privileged than many of his political friends, because for a great many years it was my personal privilege to know him-I will not say intimately-but, at all events, sufficiently, I think, to he counted as among Mr. McIntosh's friends. It will be eighteen years next fall since I first met Mr McIntosh. I then met him during a contest in the eastern townships, which was bitterly fought-if that expression is not too strong-between the two parties in the province of Quebec. I had then the privilege of meeting Mr. McIntosh many and many a time, and then and there I formed the highest possible estimate of his character. At that time, I may say without exaggeration, he was a perfect type of manhood, physical manhood, and manhood in every sense of the word. Nor am I at all exaggerating when I say that I do not think I ever met a more honourable man. It is with all my heart that I associate myself with the mourning of his friends and of his family.


Mr.   I@: I thank the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Uaurier) very much for the very appropriate and kindly words which he has uttered in regard to Mr. McIntosh. The lamented death of that gentleman has caused many regrets, not only on this side of the House, but, I am sure, on the other side as well. Mr. McIntosh had filled many important public positions in this country, and it is true, as -the Prime Minister has said, that we have not seen him at his best in parliament, owing to the suffering which he continually endured from the fatal disease which eventually carried him off in the prime of life. His entry into this parliament was, I believe, induced by the most absolutely unselfish and patriotic motives. He came here against his will at a time when he felt that the interests of his country and of his party demanded that he should do so. Since his entry into parliament I have always found him a faithful colleague and a true and unselfish friend. I believe that the public life of Canada has not produced any better or higher type of public man than that which John McIntosh exemplified. He endured his illness with characteristic fortitude and with true Christian resignation. It is only a day or two since I received a letter from him, in which he spoke in the most calm and philosophical manner of the sufferings he Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
was enduring and of the prospect of a release. I am sure that we can extend to his family and to his friends the sincere condolence and sympathy of every member of this House without exception.


Mr. T. C. CASGRAIN.: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, as an old colleague of Mr. Mc-Iutosh in the Quebec government, I may be permitted to add my humble testimony to the eloquent tributes which have just been pronounced by my rigid hon. friend, the Prime Minister, and the hon. leader of the opposition, upon the passing of the hon. member for Sherbrooke, one of the most esteemed members of this House. His death, although not quite unexpected, still came as a shock, not only to his friends on this side of the House, but, I am sure, to the members on the other side as well.
Mr. McIntosh was first returned to the legislature of the province of Quebec in 1886. In 1890 he came back before his constituents, and owing to his popularity, victory did not desert him, although the Conservative party were then struggling under very trying circumstances. As a matter of fact. Mr. Mercier had so endeared [DOT]himself to the hearts of the people that it was no easy task for his opponents to secure a fav-vourable verdict. But as Mr. McIntosh had won the confidence and the esteem not only of the people of Sherbrooke, but of every class of the community in the eastern townships, he succeeded in overcoming those difficulties. In 1892, Mr. de Boucherville [DOT]having been entrusted with the responsibility of forming a cabinet, Mr. McIntosh was invited to enter the administration ; and later on, ^hen the Taillon government succeeded that of Mr. de Boucherville, our late lamented colleague was again asked to become a member of the administration. In the various positions w'hicli he has filled, whether as a member of the Quebec legislature or as a member of the government of that province, it may truly be said that [DOT]his never-tiring industry and his ideal devotion to the common weal never faltered. He w-as also chosen as a representative of our province at the great Chicago fair, and there also he discharged his duties in such a manner as to elicit universal praise. The many regrets caused by the lamented death of Mr. McIntosh are not circumscribed to the eastern townships, but I am warranted In saying that they are shared by the whole province of Quebec.
1 join heartily in the kind words uttered by my right hon. friend, the Prime Minister and by the hon. leader of the opposition, and I voice the feelings of sorrow caused on both sides of Che House by the death of so highly esteemed a colleague.


Mr. RUFUS H. POPE.: May I be permitted to add a word to what has been so eloquently said by the leader of the govern-

ment, and by the leader of the opposition, on this sad occasion. The late Mr. McIntosh entered public life as the representative of the county which I now have the honour to represent in this House. I knew him personally for many years, and I can say that he wa's an honest and noble-hearted man, who possessed to a remarkable degree the confidence of all nationalities and of all political parties Jn the eastern townships. Beloved by those who knew him most intimately and respected by all in that section of the country, his public and private life will long be remembered as worthy of emulation by those who follow him.



POST OFFICE MATTERS.

Mr. GEO. TAYLOR.: I wish to draw the attention of the Postmaster General to a letter I received this morning from the Frankville post office, in the county of Leeds, and a portion of which letter is as follows
You told me not to stamp letters addressed to you in Ottawa. I must say that our postmaster refused to seud them without stamps and offered to bet me any amount that there was no law to bear me out in any such thing. Please give me the plain facts.
I imagine this is a newly-appointed postmaster, and I would like to know from the Postmaster General whether postmasters are instructed not to receive unstamped communications addressed to members of parliament in Ottawa ? I understand the law to be, that all communications addressed to members while the House is in session are carried through the mails free of postage. This postmaster has absolutely refused to obey the law, and I wish to know from the Postmaster General what justification he has.


William Mulock: I do not know whether my hon. friend (Air. Taylor) questions me for the purpose of determining who should win this bet, or whet ter it is to know if that postmaster is discharging his duty.


George Taylor: There was no bet; the postmaster offered to bet, but my constituent very properly would not bet with him.


William Mulock: There was no one to take the postmaster up. Aly hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) has correctly stated the law on the subject,-is that the envelope in your hand ?


George Taylor: Yes ; addressed to ' Geo. Taylor, ALP.. Ottawa ' ; and he had to put a two-cent stamp on it.


Sir WILLIAM ML  LOCK@: Well, if my hon. friend (Air. Taylor) makes a requisition we will have the two cents refunded along with that small item for express charges referred to last year. I will see that the postmaster in question, if a new man,
be instructed in his duties so that my hon. friend will not suffer any more.


Thomas Chase Casgrain: I received a post office order from .loilette, P.Q.. yesterday and I notice that it is printed entirely in the English language. I have always seen these forms in both English and French, and of course in a county like Jo-liette as well as in other parts of Quebec it is a very serious inconvenience to the people who wish to send post office orders and who may not understand the English language. Has there been aiiy change made, and if so, why are these forms not printed in the French language ?


William Mulock: This is the first I have heard of such a matter, and I think there can be no such change. It may be that there has been a mistake on the part of the postmaster in handing out an English form to a French-speaking citizen.
I presume that in some of the offices where the patrons speak both languages it is necessary to supply the postmaster with forms printed in each language, and through inadvertence the postmaster likely issued the wrong form. Aly hon. friend (Air. Casgrain) may rest assured that the department has in no way authorized a departure from the proper procedure which would insure that an English form should be given to an English patron of the post office, and a French form to a French patron. I will attend to the matter.



SCHOOL OF AIUSKETRY.

Air. SAAI. HUGHES.: I have received a communication to the effect that the young men who have come here to learn musketry are being taxed for the maintenance of clubs, for the maintenance of an extra mess, and for extra furnishings generally. I am also informed that privates are called upon to act as servants to officers, and that these young men who are brought from the farms to learn musketry are subjected to prison discipline. They cannot leave the camp grounds unless they get a pass and they must be in at a certain hour in the evening or they are disciplined. I am told that a number of officers and men were informed that they need not bring extra clothing or bedding, but that they had to purchase them here at considerable expense. I do not know whether or not the officer in charge of the musketry school is responsible for this. This officer goes on to say that he thinks the country pays the Cartwright family dearly enough without having the men who come to take the musketry course taxed by this extra expense. I do not think the people of this country want the young gentlemen, privates or officers who come here, to be subject to prison rule. I do not believe that a young man who comes here and chances to be a

private, should give up one hour of his time to act as servant to any officer, nor do I think that the country should pay these men to act as officers' servants. 1 direct the attention of the minister to these grievances which I believe are founded on fact, and which should be stopped at once. I do not ask him to give any answer to-day, as I have not had time to give him notice that I would bring it up.


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: This school of musketry has been in operation for a couple of years, awl this is the first time I have heard any complaint. I was not aware that the system in force this year differed from that of previous years. I am sorry that my: hon. friend (Mr. Sam. Hughes) saw fit to make the reference he did to the Cartwright family. I scarcely see what that has to do with it. and I am sure that my hon. friend himself would be the last man to say or to insinuate that any charges that may be imposed on officers attending the school could go into the pocket of as honourable a gentleman as Col. Robert Cartwright is known to be. I am sorry that he made that gratuitous slip. I am very glad, however, that he has called my attention to the fact, and I will make inquiry and be prepared to make a statement on the subject.


Samuel Hughes: My remarks did not directly' or indirectly lead to the inference that one dollar or one farthing of this money went into the pocket of Col. Cartwright, and the minister must have known that. But if the Cartwright family have to be provided for at the public expense, it will have to be done without taxing the officers on the ranges. The minister must not run away with the notion that we are going to bow down to the Cartwright family or any other family in this country.



DISMISSAL OF LORD DUNDONALD-LETTER OF W. T. R. PRESTON.

Edward Frederick Clarke: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I would like to remind the right hon. First Minister that a week ago I brought to the atention of the House a communication which had been addressed to the London ' Times ' by Mr. W. T. R. Preston, Canadian Immigration Agent in London. The Minister of the Interior said that his attention had only been drawn to the matter that morning. I said that I would take the liberty of bringing it up again for the purpose of asking for some information as to the policy of the government in regard to members of the civil service addressing communications to the public press. The questions I asked last week were :
Is it within the line of Mr, Preston's duty to write such communications and have them published ? Do 'the government approve of his action ? If they do not approve of it, have they disapproved of it ; and what means have they Mr. SAM. HUGHES.
taken to express their disapproval ? Has any communication passed between the government and Lord Strathcona about this matter ?
I understood from the Minister of the Interior that it would be quite acceptable to him if I drew his attention to the matter at a subsequent date, and I take the liberty of doing so now.


Hon. CLIFFORD SIFTON (Minister of the Interior).: The matter to which my hon. friend alludes has received the attention of the government, and as a result it lias been determined' to despatch a letter to Mr. Preston, which I expect will be sent to-day, intimating to him that in the view of the government the letter he has written is entirely contrary to his duty as an official of the government. and reprimanding him for having written the letter.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Might I ask the hon. gentleman if he would lay a copy of the letter on the Table ?	.


Clifford Sifton: Yes.



QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.

Mr. HENRI BOURASSA.: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the day are called, I wish to bring to the attention of the House the use made of the press gallery by some journalists. In the ' Mail and Empire ' of yesterday, containing a report sent from this gallery of the discussion on the Militia Bill, I find the following :-
House Discusses the Militia Bill-Mr. Bourassa in Evidence-Objects to Command being
Declared Vested in the King-Displays Militarism Bogey.
Ottawa, July 11.-The Militia Bill was before the House of Commons to-day, and good progress was made in committee. There was a great deal of heated discussion as a result of Mr. Bourassa's opinions on various points proposed. He objected to the command-inchief being declared to be vested in the King. Instead of this, he wanted an amendment declaring it vested in the Governor in Council. This amendment was forced to a vote, and no cne supported Mr. Bourassa.
I never make much effort to gain, I will not say the eulogy, but even the fairness of the Tory press, especially in regard to anything I may say outside of the House ; but as a member of the House, I protest against the use which is made of the privilege granted to journalists who take reports of the debates in this House, in order to send out falsehoods as accurate reports. The House knows very well that this is the exact opposite of what I contended, and of that amendment which I brought before the House. The purpose of that amendment was, on the contrary, to insist on the principle that the command-in-chief of the militia is vested in the King, but that the exercise of that command belongs to the Cana-

diau government. Most of tlie other newspapers of Canada reported it correctly, but the ' Mail and Empire ' took occasion to make such an attack on the amendment and to report the discussion in such a way as to enable that newspaper and the Tory organization of Ontario, I suppose, to say that the member for Labelle wants to cut all ties which unite this country with the United Kingdom. I do not at all mind this accusation, but as a member of the House of Commons, when it is a question of the privilege belonging to the press by virtue of the goodwill of this House, I have not only a right, but I consider it a duty to protest against this kind of reporting being done in the press gallery of this House.



THE MILITIA AT SYDNEY.

Mr. A. S. KENDALL.: I would like to ask the government if they will, with as little delay as possible, place on the Table of the House all correspondence relating to the recent placing of militia and regulars in the town of Sydney ?


Frederick William Borden: There is no objection.



SUPPLY-THE AUDITOR GENERAL.

['If the clerks have the work ready, we shall ask the House to [DOT]take concurrence, in accordance with the understanding this evening. After that the Minister of Justice will take up the Railway Bill, and if supply be reached, we shall take up the estimates of the Minister of Railways and Canals.']
Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Before the motion is put, I would like to bring to the attention of the House some matters referred to in the Auditor General's report for the present year, more especially his suggestion that amendments submitted by him for the consideration of parliament some two or three years ago should be taken into consideration and dealt with without further delay. There is no doubt whatever that the powers and the position of the Auditor General are of great importance to the people of this country. He is the officer of parliament more especially, and it is for members of parliament on both sides of the House, irrespective of party, to consider fairly and impartially any suggestions made by him as to desirable amendments of the Audit Act, for the purpose of enabling him more thoroughly to safeguard the interests of the country and more effectively to protect the public treasury. Whatever opinion may be entertained as to Mr. McDougall's reasonableness or unreasonableness in regard to certain matters which have been before parliament in the past, I think every one will credit him with the desire and intention of performing his duty fearlessly and impartially. He was appointed by the government of Mr. Mackenzie in 1877 or 1878. When the succeeding administration of Sir John A. Macdonald came into power, he was of course retained in office, and I
believe that so far as Sir John A. Macdonald as Prime Minister of this country had the power to support Mr. McDougall in the performance of his duties, he was always found ready to do so, and was always prompt to recognize liis work, his courage and his fidelity as a public officer. Since the present administration came into power there seems to have been more friction between Mr. McDougall and the public departments than formerly prevailed. It is in the very nature of things that some friction should prevail between the Auditor and those departments of the government which he is called upon to check.
I do not at all place out of sight the fact that under preceding administrations Mr. McDougall was occasionally over-ruled and that a certain amount of friction may sometimes have been occasioned by his attitude with regard to certain public expenditure. I have not studied the history of the past so as to know to what extent that did prevail, but no doubt it did prevail to some extent. Since the present administration came into power, that friction seems to have increased, and it has reached its culmination at present, when the Auditor General has, after having given warning on more than one occasion tendered his resignation on the ground that his usefulness as a public ^officer is gone. He gives two .reasons why his usefulness has gone. One is that he is very frequently overruled by the Treasury Board, and the next is that he does not consider the Consolidated Revenue Act in its present condition sufficient for the purposes of his department. The subject was brought up by him, I think in 1899, and in his report dated the 9th of March, 1904, he uses this language :
The following rather lengthy correspondence is introduced in this place because it illustrates the practical importance of several amendments that this office has been asking for some years to have made to the Audit Act.
The amendments to provide : 1st. That no contract with the government be made after the work is completed ; 2nd. That in contracts given without tenders, or. where tenders have been called for and the lotvest tender has not been accepted, the proper officer of the department be required to certify that the prices are fair and just ; 3rd. That in all cases the technical officer on whose expert knowledge the department relied whe'n making the contract, he required to supply the fullest information to the Auditor Generali and all other government officials who have the duty of dealing w'ith contracts.
Further on in the same report he says
The magnitude and number of the transactions going through this office are now so increased that I feel parliament should seriously consider also the amendment of the Audit Act along the other lines suggested in a former report, to enable this office to cope with the expansion of the business of the country. I febl so strongly on this point that

if parliament does not see its way to bring the matter up this session, I shall at the end of the session ask to be superannuated.
Mr. McDougall is an officer of parliament. We are obliged, I think, to look at his recommendations to parliament as those of an impartial officer who has no end to serve other than to perform his duty. Therefore, the Auditor General's suggestions should commend themselves to parliament for consideration and for such action as may seem wise along the lines suggested.
There was a motion earlier in the session by the hon,. member for South Sirncoe (Mr. Lennox), which pointed out the advisability of having the whole question referred to a committee of the House for inquiry and report. That motion was not acceded to by the government, and I now propose to make some suggestions as to certain matters which I think ought to be dealt with at once ; and in making these suggestions, I shall conclude with a motion pointing out in general terms the necessity of making some amendments to the Act. And because my motion mqst necessarily be couched in general terms, I shall take occasion to indicate the matters in respect of which I think the Audit Act might profitably be amended.
In the first place, let me say that the Auditor General has dealt in his report with the so-called Davis contract for the lighting of the Cornwall canal. I do not propose at this moment to deal with that question as I shall deal with it later on when the House is in committee, and when there will be better opportunity of discussing it. But let me call attention to one or two sentences which the Auditor General has used with regard to that contract, In a letter of the 7th July, 1902, Mr. McDougall uses this language in addressing the Secretary of the Treasury Board :
Then I may call your attention to the. rather singular fact that there were two arrangements in connection with the matter. The first was made eleven days before the election of June 23, 1896, and the second twenty-nine days before that of November 7, 1900.
There is a suggestion in that which has been interpreted in a certain way by a portion of the public press, and I desire to point out that the Auditor General has not been quite so accurate in his dates as possibly he might have been expected to be. I am not saying this by way of reproach, but desire to call attention to the actual dates in order that any misapprehension which has been disseminated by the press should be removed. Let me say that in the documents brought down there is an agreement of the 25th of June, 1896, made between the government and Mr. Davis, in which reference is made to certain Orders in Council, dated respectively 18th #f February. 1S9C, and 12th of June, 1896. In order that the Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
true position may be laid before the country, I shall read those Orders in Council. I did not obtain them until yesterday, although I made application more than a week ago. But Mr. Schreiber informed me that on account of the pressing engagements of the clerical staff of the Railways and Canals Department, he could not possibly hand them to me until Monday morning. The first Order in Couucil is as follows :-
On a memorandum dated 8th February. 1896, from the Minister of Railways and Canals, recommending that authority be given to lease to Mr. Michael P. Davis of Ottawa, Ontario, a certain lot of land belonging to the Cornwall canal containing by admeasurement 4-88 acres, be the same more or less, and more particularly described as follows:-
All that piece or parcel of land being part of lot No. 1 at the lower end of Sheik's Island, in the township of Cornwall, in the county of Stormont and province of Ontario ;
Commencing at a point 123 feet in a southeasterly direction from the centre line of the entrance channel to the regulating weir and at right angles thereto and in line with the extreme lower end of the sidewalls of the weir; thence southeasterly on a prolongation of the last course 530 feet, more or less, to the water's edge of the River St. Lawrence; ihence northerly following the water's edge to a line parallel to and seventy feet distant from the centre line of the roadway on the lower Sheik's Island Dam; thence westerly along said parallel line 240 feet more or less to its intersection with a line parallel to and 125 feet distant from the centre line of the entrance channel to the regulating weir ; thence southerly along said parallel line 490 feet more or less to the post planted at the southwesterly angle of the land described; containing by admeasurement 4'88 acres, be the same more or less, and as shown on the sketch plan hereunto annexed, coloured red:-together with so much of the surplus water, if any on Lock No. 20 level, Cornwall canal, as the Minister of Railways and Canals may deem advisable, after navigation and existing mills and mill sites hereinafter to be leased are supplied, the lessee also to have the privilege of using at a weir to be hereafter constructed by him the water flowing into the said canal from Hoople's creek, the said lot of land and the said surplus water and flow of water from Hoople's Creek to be held for the erection of an electric plant and the operation of the machinery therein for the term of twenty one years from and after the first day of July, 1896, and ended on the 1st day of July, 1917, and thereafter for a term of twenty-one years renewable, at a rental of one thousand dollars per annum payable in advance upon the 2nd day of January and the 1st day of July in each year, dating from the first day of July, 1896, the rent for the first two years not being charged. The lessee to supply electric power for the working of all the locks on the Cornwall canal a' sixty-three dollars per horse power per annum, and also electric direct current arc light of not less than 2,000 candle power at thirty cents per light per night, as set forth in the indenture of lease hereto, annexed-
The minister further recommends that the said lease of land, surplus water and flow of water, be upon the terms and conditions set forth in the indenture of lease hereunto annexed, which is hereby submitted for approval, and

that he, the minister be authorized to execute the same on behalf of Her Majesty.
The committee submit the above recommendations for Your Excellency's approval.
(Sgd.) JOHN J. McGEE.
Clerk of the Privy Council.
The next Order in Council is one bearing date of 12th of June, 1896, and is as follows:
On a memorandum dated 22nd May,-1896, from the Minister of Railways and Canals, representing that under date the 12th May inst., the chief engineer of the Department of Railways and Canals has furnished an amended plan and description of the parcel of land, 4-88 acres in extent at the Lower Sheik's island dam on the Cornwall Canal Reserve, authority for-the leasing of which to Mr. M. P. Davis was given by Order in Council of the 18th of February last, which also approved of the draft of the proposed lease.
The minister recommends that the plan and description hereto attached be substituted for the plan and description attached to or embodied in the said Order in Council, and that the draft of lease approved thereby be amended to the effect of such substitution.
The committee submit the same' for your Excellency's approval.
(Sgd.) JOHN J. McGEE, Clerk of the Privy Council.
What I desire to draw to the. attention of the House and the country is this : If dates are of importance in considering this contract, it is especially of importance to note that the Order in Council upon which that agreement was made bears date of 18th February, and not of 12th June. The only effect of the additional Order in Council of June 12th is to provide a new plan and description of the lease which had been approved as far back as 22nd February ; and it is further to be noted that the new Order in Council of 12th June was made upon a memorandum dated 22nd May, from the Minister of Railways and Canals. Therefore, the Order in Council upon which this agreement was made is of date 18th February, 1896, except in so far as the description was slightly amended upon a memorandum dated 22nd May, 1896, confirmed by Order in Council of 12th June, 1896.
Now, the one difficulty which the Auditor General has experienced, as he telis us, in dealing with matters touching public contracts and affecting the expenditure of public money, is that he has no power, where overruled by the Treasury Board to prevent the expenditure of money even though the circumstances attending the making or modification of the contract and the payment of the money are such as, in his opinion, should demand the fullest possible investigation. And the criticisms which have been made upon the report which he has presented to parliament and the country point to the possibility that the two political parties may be so concerned in a matter of public expenditure that neither the 209
one nor the other would press for an investigation by parliament. Now, it is better, when suggestions of that kind are made, either impliedly by the Auditor General or openly in the public press, that some power should be given to the Auditor General or some other officer by means of which that investigation can certainly be instituted and carried on without regard to the interests that might be affected. It is for that reason that I am suggesting to the government to approve of a Bill, a copy of which I have already handed to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick). This Bill I suggest not as one which is to be followed ipsissimis verbis, but as one setting forth a principle, an idea, which, I think, might be safely acted upon by the government, and which would tend to produce in the minds of the people greater confidence in the powers of the Auditor General and in the safeguarding of the public treasury. I will read the draft Bill to which I have referred and make a few comments on it as I proceed :
An Act to amend the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, and the Acts in amendment thereof.
His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows :
1.	The Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act. chapter 29 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, as amended by 51 Victoria, chapter 7, 54-55 Victoria, chapter 16, and 57-58 Victoria, chapter 19, is hereby further amended, by adding thereto the following as section 58 (a) immediately after section 58.
58 (a) (1) In case any contract involving the expenditure of public money has been entered into or modified, or in case any public moneys are about to be paid or have been'paid under the order of the Treasury Board after refusal by the Auditor General to certify to a cheque therefor, and in case the Auditor General is of opinion that the making or modification of such a contract, or the payment or proposed payment of such moneys was not, or is not in the public interest and that the circumstances attending the same require investigation, he may file with the registrar of the Exchequer Court of Canada a petition addressed to the judge of the said court praying that the making or modification of such contract, or the payment , or proposed payment of such moneys and all circumstances relating to, connected with or attending the same may be investigated by the saiid judge who shall thereupon proceed to investigate the same with all convenient speed, first giving due notice of the time and place of such investigation to the Attorney General of Canada and to all other persons interested. Every person so notified shall be at liberty to attend and be heard upon such investigation. The Auditor General shall attend and may be represented by counsel upon such investigation. The said judge at the conclusion thereof shall file his report upon the matters aforesaid with the Auditor General and the same shall be included in the next annual report of the Auditor General and laid before the House of Commons for such action thereon as parliament may deem necessary.



That is a 'provision which should be acted upon by the Auditor General only under very grave circumstances. It is a very large power to give him, but it is a power which, perhaps, might be given him with safety. If he is of opinion that a public contract has been entered into, or-what is more important-has been modified in the interest altogether of the contracting parties, not in the interest of the public, or if he believes that the payment of public moneys has been made, -or is about to be made, under such circumstances as demand careful investigation, then he is at liberty under such grave conditions to file his petition with the judge of the Exchequer Court and have that investigation which he deems necessary, irrespective altogether of the action which either political party or both parties may take in parliament with regard to the matter. The second subsection of this proposed section, is as follows :
(2) Upon the filing of such petition by the Auditor General notice thereof shall forthwith be given to the Minister of Finance by [DOT]the registrar of the said court and except with the written consent and approval of the Auditor General no payment under any such contract so made or modified or under any such order of the Treasury Board shall thereafter be made until after the conclusion of such investigation and until thirty days after the report of the judge shall have been laid before Parliament.
Provided always that whenever it shall appear to the judge that the exigency of public interest requires that some part or the whole of such a payment shall be made before the,conclusion of the investigation or before the expiration of the said period of thirty days, the judge may authorize such payment in whole or in part, and the same may be made accordingly.	,
That is a very important provision, and it should be acted upon of course by the Auditor General only under grave circumstances, and where he thought the facts were sufficiently serious to justify him in so doing. It would enable him to stay the payment under such contract or modified contract, or under any overruling of the Treasury Board, until the matter had been thoroughly investigated before a judge of the Exchequer Court, and until his report had been laid before parliament for action. It is a very important step, I admit, to pass legislation of that kind ; although I must call the attention of the House to the modification which has been embodied in the draft I submit. It is that the judge of the Exchequer Court shall always have power, under such conditions where in his opinion the exigency of the public service demands it, to permit the payments to proceed, even although the Auditor General still withholds his consent. Now I admit fully that we must look at this question from every standpoint, and while I think the principle which I am contending for in this clause is a correct one, I have an open mind as to


Robert Laird Borden: the means by which and the limitations under wffiich that principle shall be carried out. On the one hand, we have to consider the safe-guarding of the treasury and the protection of the public interest ; on the other hand, we are not to put arbitrary power into the hands of any one man, even an Auditor General, which will prevent men who enter into contracts with the government from receiving: from banking and other financial institutions that credit which they have been receiving in the past, and which is absolutely necessary if there is to be that competition in the performance of public works which is eminently desirable in the public interest. There is an idea in that section which may require to be modified, but there is an idea which I think might safely be embodied in some such language as that which I have suggested. The third sub-paragraph is as follows :
3. No payment under an order of the Treasury Board authorizing the issue of a cheque which the Auditor General has refused to certify shall be made until ten days after such order has been made and a copy thereof, with the accompanying reasons, delivered to the Auditor General by the secretary of the said board.
The idea is that after the Treasury Board has overruled a refusal of the Auditor General to certify a cheque for expenditure out of the consolidated revenue fund, the Auditor General shall have a certain period within which he shall determine whether it is desirable for him to undertake such an investigation as that which has been provided for in the first subsection of section 1 which I have drafted. Then my draft Bill proceeds as follows :
4 The judge. may examine any person on oath or affirmation on any matter pertinent to such investigation, and may cause a subpoena to be issued from the Exchequer Court commanding any person therein named to appear before him and to testify to all matters within his knowledge relative to the matter under investigation, and to bring with him and produce any document, paper or other thing which he has in his possession relative to the matter under investigation and reasonable travelling expenses shall be tendered to any witness so subpoenaed at the time of service.
5.	If for any reason the judge deems it advisable he may issue a commission for the purposes of such investigation in like manner and with the like powers as are set forth in section 57 of the ' Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act,' with regard to examinations by the Auditor General, and the provisions of sections 57 and 58 of the said Act shall apply to such investigation and to the persons summoned for the purposes thereof. *
6.	The judge shall in all matters relating to such investigation have all the powers and authority of the Court of Exchequer with regard to matters within the jurisdiction of said court.
7.	The procedure and rules of the Exchequer Court so far as applicable shall apply

to such investigation and the judge of the said court may from time to time make, subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, such further or other general rules with regard to such investigations as he may deem necessary.
8.	The provisions of the preceding sevep subsections of this section shall apply to all contracts, payments and matters referred to, or reported upon by the Auditor General in his report for the fiscal year ending 30th day of June, 1903.	| (/j
I have Inserted that special provision because of the suggestion of the Auditor General to which I have, already referred, a suggestion to which I called the attention of the, House. He is mistaken as to the dates.' This contract was entered into, as he says, eleven days, but upon an Order in Council made some four months before the general election of 1896, and the auxiliary contract, if I may so term it, was entered into also shortly before the general election of 1900. There is a suggestion in that which, as I have already said, has been the subject of some criticism, and for that reason I propose to make the provisions to which I have already referred apply not only to the future but also to all matters which are reported upon or dealt with by the Auditor General in his report for the year 1903. That provision gives ample power to thoroughly investigate the Davis contract.
I will now read section 2 of the proposed Bill :
2.	Section 32, subsection 1 of the said Act as amended by the Act 51 Victoria, chapter 7, section 5, is further amended by adding thereto the following as subclause (d) immediately after subclause (c) thereof :-
(d.) The members of the Treasury Board shall furnish reasons for their decision, which reasons shall form part of or be attached to the written order of the board.
I do not think that this is an unreasonable requirement on the part of the Auditor General ; indeed it is necessary for his guidance in the future. If he has so misconceived his powers or duties as auditor as to refuse the payment of public moneys under circumstances which call for the intervention of the Treasury Board, then it is right, not only for the information of the public, but also for his own guidance and his own consideration in the future, that the reasons which have impelled the Treasury Board to overrule him in that regard should be stated to him and reported by him to Parliament.
The third section of my draft Bill is as follows :
3.	Section 48 of the said Act as amended by the Act 51 Victoria, chapter 7, section 10, is hereby repealed and the following substituted therefor
(48.) In reporting as hereinbefore directed for the information of the House of Corn-2094
mons, the result of the examination of the appropriation accounts, the Auditor General shall call attention to every one in which cheques have been issued without his certificate-or in which a grant has been exceeded-or in which money received by a department from other sources than the grants for the year to which the account relates has not been applied or accounted for according to the directions of parliament-or in which a sum charged against a grant is not supported by proof of payment-or in which a payment so charged did not occur within the period of the account, or was for any other reason, not properly chargeable against the grant, or was in any way irregular,-
So far the statute proceeds exactly as it is at the present time. What I am reading further is new. My proposed amendment continues as follows :
-or in which a sum charged against a grant for capital account was expended wholly or in part for a purpose properly chargeable to revenue account, or in which by reason pf the generality of the appropriation, or otherwise, he has been unable to properly check or control the expenditure, or to confine it to what he believes to have been the abject of the House of Commons in making the grant.
It seems to me that these are matters in respect to which the Auditor General should report to parliament, because they are matters of importance, and it is well that parliament should be informed as to irregularities or defects of that kind.
The fourth section of the Bill which I have drafted is as follows :
Section 21 of the said Act as amended by 51 Victoria, chapter 7, section 1, is further amended by striking out the words ' four thousand ' and substituting therefor the words.
I have left a blank here so as to suggest an increase in the salary of the Auditor General.^ His salary at the present time I believe is $4,000, and it has continued at that sum for a long period of time. As deputy ministers and others have had their salaries increased within recent years, and as the cost of living has undoubtedly increased during that period, and as the Auditor General is an old and a faithful public servant, it seems to me it would not be out of place at the present time to give him some further consideration in the way of a salary, and it is for that purpose I have drawn section 4 of the Bill in its present form, leaving of course for the consideration of the government and of parliament what should be the increase to his salary.
Before sitting down I would like to say a few words about the suggested Audit Act which was submitted to parliament with the report of the Auditor General some three or four years ago. In the first place the Auditor General suggests that his title should be changed to , ' The Controller and Auditor General of Canada.' That is not a matter perhaps of very great importance and for my part I see no reason why the title

should not be so changed; it is more of form than of substance.
The first important change that I observe in the suggested Audit Act proposed by the Auditor General is that in section 24 he suggests an omission which gives to him, uncontrolled by the Treasury Board, the power to make orders and rules for the conduct of the internal business of his office. For my own part I would regard that as a reasonable request. I think we might safely trust to the Auditor General the power to make rules for the internal business of his office.
The next matter of importance, if it is of importance, is his suggestion that the account to which all public moneys, from whatever source of revenue derived are paid in, should be called 'the Canadian Exchequer Account,' instead of the ' account of the Minister of Finance and Receiver General.' In regard to this the Auditor General expresses his views as follows :
It is important that the public should understand clearly that the money is not in any way the money of the government until after it has been provided by parliament.
Therefore the Auditor General suggests that the account, instead of being called ' the account of the Minister of Finance and Receiver General,' should be called ' the Canadian Exchequer Account.' and in that change he says we will be following the example of the Imperial Audit Act. That however I do not regard as of so much importance as the amendment which he suggests with regard to section 30.
Section 30 is altered very much in the form which he has suggested. The most important amendment it seems to me which he has proposed is that he desires credits to be issued in favour of the deputy head, an accountant of a department, or to two, officers, clerks or other persons, connected with the office or service charged; As I understand it the credit here referred to might be spoken of as the petty cash service of each department. Of course very large sums actually are paid out of that account but relatively speaking, it is. as it were, the petty cash service of eaeh department A credit is made at the request of the Auditor General, by the Minister of Finance and Receiver General in favour of each department and out of that credit moneys are paid for certain public services and in the end the moneys' so paid out of that credit are audited and checked by the Auditor General. He suggests that these credits should be made to the deputy and the accountant of each department, or to at least two officers of the department and I think that would be a desirable amendment.
He makes a further suggestion which is also of importance. He suggests that:
No such credit shall issue in favour of any officers or other persons in excess of Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
(the) appropriations authorized (and assigned as above, or when, in using previous credits, the applicants have disobeyed an Act of parliament or other valid regulations).
He suggests also :
These credits shall he used only for such class or classes of payments as the Controller and Auditor General may direct.
And further :
If the Controller and Auditor General notify one of the persons in whose names a credit has been issued, that such credit is not to be used for any specified purpose, such credit shall not he used for such purpose, but for any payment to be made for such purpose a cheque on the Canada Exchequer Account shall be applied for.
I understand the reason for his proposal is this :	Under the present Act where the
Auditor General has made a credit which is available for the use of a public department, he may afterwards find that under some contract, or under some modified contract, a payment is proposed which he feels he could not sanction, and he may go to the officers of the department possessing that credit and express his views in that regard. But they are entirely at liberty to disregard his views ; they may continue to make payments of which he expressly disapxiroves out of these credits, leaving him only the opportunity of criticising after the payments have been made instead of objecting and withholding the payments, as he otherwise might do. I would be inclined to think that the two suggestions on this line are well worthy of consideration by this House, and I do not see that the administration of public affairs would be in any way hampered by complying with the desire of the Auditor General in this respect.
I frankly and fully admit that in dealing with the suggestions of the Auditor General we must have in mind always the fact that there is ministerial responsibility for public expenditure and we must also bear in mind the fact that we must uot so hamper the administration of public affairs that it cannot be carried on efficiently; but, subject to those two qualifications, it seems to me that we ought to place in the hands of the Auditor General all possible safeguards for the protection of the public interest and the public money.
I may say very frankly that I would not be inclined to assent to some of the suggestions which the Auditor General has made as to section 33 without further explanation and a better understanding of how they could be fairly and properly carried out having regard to the considerations which I have mentioned, but there are two suggestions with regard to section 33 which I think might well be taken into consideration by the government. One of these suggestions is :

If an official of any department, dealing with a claim against the government, knows that the claimant is indebted to the government, whether the indebtedness is of record in the department or not, he shall take no part in the payment of the claim against the government, except to the extent that the amount dpe by the government exceeds that due to it.
The principle of this proposed amendment seems to be a very proper one, although possibly the language of the Auditor General might require modification in order to carry out his idea.
Another suggestion made by the Auditor General is in reference to section 37 :
The Controller and Auditor General may require the production of any public document connected with any expenditure which is before him for examination.
At present I do not see that there can possibly be any objection to his having that power ; in fact it would seem to me that in the public interest he ought to have that power. Some of these suggestions that he has made with regard to section 33 would seem to me to interfere with the theory of ministerial responsibility and with the efficiency of the public administration and would rather place the Auditor General in the position of a Court of Appeal from the administration in respect to matters which must be absolutely entrusted to them under our system of responsible government. Therefore, without more fully understanding what exactly is meant or required by the Auditor General in making these propositions, I would not be inclined to support him with regard to them.
Another suggestion which he has made which seems to be worthy of consideration is in reference to section 47. Section 47 is as follows :
If, during the progress of the examination by the Controller and Auditor General hereinbefore directed, any objection arises to any item to be introduced into the appropriation account of any grant, such objections shall, notwithstanding such account has not been rendered to him, be immediately communicated to the department concerned ; and it the objections are not answered to his satisfaction by such department

The statute at present continues as follows :
-they shall be referred by him to the Treasury Board, and the Treasury Board shall determine in what manner the items in question shall be entered in the annual appropriation account.
The Auditor General's suggestion is that it should read as follows instead of the language which*! have just read :
And if the objections are not answered to his satisfaction by such department he shall disallow the item, or make such change as appears to him proper.
I would be inclined to think that the suggestion of the Auditor General in this regard is a wise one and that there is no good reason in the public interest why that suggestion should not be acted upon.
I think these are all the suggestions of the Auditor General that I find necessary to call attention to at present. It seems to me that the subject is worthy the immediate consideration of the government. I regret that the government did not see fit, at an earlier stage of the session to submit the whole question to this House for the purpose of enabling us to give to it that consideration which we cannot give to it now, and which would probably have been productive of better results than we may hope for at- this late period. For the purpose of bringing the matter before the House, and not in any way as a motion of want of confidence in the government, but in order that a discussion may arise on the whole subject, I beg to move :
That all the words after the word ' that ' in the main motion be left out, and the following substituted therfefor :-
In the opinion of this House the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act should be so extended as to confer upon the Auditor General powers ample in every respect to protect the public interest and to safeguard the public treasury.
That resolution must necessarily be general, because I cannot very well introduce the provisions of an Act of parliament into a resolution. I have submitted to the House my views in regard to the amendments which ought to be made, and whether they are made or not they are at least entitled to the earnest and careful consideration of this House before they should be disregarded.


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance).: The leader of the opposition has moved an amendment which expresses an abstract opinion, and which perhaps would have had no very definite meaning, if my hon. friend had not in his remarks associated with his motion certain proposed amendments to the Audit Act. It is therefore our duty to deal with the amendment in which he proposes to express the opinion of the House ; that the consolidated Revenue and Audit Act should be so extended as to confer upon the Auditor General powers ample in every respect to protect the public interest and safeguard the public treasury. From my own point of view I am unable to vote for that motion inasmuch as it implies that the existing powers are not sufficient for the purpose. I differ entirely from the Auditor General, I differ entirely from my hon. friend if he agrees with the Auditor General, when he implies that the powers of the Audit Act are not at this moment ample and sufficient for the protection of the public treasury. The principles un-

defying the Audit Act were established long years ago under certain conditions, and the conditions existing now are precisely the same as they were then. The volume of business has increased, but that simply means that you have to give to the Auditor General a large staff to do his work. There are no new principles ; no new difficulties, nothing has occurred in the administration of the Audit Act under the present government that has not occurred frequently under the administration of all other governments. Therefore, the suggestion that some need has arisen for a new provision in the Audit Act, is a proposition to which I am unable to give my assent. I do not quite understand what the leader of the opposition meant when he [DOT] said that he regretted that the government had not seen lit at an earlier stage of the session to submit this whole matter to the House. In what manner could we have submitted this matter to the whole House ?


Robert Laird Borden: I referred to the motion for a committee to investigate the whole question of the Audit Act.


William Stevens Fielding: That motion was made by my hon. friend from Sirncoe (Mr Lennox) and the leader of the opposition regrets that it was not acceded to by the government. I think he might have added that that motion was not acceded to by the opposition, because I think I am correct In stating that when the time came to divide the House on that motion there were not a dozen members present on the opposition side, and several of these had remained for the purpose of voting against the motion. The motion was not even pressed to a division, so that when my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) complained that it was not acceded to by the government he hardly puts the case fairly. The motion to which he refers was practically condemned by both sides of the House as something, if not uncalled for, certainly as something that did not commend itself to the judgment of the House. There is no difficulty about the Auditor General having the most full and ample power to investigate. From the remarks of the hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden) one might assume that there was some difficulty in regard to the Auditor General's power to make inquiry. There is absolutely none. Under the Audit Act at present, the Auditqr General is properly vested with large powers ; unlimited powers to investigate everything in connection with the public accounts. He has unlimited power to, audit ; he lias even the power to obstruct, which was never the intention of the Audit Act at all. There is no lack of power to the Auditor General in the Audit Act, and if our friend the Auditor General wants more power, it is not that he may audit the public accounts, but that he may ' Mr. FIELDING.	'
deal with matters which the Audit Act never contemplated as coming within the proper sphere of the Auditor General's duty. I join with my hon. friend the leader of the opposition in giving credit to the Auditor General for what he believes to be a faithful discharge of his duties. The nature of the Auditor General's business makes him critical ; hypercritical, suspicious, sensitive. He is somewhat like a police officer in a court of law whose zeal for conviction is so strong that-the judges look upon his evidence with a degree of doubt and always discount It a little. The Auditor General, by the very nature of his business falls into an atmosphere of suspicion, and he sometimes sees difficulties where none exist. I do not say that as against Mr. Mc-Dougall, but I say it as a condition which is likely to arise out of the very nature of his work ; and so very often we have the Auditor General raising questions which are not questions of audit, but which are questions of public policy. My hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) has associated with his motion suggestions as to certain amendments to the Audit Act. I have never had the pleasure of seeing them or hearing them until they were read in the House to-day, and it would not be wise for anybody to reach conclusive opinions from a very hasty knowledge of a matter of such importance.
I do not anticipate that at this stage of the session we would; be able to give that subject the grave consideration which it ought , to receive if we were to undertake to deal with it. My hon. friend has remarked that the Auditor General, is in a particular manner the servant of parliament. That is true, and that indicates that in a particular manner every member of parliament perhaps has a little larger responsibility in dealing with the affairs of the" Auditor General, than in dealing with the affairs of the ordinary government official. The leader of the opposition has reminded us that as far back as 1899 the Auditor General began to make complaints as to the need of amendments to the Audit Act, and he has read from a more recent report several changes which the Auditor General desires. My hon. friends opposite have therefore had the Auditor General's views before theih for three or four years, and I am bound to believe that if they thought there was any good ground for complaint and any real need of amendments to the Audit Act in the public interest, they would have brought them forward before this, and not waited until the last stages of this session to come forward with an abstract motion simply stating that we need larger powers for the Auditor General. I do no1* think the hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden) has established any case for a change, but certainly before we could undertake to make the change which he has suggested, the House

would have to very carefully consider its position. Without following my hon. friend closely through the proposed amendments which he read, one fact comes out straight and clear, and that is that the control of the expenditure of public money is to be taken from the people's parliament and given to the judge of the Exchequer Court. That is the essence of the whole proceeding, that is the foundation of the proposed Bill.
It was Sir John Macdonald who on one occasion said that among the many rights which the parliament of Canada possessed, was the right to do wrong, and it was better that parliament should exercise its right to do wrong than that other people should deny parliamentary rights. The principles of parliamentary government are such that we are bound to believe that the people through their representatives will deal with every grievance ; and the attempt to get behind the people's representatives, to create some other tribunal, to take the place of parliament, especially in matters of money, and lo give that body .power independent of the government and parliament to deal wTith these matters, is a step in the wrong direction ; and we on this side of the House are not prepared to take it. We have. no reason to suppose that treasury boards and governments under either party are likely to be composed otherwise than of honourable men. It is not necessary for the purpose of our discussion to assume that on one side or on the other there would not be a desire to protect the public interest. We are bound to assume that men placed in the high position of ministers of the parliament of Canada, though they differ in their political stripe from men across the House, will in the main be honest and conscientious in their desire to protect the public interests ; and any assumption that on the part of the government or the Treasury Board, and still more by collusion and bargain with hon. gentlemen opposite, there is to be suppression of truth and justice and violation of the public interests, is something that we say this parliament could not assent to, but is something that hon. members on both sides should resent, whether It comes from the Auditor General or anybody else.
On the general questions involved I do not wish to say any more ; but I would like to say a word or two in regard to what is called the Davis contract, to which my hon. friend has referred in the course of his remarks. I will deal with it only generally, because I have not charged my mind with the details. There is a very erroneous impression conveyed to the public as to the action of the Auditor General on that subject. The claim of Mr. Davis arose out of a series of contracts, one beginning in 1896. Some point is made of a difference of a few days in dates in 189C. I do not suppose a few days are more important in
1 189G than they are in 1900, and we need not dwell on that. A claim was made by | Mr. Davis for moneys alleged to be due under his contract. That claim came before the department. The department reported that the money was due, and applied for a cheque. The Auditor General objected, and then the matter came before the Treasury Board. The Treasury Board inquired into it, and the view they took was this, that whether the contract to which that claim referred was or was not an improvident contract, the claim was one which probably had a foundation of law. We called upon our proper officers to advise us whether or not it was a lawful claim. We were advised that the money was due. Whether or not the contract was wisely made, whether the prices were high or low, whether the quantity of power to be taken was greater or less than it wras prudent to take -all these were legitimate questions to debate at a certain stage, but not at that stage, because we were advised that the money was due. The Treasury Board therefore decided that they were bound, under the advice given them, to overrule the objection of the Auditor General, and that that account, up to the date to which it referred, if it was one which could be collected by process of law, was an account which we were bound to pay. But there was a clause in the original contract made by the hon. member for South Lamrk (Mr. Haggart) in 1896, that the government might acquire possession of all these works of Mr. Davis. In that clause there was an opportunity for a remedy if the contract was found to be an improvident one ; and the Treasury Board took the view that though we would be obliged to pay Mr. Davis's claim up to the date to which he had rendered his account, whether we should continue to do so thereafter was a proper matter for inquiry. That was the position of the matter then. The Treasury Board were not called on to decide whether or not it was an improvident contract. What they were called on to consider was whether or not Mr. Davis's claim was legally and properly due ; and, after legal advice, the accuracy of which has never been questioned, we decided that the claim would have to be paid. Thereupon the Treasury Board passed a minute overruling the Auditor General and deciding to pay the claim. Before that minute came into effect, before any action was taken upon it, some conversation occurred between some of my colleagues and the Auditor General regarding that claim. Just from whom the suggestion first came I do not know, but the outcome of that conversation was that it was thought better to hold the matter open for a time, and enter into negotiations with Mr. Davis to see if another contract could be made which would be more satisfactory to



[Stage Direction]
the Auditor General ; and at the request of the Auditor General in writing, that minute of the Treasury Board was cancelled, and was to be treated as null and void and as no part of the public record. Why the Auditor General, after that minute of the Treasury Board was nullified by agreement made it a subject of discussion and comment in his report I have never been able to ascertain. After the cancellation, negotiations were entered into with Mr. Davis-perhaps he came to the conclusion that the government might obtain relief by buying out the works-and an amended contract was made. Not a dollar has ever been paid in any other way. The claim of Mr. Davis was, if I remember correctly, $40,000 or $50,000, and the Auditor General arranged that a payment should be made on account, and a considerable payment was made. The view of the Treasury Board was, not that that contract should stand for ever, but that so much money as was due should be paid ; but that the question of further proceedings under that contract was one that should be considered-that in some way or other a change might be brought about-that the question of an amendment to the contract should remain open for further negotiations. Subsequently an amended contract was made and approved, and agreed to by the Auditor General. I was at that time temporarily acting as Minister of Railways, and was called on to sign the contract.
Mr. HAGGART.: Did the hon. gentleman say that it was agreed to by the Auditor General ?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, assented to by the Auditor General ; I say that decidedly. The papers came before me as acting Minister of Railways, but in the light of what had happened, I said I would not sign the contract until I was aware that it was approved by the Auditor General. He did approve of it, and the contract was signed. As I have said, the Auditor General agreed that the minute of the Treasury Board should be cancelled and treated as null and void, and I have never been able to ascertain why, after having agreed to that, he dragged it into his\ report and made it the subject of comment. That is the whole history of the Davis contract so far as it lias come under my observation .


Mr. HATJGHTON LENNOX.: The hon. gentleman who has just spoken referred to the attendance in this House when I moved to have this matter submitted to a committee. He said that there were then present not more than eight or ten members on this side. I am not aware that the hon. minister himself (Mr. Fielding) was in the House on the occasion referred to. I am informed he was not, but if he were, he Mr. FIELDING.
certainly took no part in the discussion. One would have expected that in a matter ,so closely affecting !hfe department, the hon. minister would have given us the benefit of his experience and have explained how it came to pass that he so frequently has had to come in conflict with the Auditor-General. He however had nothing to say. He remained as silent as the sphinx ; and now that he has at last delivered himself, one is not surprised that he should have remained so long silent. Let me point out to him that he is not quite correct in his recollection of what took place. The motion I had the honour to move was declared lost upon division, as recorded in ' Hansard.'


William Stevens Fielding: There was no division.


Haughton Lennox: And I do not at all agree with the hon. gentleman in his estimate of the number who were in the House. But what we all must recollect is that we had just closed what might be regarded as the railway session of this House. We had just concluded our labours on the Transcontinental Railway question and were wearied out with long sittings. And further we were on the eve of having submitted to us that important deliverance which the Finance Minister gives us once a year, the budget speech. So that-it was not at all surprising that at half-past two o'clock in the morning the attendance in the House should have been rather slim. But if the hon. minister flutters himself that I have not the support of hon. members on this side, let me assure him that he is entirely mistaken, and allow me to assure the House that if it were practicable at this stage, this side of the House would favour the adoption of the motion I had the honour to introduce and have this whole matter referred to a select committee, as I suggested, to be chosen by the right hon. the leader of the government without regard to politics.
At one o'clock, House took recess.
House resumed at Three o'clock.


Haughton Lennox: When the House rose, Mr. Speaker, I was referring to some remarks made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). That hon. gentleman was concerned about the point that when I was speaking on this important question there was not a large representation on this side of the House. That, perhaps, having regard to the importance of the question then debated, was unfortunate. But I might point out that it was still more unfortunate that the Minister of Finance, who is particularly charged with responsibilities in these matters and who. above all other members of the cabinet, should be the one possessed of a competent and adequate knowledge of the working of the Audit Act, the gentleman to whom, above all others, \ye should look

for the originating of ideas of importance in regard to this Act, was not present when the matter was formerly discussed. It is still more significant and important, it is still more remarkable, that that hon. gentleman has not found it possible to be present now when the House reassembles. As to the hon. gentleman's suggestion that this matter had been long delayed, if it affords a reason for reference to that matter at all, affords only the reason that it is much more important and much more the duty of the government now to take the matter in hand for the very reason that it is late and be-* cause already the delay has been too long. Justice delayed is equal to injustice ; and I venture to say, having full regard to my responsibility ns a member of this House, that great injustice has been done to the people of this country by the fact that for so long the government has neglected its duty to introduce an amendment of the Audit Act upon some such lines, or to some such extent as that advocated by the Auditor General. The Auditor General has had more than a quarter of a century experience of such matters. Not only was he originally appointed by the friends of the present administration, but. for eighteen years while the Conservative party were in power, they never ceased to laud him, a position in strange contrast to the position of the Minister of Finance to-day, for he speaks of the Auditor General as a gentleman who necessarily brings to the duties of his position an attitude of suspicion-one would not wonder at that at all, it is natural enough, considering the facts and the circumstances,-and he' finds it impossible to describe the Auditor General except by likening him to a detective. This may be very nice, and may seem quite appropriate to a gentleman like the Finance Minister, but I venture to say the people of the country will look upon his utterances and upon the attitude of the whole government with suspicion, when they reflect that for eighteen years the present administration and their friends in the House and upon the hustings could not find language sufficiently eulogistic in which to describe the Auditor General, but the moment that gentleman gets in their way, the moment he stands between them and the, people, the moment he stands by the treasury of the country, and asserts the powers which parliament intended to clothe him with when fhe Act was introduced by a Liberal administration in 1878, the moment he takes the position of standing by the will of the people as against the will of the administration and they find they can go no further except by the removal of the Auditor General-that moment they begin to make it so inconvenient for him that he cannot stay ; he must get out. Nor is this an isolated instance. It is different in degree and different in some of its features from the position taken in reference to the hon.
member for St. Mary's (Mr. Tarte), it is somewhat different from the position taken by the government in regard to the former Minister of Railways, (Mr. Blair) ; it differs in some features from the attitude of the government in regard to Lord Dundouald but they are all of the same general class, and indicate the same determination that when anv public official or member of the cabinet stands in the way of these gentlemen, when they cannot march on at then-own sweet will, that public official or the member of the cabinet who stands in their way must go. Now, the Minister of Finance ought to be here this afternoon. He ought to be here and take his medicine. Because when an hon. gentleman is charged with the duties which have been committed to him for so many years, and who has excelled only in one line, and that is in congratulating himself every year that he has done so exceedingly well, and when it comes down to business in dealing with this question of adequately safeguarding the people's interest, that hon. gentleman ought to be here. It is too much the habit of the administration, I think, to shift responsibility from one member of the cabinet to another. Too often do we see this farming out of responsibility, so that when we call one of the ministers to task, we find that somebody else acts as his sponsor. If it is the Minister of Railways, who is called to task, then it is the Minister of Justice who replies. I need not multiply instances, for we find it constantly occurring that when a department is under fire some one else must stand up and answer for the minister who is properly responsible for that department. So, I suppose some one other than the Finance Minister, some one who knows nothing about the matter in a practical sense, will be expected to answer the arguments advanced by the opposition this afternoon. If the government likes to take that position, of course, it must do so. It * is not a strong example of the true workings of the principles of responsible government, though it is the only exemplification we have here. Though the hon. Minister of Finance has found it convenient to be away, I am glad that the right hon. leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier) is in his place. I hope that the Finance Minister having argued this matter upon a different basis from that on which it was argued the other night, the rest of the cabinet will assume responsibility for the words of the Minister of Finance and take the same position as he did. But, at all events, we have heard the hon. gentlemen opposite applaud the Minister of Finance this morning and will see what they think of the statements of that hon. gentleman when they are critically examined. The minister of Finance tells us that he will vote against this resolution, and he gives his reasons. What are the reasons given by the hon. gentleman ? The

first is that the adoption of such a resolution would- imply a defect in the Act. Could folly further go ? Why, this same hon. gentleman introduced an amendment to the Act last session, which, in the face of the country and in the face of the opposition he dare not put through. Now, that was either right or it was wrong. If it was right, the Act is defective to-day ; if the Act is not defective, the Bill introduced by the Finance Minister last session had no justification. On one or other horn of the dilemma, the minister must ride, and so must those who support and applaud him. But the Minister of Finance was inconsistent even during his remarks. He said he would take the matter into consideration, but he would have to vote down the resolution. That little inconsistency, however, is hardly worth referring to. But the minister says the Act is satisfactory. And yet there is not one suggestion or objection of the Auditor General during the whole time these hon. gentlemen have been in power that has not been overridden. I am not .going to be dragged into a discussion of the details of the Davis contract at this stage, because we are going to have that up in the right way. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) would like very much to let the government down easy by dealing in a general way with the Davis contract and diverting public attention from the matter which is at issue, namely whether we shall have an Act that will more adequately protect the public interest than the present Act: whether we shall have some amendments which time has shown are absolutely necessary in the public interest.
The hon. gentleman says that another reason for voting against these resolutions is that no new conditions have arisen. Well, he must have been sleeping for a quarter of a century. When this Act was introduced more than a quarter of century ago, the hon. gentleman who introduced it, the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright), pointed out that it was not required until then because the revenue and expenditure had been small, but that the expenditure had increased to about .$40,000,000 a year, and therefore an Audit Act had become necessary. As time went on the expenditure increased, and these hon. gentlemen pointed out from year to year the vastly increased responsibilities of the Auditor General until now we come to an entirely new condition of things. I'own to 1888 we had been enlarging the scope of the Auditor General's power, and in that year we had it announced by Sir Charles Tupper, and concurred in by members on both sides of the House, that what was originally intended had been reached, namely. that the Auditor General then had control of every branch of the public service. and of every branch of the financial affairs of the country. That was agreed to at that time as a proper condition of affairs.


Haughton Lennox: What have we been doing since then ? WTe have been gradually encroaching upon the domain of the Auditor General, and the Minister of Finance is among those who would have shorn him to a very large extent of those powers, which he fortunately possesses at the present time. Now we find that the government attempted last year to rob the Auditor General of some necessary powers that he possessed, even going to the extent by that Bill of allowing the librarian to overrule the Auditor General if occasion should arise. I say that we now find this condition of things, we find it denied that the Auditor General has any power over the expenditure of this House, that this is to be regulated by the Committee on Internal Economy ; we find that the Auditor General, instead of having his powers what they were, is gradually, so far as the government can do it, having his powers circumscribed. And we are confronted by this important new condition of things,-and this is. what is alarming the country at the present time, that the government has committed itself to an enormous expenditure which is to be controlled by the administration to a degree that no other large expenditure has been controlled by an administration in the history of Canada. We have the whole eastern section of the Transcontinental Railway controlled directly by the administration and placed in the hands of three or four nominees of the Crown. ' Nominees of the Crown ' is a euphemism. It means that this whole expenditure is to be controlled by three or four men who have been political supporters and henchmen of the government, and who will be more emphatically henchmen of the government after they get their appointments. Then surely it is time that we had every safeguard applied which can be applied for the regulation of this very important branch of the public service.
Now, I referred to the Minister of Finance and to his suspicious attitude with regard to the Auditor General. I think it comes very badly indeed from the Minister of Finance to open out upon the Auditor General in the way he did to-day, to show the animus he did ; pointing out. as he did, that in his view because the Auditor General has ventured to assert himself in opposition to the departments, he therefore cannot be tolerated any longer. That is the sum and substance of what the hon. gentleman said. Yet, in 1886, Sir Richard Cartwright was the first to move to increase the salary of the Auditor General, who was then watching over the acts of the Conservative .administration ; and in 18S8. when Sir Charles Tupper introduced an Act to increase the salary of the Auditor General, every member of the present administration who was then in the House, and all the prominent men of the Liberal party at the time, Sir. Mills, Mr. Weldon, Sir. Edgar and the right hon. leader of the

present government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), joined heartily with Sir Charles Tupper in liis description of the merits of the Auditor General, and of the important duties that he was discharging. Now, I think it would be a dignified and manly attitude for the present government and the Minister of Finance in particular, to speak and act on the lines that Sir Charles Tupper adopted at that time. Let me therefore refer to the language Sir Charles Tupper then used :
During the last year, as his office steadily progressed, the government have delegated to him the power of auditing the receipts of the Dominion. In fact, it may be said, that at this moment every cent received or paid out on account of the Dominion of Canada is subject to the review and audit of the Auditor General.
Then Sir Charles Tupper points out, in a very decided contrast to the attitude of the present Minister of Finance, that this official was keeping track of the Conservative government and was opposing them, and yet lie was prepared in a generous and statesmanlike way to applaud the Auditor General.
The accounts of the election held in 1887 were reviewed by him, and claims on that head reduced by some $26,000 ; similarly on the franchise accounts, claims have been reduced by some $61,000.
That, I guarantee, was applauded by the opposition of that day. And Cir Charles continues :
It would be impossible for members on either side of this House to overrate the careful and painstaking ability of that officer or his conscientious devotion to the duties of the most important office which he - discharges. He is in every sense of the word an officer of parliament. Although he has felt it occasionally to be his duty to differ with members of the administration, and with the conduct of the affairs of the public departments in carrying out the details of his office, I have no hesitation in saying that he has discharged his duties in such a way as to win the confidence and hearty approval of every member of the government, as I am sure he has earned it of every member of both sides of the House.
That is what I expect of statesmen ; that is the generous statement I would expect at all events from the men who selected the present Auditor General, who put him in office and who applauded him on every occasion, inside and outside of the House, for eighteen years and not-I was going to say contemptible, but that would not be parliamentary-and not the very doubtful position taken by the Minister of Finance today in regard to that official. Now the hon. gentleman complains of the attitude of the Auditor General ; he does not think it is what it ought to be. Well, the public, I venture to say, will think it is pretty nearly what it ought to be. Hon. gentlemen are fond of pointing out that upon legal questions the Auditor General is sometimes not
correct. That may be so, but I venture to say that any one who reads the overruling cases in the Auditor General's Report and marks the language employed by the officials-of the department which is attacked-and it is very often upon the Railway Department that the attack is made, and therefore I would particularly mention the language of the Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals-the correspondence which passes between the Auditor General and the department-would be surprised at the moderate attitude maintained by the Auditor General throughout these discussions. Sneers and insults mark the progress of the correspondence almost from end to end, and it seems to be the rule that the moment the Auditor General raises a question, that moment he is confronted by every official in the department which is attacked. Talk of suspicion ! Why it is suspicion from end to end by the department with slurs intervening. I venture to say that when this whole matter is ventilated as it will be, X hope, during this session of parliament, the people will be amazed at the moderate attitude, at the self-denying attitude, adopted and maintained by the Auditor General in the face of the most enormous provocation from time to time.


An hon. MEMBER.: Carried.


Haughton Lennox: If it depended upon the hon. gentleman who has just spoken to carry anything it would not be carried very far. The hon. gentleman says it is too late to deal with this question. Well if it is too late whose fault is it that it is too late ? We asked at the earliest possible moment in the session to have this Audit Act taken up. We presented it without regard to politics. I made a distinct point in the motion I made and in urging that motion that it would not be regarded as in any way a political question. X am sure that I spoke in a line which gave the government every reason to take it that I was sincere in saying that I did not regard it as a political matter, and yet, although we can have commissions by the score, we can have no committee for this matter. Perhaps I made a mistake, perhaps I should have asked for a commission. A commission would have involved, perhaps, the appointment of political friends ; it would probably have involved the payment of money out of the public treasury. There might then have been good enough reasons for the appointment of a commission, but I asked- for a committee of the House, unpaid, devoting their services to the country, men on both sides of politics. No committee could be granted, although we have the Chinese Commission, the British Columbia Labour Commission, the Miners' Yukon Commission, the Elevator Commission in Manitoba, the School Question Commission in Manitoba, the Cattle-Guards' Commission, the Rail-


COMMON'
[Stage Direction]
way Commission, the Transportation Commission, the Crow's Nest Pass Commission, the commission to inquire into the Garneau charges, the West Elgin Commission, the Treadgold Commission, and scores of other commissions. Yet when it comes to a question of the people's money, when it comes to a practical question, to a business question for a business government, then there is no time to go on with it. There is time enough for railways. We can have almost the whole of last session devoted to one railway company and a large portion of this session to the same company. I brought this matter up at the earliest possible moment after the railway business had been disposed of and yet we are told by the Minister of Finance to-day that there is not time to go on with the matter. Then the hon. gentleman has the bravery-we will call it that, because I do not want to call it any unpleasant word-he has the lira very to say: . Oh, you gentlemen slept on your rights. He says that this proposal of the Auditor General was put in the form of a proposed Bill three or four sessions ago, and that the hon. gentlemen on this side have not brought it up until now. Let me tell the hon. gentleman that if it had not been that the House was engrossed last session with railway legislation, that the whole progress of the affairs of this country was blocked by reason of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, I would have introduced this matter last session. Probably a score of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House know that I had this same Bill before me last session and contemplated moving it if there . had been any reasonable probability of getting the government to consider the ordinary every day wants of the people of Canada, instead of engrossing the attention of parliament with railway matters and affairs of that kind. Of course if the government want to take the attitude that they are going to act merely for the great corporations and that the time of parliament is to be reserved for that purpose, then the hon. gentleman is perfectly consistent in saying that it is too late to-day, when the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) introduces these proposed amendments to the Audit Act. Let me tell -the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) that while he touched only upon the fringe of the questions proposed to be dealt with by the leader of the opposition, he need not imagine that hon. gentlemen on this side of the House are going to be led away from the issue by his reference to the Davis contract. There will be time enough for them to face that matter within a very short time ; we are coming to the discussion of that matter, I understand, as soon as we get into Committee of Supply, but for the present we do not propose that the Minister of Finance or other members of the government or their supporters shall evade the issue now presented to them, and Mr. LENNOX.
that is why, having regard to the enormously increased expenditure which the government is contemplating, the new conditions that have arisen and the difficulties which time has shown to exist in the Act, we intend to force them to state whether they are prepared to deny the reasonable measures of justice which have been suggested by the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) or whether they are prepared to take the matter into consideration and pass it through at this session of the House. I put no confidence in the statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) that we cannot dispose of this question at this session. Why, two or three hours, half a day at all events, carefully devoted to the consideration of this question will, if not make a perfect Act-I suppose we cannot expect that-at least improve the Act upon the lines suggested by the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) or upon lines which would commend themselves to the consideration of the House. Let me tell the hon. gentleman, when he refers to the Davis contract that although we are not going to pursue it at present, although we will leave that for its proper time and not allow the government to fall easy by having it disposed of piecemeal, he is entirely away from the fact when he states that the Treasury Board always intended to modify that contract.
Any one who reads the correspondence sent between the department and the Auditor General will see that every line of it is a denial of there being any foundation for the charges made by the Auditor General, and that, far from intending to take this matter up at any future time the government absolutely denied there was the faintest grounds for an investigation of any kind. There is another emphatic reason why we should notallow the Minister of Finance to draw us away from a discussion of this amendment. The Davis contract is not by a score the only case of gross scandal which rises out of tlie action of the government in this matter of overruling the Auditor General. Although the Davis contract deals with larger figures -I am not going to let these gentlemen on the other side make so much noise, and I will name them if they do not keep order- although the Davis contract is the more recent, it is not by any means the most glaring case of injustice to the Auditor General, and, through the Auditor General, of injustice to the people of this country. The Corry & Daverdure contract was hedged about with the most emphatic statement * that no extras would be allowed unless they were determined upon previously by a written requisition at stated prices by the chief engineer. And yet, by an overruling of the Auditor General which cannot foe sustained by any reasonable intendment of the law, we have paid to these contractors $125,000 more than Mr. Schreiber, the chief engineer would certify for. The view taken by the Auditor

General in that case was that the duties of the chief engineer could not be delegated, and that under the statute the certificate ' of the engineer must be given. On both these points Mr. Newcombe, in the end, just as the matter was being closed up, decided that the Auditor General was absolutely right, but yet the Treasury Board overruled the Auditor General, with the result that there was paid out $96,000 more than the engineer would certify for. But that is not all. The Minister of Finance says that the Audit Act is perfect, and because we imply that it is not perfect, he says he will vote against the amendment. Let me call the attention of the committee to the fact that three days before the House closed last year the Minister of Fin-nance was the instrument by which, after giving that $96,000 to Corry & Laverdure. more than they were entitled-if I were not in parliament I would properly describe it. but when I get to the hustings in Ontario I shall call it a clear steal.
Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


Haughton Lennox: Yes. you can shout if you like. I say that notwithstanding the opinion of the Justice Department on the two points referred to, Corry & Laverdure got $96,000 more than they were entitled to, and at the close of last session, in apparently innocent and harmless words, the Minister of Finance told us that this firm was entitled to $28,901 more by way of interest, because of the delay in the payment of the principal amount. He did not suggest to the House that there .was a dispute over this matter, nor that the chief engineer, whose judgment was to be taken on the contract, was unable to certify that one dollar of this money had been earned. Take the Faran's Point canal contract. This is another case which I suppose the Minister of Finance, if not the First Minister, wii' be prepared to sustain as a just and equitable overruling of the Auditor General by the Treasury Board. They made the Barren's Point canal contract one of the most c-ast-iron contracts that could be made, and naturally' one would think that the government should be applauded for framing such a contract. But there is a wheel within a wheel. They made that cast-iron contract, because none but friends of the government could tender under it. There were to be no extras ; the contractors did everything on their own risk, and independent contractors could not apply, but a favourite of the government puts in his oar and says : I will take the contract, and I will engineer the extras afterwards. Under the contract the government could stop the work whenever they liked ; the government need not let the contractor work until they liked, but this mattered not to the contractor who was a friend of the government. That is the end of the hard and fast contract business so
far as the country is concerned, but after that comes the hard and fast run by the contractor as to how much he shall make out of it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


Haughton Lennox: Let me refer to the question of responsible government raised by the Finance Minister. The Finance Minister rushes in, as some people do, where it is dangerous to rush in-you know the adage ; and I have noticed that he is always ready to rush in on a constitutional question or a question of law. I do not dispute the igreat ability of the Finance Minister on matters which appertain to his own department ; but I always do feel amused when he begins to deal with constitutional questions and questions of law. However, it does not do us as much harm as it does himself. Though he is concerned about the proposal of the hon. leader of the opposition, he only refers to one feature of that proposal. With all the varied knowledge that the Minister of Finance possesses by reason of his close association with this question, he can only pick out one point raised by the hon. leader of the opposition to suggest that there is any difficulty in the way. Let me assure the hon. gentleman that if any question involving an infringement of constitutional rights, or any dimunition of the powers and responsibilities of responsibile government, were involved, the hon. gentleman might be assured, from the history of the past, that no men would be more alive or more astqte in opposing the proposed change than the members of the opposition in this House. There is no such question involved. The leader of the opposition proposes that there shall be a safeguard for the people's money; in other words, that you shall not get the responsibility fixed only after the money has gone into the pocket of the contractor, and from the pocket of the contractor part of it has gone God knows where. What the aim of the leader of the opposition is, is this, that in a case of sufficient magnitude, and involving a question of very grave doubt as to the right of the department to take the position which they are taking, the Auditor General may apply to the Exchequer Court, not for a decision of the Exchequer Court controlling the exercise of power by the administration, but merely that if it appears to the court to be a case of sufficient importance and gravity, and where a sufficient prima facie case is made out, they shall stay the payment of the people's money to the contractor until the House assembles and has an opportunity to pronounce upon it. It may be, and probably will be, that the administration will still take the bit in their mouths, and put the matter through by the force of numbers ; and that seems to be the idea of the Minister. of Finance whenever he talks on this question. He thinks it a question of numbers ; I think it a question of right. The leader of the opposition has proposed that in such cases there shall be that safeguard for the people's money-that the Auditor General shall not be compelled to pay it out until the matter has been investigated by the Exchequer Court and reported to the Mr. LENNOX
next session of parliament-but with a proviso. The leader of the opposition foresees that there might be instances in which a hardship might result; and therefore he provides that in cases of urgency, the will of the administration shall in the meantime prevail and whatever money is necessary to have paid out in the interest of the service shall be paid, even though in the end it might result in an unjustifiable loss to the country. The hon. Minister of Finance therefore need not be at all anxious about the question of responsible government. Parliament will retain control, and parliament will have something tangible to deal with, instead of being met by the difficulty that we have been met with in the past, of having it said when this matter comes forward that it is almost an idle question to deal with, because it has already been disposed of. Let me point out another evidence of the far-seeing wisdom of the Conservative party as contrasted with the somewhat limited vision of the Liberal party, by reading a few lines of what Sir Charles Tupper said on this very point in 1878, when this Act was introduced. He said :
The difficulty, that appears to present itself to my mind is this. You are professing to give the public an independent parliamentary officer, but who is to see, before the payment of the public money, that under the law it is entitled to be paid. If you leave-' the government power to override his decision and pay the money, what then is gained by the Bill ?
Experience has shown that every word of that is written in wisdom, and it is absolutely necessary in the interest of the public that there should be, not a control of the administration by the Auditor, but control of both by parliament-and as I pointed out, when I spoke on this subject before. I do not advocate anything that would infringe in the slightest degree on the doctrine or the efficient working of our parliamentary system. What is proposed is that there shall be an effective check on the administration. and that when an important case arises, the matter shall be stayed until the attention of parliament has been called to it, and it has been dealt with by parliament. In that way we shall have an effective control, instead of an academic discussion of the matter after the money has been paid out. I was referring to the Minister of Finance in the early part of my remarks, and I want to point out the view taken by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) in 1878. His view was that the Minister of Finance least of all others should have control. This is what he stated :
Although the Department of Finance was in no respect a spending department, being intended as a sort of check on the others* still the Minister of Finance for the time he-

lag must necessarily be in harmony with the other members of the government.
That is just where the difficulty is. If you leave this matter entirely to the uncontrolled decision of the Treasury Board, without compelling them to give reasons for their decisions, you will find the ministers necessarily standing in with each other, and you will find that the Minister of Finance, instead of being a check on the others, standing in with them, so that you will have the case tried by the very parties who are on trial. The main object of the Audit Act, as explained in 1878, was to inspire the public with confidence in the public accounts. If that inspiration was necessary iu 1878, it is doubly necessary to-day. When we find that attacks are being made upon almost every public official, not only every public official, but every cabinet minister who stands for t'he public as opposed to the government-when we find the government prepared to get rid of all these men who stand in their way, we want something to inspire the public with confidence again. Let me read one more quotation from the debate in 1878, showing what was required, and then ask the government if they think this has been verified by time. In 1878, when t'he Act was introduced, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) said :
What the House has got to consider is a matter of extreme importance in the interests of the public. It is necessary that we should have a perfect audit of the public accounts and that we should have our public accounts as much as possible, not only correct but, above suspicion
That is what my hon. friend the leader of the opposition is aiming at iu bringing this matter before the House. Public attention has been called to it in a very significant way. The Auditor General has at present a very precarious tenure of office. That he has the universal confidence of all classes is undoubted and that the circumstances call for an assertion of his independence and freedom of action is equally undoubted. Let me point to this one circumstance. I would like to know from the right hon. the First Minister as well as the Minister of Finance, who are so fond of talking about the principles of responsible government, how it comes that within the last few days they have been guilty of a most conspicuous disregard of those principles ? The Auditor General is a servant of both Houses of parliament and cannot be removed except on the joint address of both Houses. How- comes it that when this servant of parliament is forced by stress of circumstances, by the fact that the administration has made his position intolerable, iby the fact that he finds it impossible to act longerUnless he is prepared to be mixed up in questions of doubtful honesty-how
comes it that when this servant of parliament sent his resignation to the government and gave his reason for resigning, the government so far ignored the principles of responsible government that they simply filed that away in their vaults instead of transmitting it to the House at the earliest possible opportunity, and left the House to get the information from the public press ? Do the government realize that down to the moment when the leader of the opposition demanded on behalf of the people that that letter from the Auditor General should be laid upon t'he table, we had not a syllable from the government on the matter ? Do they realize that the Auditor General is a servant of this House, but cannot communicate directly with the House ? Do they realize that his only way to communicate with this House is through the administration, and that it is the duty of the administration, the moment they get a communication from the Auditor General, to put the House in possession of it ? Do the government understand that until the 1st of July had passed-the date fixed for resignation-they had made no announcement whatever to this House concerning the request of the Auditor General ? Yet those gentlemen talk about responsible government. Why, if they are allowed to go on at the same rate violating constitutional principles, as they have been doing in the last few years, it will not be five years before the last vestige of responsible government will have disappeared.


Mr. JAMES CLANCY.: If there was anything wanting in the complete indifference with which the government treats this question to challenge the admiration of people outside who may admire that sort of thing, we have that supplied to-day. We have had a few brief remarks from the Minister of Finance, occupying but a very few minutes, and with these the right hon. leader of the government seems to be quite content. But despite the apparent indifference of the government, both sides view this question with considerable concern. Both sides realize its gravity. While both sides recognize that under our system the most complete freedom must be given to the government to administer the affairs of the country, while we all recognize that the King's government must go on, yet no one doubts that it must be subject to certain checks, and I would like to ask the right hon. the First Minister if he is prepared to say that parliament has not the right to provide its own checks. We have been told by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Justice time and again that the duties of the Auditor General are merely those of an accountant and a calculator.
He was to add up figures ; he was to see if there were vouchers for payments ; he was to see that there was a parliamentary ap-

propriation ;-but anything going beyond that was an infringement of the rights of the ministry, and therefore he must be checked. We are told to-day by the Minister of Finance that there is no need for change, as there is no change in the conditions. The hon. gentleman knew, when he spoke those words, that the Auditor General's Report teems with correspondence with men who, through neglect or for some other reason have not given a proper account, yet have been given treasury warrants in spite of the protest of the Auditor General. What does that mean ? It means a growing disregard on the part of the present government of every wholesome rule designed to provide proper checks upon the public expenditure. But, while the hon. gentleman says that there are no new conditions, he is himself furnishing new conditions. Only last year he sought to take away the checks that already exist. He showed himself to be in accord with that drift of opinion which favours leaving the ministry entirely unchecked. He introduced a Bill to limit the already limited powers of the Auditor General. It is true that he was driven by the force of public opinion to withdraw that Bill. He backed down not because of any desire to have a better public service, but because he dared not face the electorate bearing the responsibility of having pressed such a measure through parliament. Still, there is a growing tendency in certain quarters to narrow the powers of the Auditor General. I defy the Minister of Finance to rise in his place and declare that it is not the policy of the government to-day to restrict the Auditor General's powers, to narrow the scope of his duties and to prevent him from enforcing the checks which parliament, when he was appointed, designed that he should enforce. One would have expected the Minister of Finance, when speaking on behalf of the government and dealing with the suggestions made by the leader of the opposition, to suggest that those changes would narrow the sphere of ministerial responsibility. But the hon. gentleman made no pretense of that kind. He simply waved the matter aside, declaring that no wrong existed and no remedy was needed. Well, perhaps I may be a little wrong in saying that he raised no objection. My attention is now directed to the fact that the hon. gentleman would not allow the intervention of a judge, would not even allow one of the judges of our courts to pass a judgment which would merely have the effect of a stay of proceedings ;*-even such an interference with the ministers could not be thought of. It will be a surprise even to laymen in this House that the government is so jealous, not of its proper powers but of the slightest restraint, of anything that will prevent them from having a free hand to do just as they like. Every one in Canada who has had even a slight experience of public life knows the pressure often brought upon parties to force governments into po-Mr. CLANCT.
sition, that, I would hope their better judgments would rebel against. One would think that the government would seek to be safeguarded against such an influence, would be glad of better checks by the Auditor General in order that they might escape the pressure driving them in a direction which they know to be wrong.
Now, let me take the case the Minister of Finance spoke of-the Davis contract. I do not intend to discuss the Davis contract but to point out that we had a little new light on this subject from the Minister of Finance. He declared that he was not going to discuss the question whether that contract was prudent or imprudent. He told us that the Auditor General had done his best against payment under the contract. He said the government had made inquiry and had taken advice, and found that money was due. The Auditor General declared that the money was not due, because the service had not been performed. The only negotiations which took place were those under a provision, which had been inserted in the original contract in 1896, that the government might resume the whole work, taking it out of the hands of the contractor, if they thought proper to do so. Means were found under this to compel Mr. Davis to make a new contrat This was not a vague suggestion, it was a clear declaration in plain English that they had changed the contract, that they had used a clause they had not put into the contract to coerce the contracts, right or wrong, to agree to new conditions. Suppose the Auditor General had been silent. Suppose he had merely made his protest and submitted his report to the House. Suppose he had not been persistent. What would have been the position 7 Why, we should now be paying $22,000 or $23,000 a year for eighty-four years more than we are now paying. Has /Mr. Davis been unfairly dealt with ? Was a contract made that should not have been made ? It is perfectly plain that the government found themselves in such a position that they were obliged to take what, I contend under other conditions, would, have been a very unfair course.
I shall not detain the House long, but I merely wish for a few moments to refer to the Auditor General and his position. It is a regrettable thing that a gentleman of Mr. McDougall's position and standing, a man entirely in sympathy with the government of the day, an officer appointed by the Liberal party and one.who has given long and valued service under three governments

appointed under the Mackenzie government, served for eighteen years under the Conservative government, and for the last seven years under the Liberal government (a government of the ' new Liberals ')- I say it is a regrettable thing that such a man has now to choose between public duty and being the servant of the ministry of the day. It is an alarming state of affairs. It would have been an easy matter

for Mr. McDougall to plead what he might have pleaded under ordinary conditions- his age. Finding his position irksome, finding that he had to play a false or double part or resign, had he been a less courageous or honourable man he might have pursued the easy course, pleaded his age and asked for superannuation and gone out quietly. He has thought fit to take a different course. He has intimated that he is prepared to resign-in fact he has resigned so far as his own act is concerned-and he makes no condition as to his superannuation. But his desire is to remain and serve the people, if he can be put in a position where he can serve them effectively. If that power is not given, then he chooses to walk out like an honourable man. This disregard of the Auditor General on the part of the government is a challenge to the people.
I do not know of a bolder challenge given to the people than that which has been given by compelling a man occupying so responsible a position to retire. The position of the Auditor General is a most responsible one, there is none more so in connection with our government, except it be that of the Prime Minister himself. Now, I will place on ' Hansard ' Mr. McDougall's reasons for resigning. He made those reasons perfectly plain some time ago. The government are in no sense taken by surprise, for they knew all about it. This is what Mr. McDougall has to say in transmitting his resignation to the government a short time ago.
Auditor General's Office, Canada, Ottawa, 21st June, 1904.
Sir,-I beg to inclose herewith a communication, addressed to the Governor General in Council, applying for superannuation. I have to request that you will submit this application to His Excellency in Council at your earliest convenience, under the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, section 4, subsection 2, as amended by 54-55 Victoria, chapter 16.


Hon.  W. S.@: Fielding,
Minister of Finance.
Now, those are the reasons contained in _ the Auditor General's resignation. I am ' sure they are such as will pay high tribute to the character of that gentleman, a gentleman who has served the country so many years, and who is now finding himself driven out of his position as the safeguard standing between a ministry and the people of this country in our enormous expenditure. He realizes, as every man in Canada must realize, that conditions have enormously changed. We have an immense expenditure, we have new complications, we have new services, and if we do not create corresponding safeguards, We should find ourselves in a position that will be a menace to the interests of the people of this country. No man can say that we are not living in new conditions. We are living in a period in the history of Canada when 210
conditions are rapidly changing. Let us act according to the conditions under which we are living. Let us not look for precedents, precedents are not necessary. Let us learn from the teaching of experience ; to use a happy phrase of the First Minister, let us learn from wisdom and profit by it. Now, here is what Mr. McDougall has to say in his communication dated June 21, 1904 :
To His Excellency the Governor General in Council :
I have the honour to request the government to superannuate me, to take effect from the 1st of July next. This may be done by superannuating any time during this month. The superannuation, if the time is not named, counts from the 1st of the following month. This Is in pursuance of the following sentences in the preliminary part of my report.
This I referred to a moment ago. It was published in the Auditor General's Report and was in the hands of the ministry for some months. This is what he said on that occasion, and he repeats it now, as a reason for his resignation :
The magnitude and number of the transactions going through this office are now so increased that I feel parliament should seriously consider also the amendment of the Audit Act along the other lines suggested in a former report, to enable this office to cope with the expansion of the business pf ,the country. I feel so strongly on this point that if parliament does not see its way to bring the matter up this session, I shall at the end of the session ask to be superannuated.
He further goes on :
The session is not ended, but from the remarks of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice on Mr. Lennox's motion for a committee, it is plain that the Audit Act will not be amended this session, and therefore there is no purpose in delaying my superannuation.
My age is 65 years past, I having bfcen' born on the 6th of Nevember, 1838. I entered the service on the 1st of August, 1878, and under ordinary circumstances would count for 52 per cent of my salary of $4,000, or for $2,080. It, however, appears to me that I am entitled to nine years additional service to be added to my service in this calculation, to make it thirty-five, the maximum, which would make my allowance $2,800. This claim of additional service I make under chapter 18, of 49 Victoria, section 4.
This is the Act to which he refers :
The Governor in Council, may in the case of any person who entered the civil service after the age of 30 years, as being possessed 08 some peculiar professional or other qualifications or attainments required for the office for which he w'as appointed, and not ordinarily to be acquired in the public service, add to the actual number of years service of such person, such further number of years not exceeding ten, as is considered equitable, for reasons stated in the Order in Council made in ^ the case ; and such additional number of



years shall be taken as part of the term of service on which the superannuation allowance of such person shall be computed ; and the Order In Council in any such case shall be laid before parliament at its then current or next ensuing session.
I was gold 'medallist in mathematics in the University of Toronto in 1859 with special presentation report to convocation which, if any one has sufficient interest in it, may be found in the newspapers of the time. I was a member of the Dominion parliament for several years before appointment.
Please make the superannuation early, whether you can see your way to adding the additional time or not.
Respectfully submitted,


J. L. McDOUGALL,
[Stage Direction]
Auditor General.
Mr. McDougall makes it perfectly plain that he is making superannuation the last consideration. His first consideration is that he be provided with such additional means as are necessary under the changed conditions, many of which the ministry have furnished by their own arbitrary action. He asks that these changes be made, and if they are not made he plainly intimates that only one course is left open to him, namely, to retire. Now, I am sorry to see in some very respectable quarters, in some sections of the press supporting the government of the day, some comments which I think are very unfair. X am sorry to see that they have taken their cue from the Minister of Finance, and they speak of the Auditor General as a gentleman to be looked upon with great suspicion, that he is a meddlesome person, that he would be dishonest himself if he had an opportunity. Let me read from a very respectable newspaper supporting the hon. gentlemen opposite some comments upon the conduct of the Auditor General since his resignation became public, and I will leave it to the hon. gentlemen opposite to judge whether this is an honest criticism, whether it is a criticism that they share in. If they do share in it, I am sure nobody will be disposed to dispute their sole possession of it. This is only one of the many extracts that I might quote from different newspapers. The Sarnia ' Observer,' a I.iberal newspaper, had this to say in its issue of June 28, 1904. Its heading ' The watchdog is willing, ' is very significant in view of the article which follows :
The ' watch dog of the treasury,' as the Auditor General is sometimes designated, shows in his application for superannuation that he is as ready to raid the treasury when he sees a chance as any one of those whom he has been taxing in his annual reports with making demands that were not Justified by the services performed. He states in his application that he will accept superannuation if the government will add ten years to the length of his service. This is to be done so that he may receive a larger superannuation allowance than his real services entitle him to. He is asking the government to commit an illegal act so that he may draw out of the treasury for the balance of his life more Mr. CLANCY.
money than is fairly and lawfully coming to him-the very thing that the Auditor General is specially charged to guard against. It would be a huge joke on the Auditor General if the government acceded to his request and his successor vetoed the payment of the extra pension money on the ground that it had not been earned, and payment of it would be illegal.
This comment is a very fair specimen of comments that are appearing in Liberal journals supporting this government, a Liberal government that is driving an officer of parliament from his position. I am told that there are some hon. gentlemen sitting in this House who are looking forward to filling the position of Auditor General. I would like to ask what is the position of any man, inside or outside of this House, who may accept that position following upon the course now contemplated by the government of absolutely refusing to do anything. The only disposition which the government has shown is to tie the hands of the chief officer of parliament and not to give him such facilities as he is entitled to and as the people of this country will demand should be afforded to him. The man who next fills that position will have a rule of conduct laid down in advance that he is to be the pliant creature of the government and if he is not such a creature he will not get the appointment. That is written in black and white, and if he does not obey that rule he will know' what is to follow ; he is to be attacked and blackguarded by the Liberal journals of this country, to be told that because he is seeking what a man may seek under an Act of parliament, what men are obtaining every day although they have been servants in less important capacities than the Auditor General, that he is seeking to obtain illegally, money that does belong to him. I do not know whether it has been the rule of the government to starve a chief officer. This man, Mr. McDougall, received some advance in his salary some 16 years ago. There is no position in the service of the government, except that of the Prime Minister, in which a public servant earns so great a salary by services performed, as that of Auditor General. Here is a man receiving a salary which might ordinarily be called a fair salary, but which, by comparison with the salaries paid for other services, is a beggarly salary. Great responsibilities are attached to the position, and where there are great responsibilities you must get good men to fill the positions and must pay salaries commensurate with these responsibilities. If you do not you cannot expect to get the men. If hon. gentlemen lay down the rule that they are going to starve servants they will get men to work as cheaply or more cheaply, but they will be men who wrill be willing to comply with the rules which the government lay down rather than the rules that should be laid down for the guidance of an Auditor Gen-

eral. I know of no case since Mr. McDou-gall has been appointed where a man has been treated in this way, speaking not In a personal but in a broad official sense. This world can, of course, get along without any man, but we cannot get along without healthy principles for the guidance of men in all walks of life. It is not a matter of great personal concern whether the Auditor General goes out of office, but I repeat again, it is a serious question in a broad sense, and one which cannot be put aside with one wave of the hand, in what-I was going to call the undignified-manner adopted this afternoon by the Minister of Finance. I still do not despair that the government will not allow this session to go by without taking steps to put this matter right. I do not know the mind of the Auditor General, but he is a man who has those correct and stern ideas of public duty which would induce him to risk everything at his time of life, at a time when a man may not easily obtain other employment. He has, as I say, put everything aside in the interests of public duty. I am still unwilling to believe that the government will allow his resignation to take place, and I trust that while they may vote down this resolution they will deal with this matter during the present session.
Mr. C. B. HBYD.: As an admirer of the Auditor General and as one who has a great deal of sympathy and personal friendship for him, I was, in common with a great many people in Canada, shocked at the statements that were made by him in connection with what is known as the Davis contract, which has given rise, I presume, to most of the discussion which has taken place in connection with his desire for a change in his status. I have read carefully the Auditor General's statement in connection with that matter. I did so with considerable interest after seeing in the ' Evening Journal,' in the Toronto ' News ' and in * Saturday Night ' statements of which this is a fair sample :
Credit the Auditor General with a half million saved. The way he butted in. How government contracts sometimes go, especially Just before general elections. The story of the light and power agreement for Cornwall canal. Half a million dollars or more in one contract saved to the public treasury by the interference of the Dominion Auditor General. A bad contract made infinitely worse by a Liberal government ; partially redeeming action taken later by the Laurier administration, hut the worse feature remaining.
And so on. Of course as a member of parliament and one interested in the good name of the government I was exceedingly anxious to see whether the statements contained in that paper were true and I therefore read with considerable care the various documents presented by the Auditor General, and I have come to the conclusion, after a careful reading of his letters and the state-2104
ments that he has made, and the answers made by the government, that the Auditor General was wrong in his dates, wrong in his facts, wrong in his inferences, wrong in his conclusions. It appeared to me that if the Auditor General had been animated by a feeling of hostility to the past government and to the present government he could not possibly have adopted a course more calculated to give vent to such a feeling. _ What was there in the contract of 1896 to justify the construction placed upon it by the Auditor General ? Tin? Auditor General unfortunately put himself in the position, not of an auditor, but of a critic, an adverse critic of the government, animated with the desire to do them all the harm he possibly could. After having shown the tremendous loss that the country was about to sustain in a letter addressed to the Treasury Board he says :
Then I call your attention to the rather singular fact that there were two arrangements in connection with this matter. The first was made eleven days before the election of June 23rd, 1896, and the other twenty-nine days before that of November 5, 1900.
The inference naturally left upon the mind of a person not familiar with all the circumstances was that the late government and the present government had entered into a contract which was exceedingly valuable for the contractor in consequence of a liberal political subscription on his part. Is there anything to justify that ? I regard that statement made by the Auditor General as an insult to the Minister of Railways in 1896 and equally insulting to the members of the government of the present day. What was there in the contract of 1896 to justify the statement that it was inspired and completed eleven days before the election of 1896 whereby the Conservative party would get a liberal political subscription ? Is there anything in the contract to justify the statement ? Are the dates of the Auditor General correct ? He is wrong in both instances. He says here eleven days before the election, and yet to-day the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) said that the Order in Council was signed on February 18, or four months before the election took place, and the contract itself was signed on the 25th, or two days after the time the Auditor General says.
In a matter of such moment dates are of much importance. If this contract were finished up in the interests of the contractor, eleven days before the elections, there might be an inference that there was something crooked in it; but all the Auditor General's statements in connection with that are wrong. The contract was not made eleven days before, but two days after the elections, and the Order in Council was passed four months before. Therefore, the imputation that the Auditor General throws upon the late government that in making this contract they were influenced in order

to get an election subscription from the contractor, is false upon its face. It appears to me that the Auditor General suppresses a significant fact in connection with the late contract. In the light we now have, we may believe that the contract entered into in 1896 was probably improvident, but we have no right to assume that it was corrupt, because there is nothing to indicate a corrupt intention. The government were to pay for a certain number of horsepower at a certain rate, and also for a certain number of lights to be determined on thereafter, at so much per light. It may be that with the knowledge we had of electricity in these days, it was impossible for the government to tell whether the price was too dear or not, but anyhow they put in a clause, that by giving twelve months' notice they could take over this work from the contractor, and that very clause should prevent it from being regarded as a corrupt transaction. If in 1896 they were paying too much for horse-power or light, any subsequent parliament, by giving twelve month's notice, could take the matter out of the hands of the contractor, and under such circumstances I should think a contractor would not be willing to put up a very large sum in order to obtain a contract. The element of corruption is removed by this very clause. But, why did the Auditor General go on to say that the second contract was made twenty-nine days before the election, thus conveying the impression that the contractor was this time giving a liberal contribution to the funds of the Liberal party ; that the Conservative party not then being in a position to advance his interests he flopped over and made it of interest to the present government to increase by 63 years the term of his contract, and to require a larger horsepower and a greater number of lights than were necessary. The contract itself does justify any such statement. We are told by no less a person than the lawyer of the Auditor General, a lawyer selected by himself. that that was not true ; that the present government made no new contract, and that it was their duty to fix the number of lights and the amount of horse-power required according to the contract of 1896. That is all the present government has done. What was there in that transaction to justify the Auditor General pointing out significantly that this contract was entered into twenty-nine days before the election of 1900 ? What was there to justify him in conveying the impression that there was a corrupt intent ? What was there to justify him in conveying the impression to the Liberal electors that the Conservative government was corrupt in 1896, and to the Conservative electors that the Liberal government was corrupt in 1900 ? The contract itself on its face shows that the statement of the Auditor General is incorrect, because he was Mr. HEYD.	_	(
wrong in his dates. It was not made before the election, but after the election, and the Order in Council went out four months before. If the present government did not make a new contract; if they did not increase the advantages to the contractor ; if they simply carried out the terms of the contract of 1S96, what justification have these newspapers for the statement that both governments are corrupt, and that the Auditor General butted in and saved 8500,000 to the people of Canada ? I believe it is the intention of the Auditor General to be honest and to look after the interest and welfare of the country, but like a great many others he leans over too much to one side. There * have been a number of Liberal judges appointed in Ontario during the last few years, but instead of the Liberals being able to get any advantage from them, they lean over to the Conservative side, and in this particular instance the Auditor General being a well known Liberal. I presume he thought it his duty to be particularly careful of his treatment of the Liberal government, lest he might be accused of partiality, and so he has leaned jsver, and wherever there was an opportunity of conveying the impression that there was cerruptness or crookedness, the Auditor General has given special significance to these things, and evidently concealed all the redeeming features in the contract. If the late government made a mistake, and if we are paying too high a price under this contract then on twelve months' notice the work can be taken out of the hands of the contractor at its actual value plus five percent. Under such circumstances there is no necessity for scare headings being used in the newspapers, and it is unjust for them to attribute a corrupt intent to the government. I always had the opinion in days gone by, that contractors for the Conservative government managed things a good deal slicker than is apparently the case here. If there were a clause in every contract allowing the government to take over the work on twelve months' notice, I should think there would be no danger of anybody getting a rake off from contractors. In my opinion the powers given to the Auditor General at the present time are wide enough. I do not profess to be able to bring the knowledge of expert accountants to bear upon the subject, but I have here the opinion of Mr. Aylesworth, a lawyer of great judgment who was asked by the Auditor General to give his opinion, and Mr. Aylesworth gives it, not as a politician, but as one of the most eminent counsels in Canada, and he says :
I cannot find from examining and considering the Audit Act any indication that parliament intended your office to be superior, to, or to exercise any supervision over, the various departments of the government, in so far as questioning the validity of their contracts is concerned, but there appears clear provision

in the statute for bringing all such questions to the notice of parliament itself.
The legislation seems to afford a very complete scheme by which your department may be an efficient check upon expenditure, and by which parliament may be at once informed if anything unusual or irregular takes place. You have the power (and no doubt the duty) under section 32 (c) of the Audit Act, to refuse your certificate if at any time convinced that a cheque is applied for where ' the money is not justly due.' You are by section 33 expressly precluded from authorizing any payment unless upon due voucher that the work has been performed or materials supplied. By section 10 of 51 Victoria, chapter 7 (1888), you are, in reporting to the House, to call attention to every case in which cheques have been issued w'ithout your certificate, or in which a payment was ' in any *way irregular.' Your duty accordingly when not satisfied that money claimed is justly due is to refuse to certify, and thereupon the Treasury Board becomes ' the judge of the sufficiency of your protection.'
But the statute has carefully provided that in all such cases the matter must come before parliament upon full report, making it apparently, by section 49 of the Audit Act, your personal duty to present such report if the Minister of Finance does not do so within the time prescribed by the statute.
Responsibility is by this means removed from you and made to rest upon the proper shoulders. The Treasury Board is responsible to parliament, and if parliament considers that in this matter or in any other matter upon which vou may take a similar course an improvident or improper contract has been entered into, the minister who is responsible, or the government, will be held to account.
He secured the opinion of Mr. Aylesworth, one of the most eminent lawyers in this country, who gave his opinion that the powers that the Auditor General ought to have are amply provided for in the present law. Z am willing, on the present occasion, to take Mr. Aylesworth as my guide, as I have not the functions or the legal knowledge necessary for me to express an opinion. But I say that the Auditor General apparently was wrong in his dates, wrong in his facts, wrong in his conclusions and wrong in his deductions. He appears to have charged the late government, and the present government impliedly, with a corrupt intent, contrary to the very documents themselves ; and, that being so, I am quite content to abide by the opinion of Mr. Aylesworth and the present government, that the Auditor General has at present quite enough power to enable him to efficiently discharge his duties as auditor.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Mr. Speaker, it is rather refreshing to hear the specious arguments to which the hon. gentleman has just treated the House. He starts out by saying That the Auditor General is wrong in his dates, wrong in his facts, wrong in his interpretation, wrong in his conclusions and wrong in his deductions-according to the high authority of the member for Brant
(Mr. Heyd), the one man who has been at the business for a quarter of a century, endeavouring by every means in his power to interpret the law according to his best judgment, and, when he found that his interpretation of the law did not meet with the approval of others, submitting it to the ablest lawyer he could find in the country, and following his advice as far as he believed it to be correct. If there was no other evidence to show that the Auditor General was an honest and conscientious man, it seems to me that very fact is sufficient. The hon. member went on to say that, notwithstanding the fact that the Auditor General had been appointed by the present government, he was found in opposition to them at almost every turn when money was being paid out. When the previous government was in power and the same Auditor General disagreed with them with regard to the payment of public money, his friends proclaimed that as an evidence of bis fairness. The hon. gentleman is doing what he nearly always does ; he makes his statement and then runs out, as if he were doing something sharp. It seems to me that a man wlio makes an argument and cannot listen to the reply is either wanting in moral courage or in courtesy. When the same Auditor General opposed the late government with reference to the payment of money the hon. gentleman's friends held that to be an evidence of his ability and fairness, and an evidence that the government of that day was doing something improper ; but when the same man' comes into contact with his friends and endeavours to guard the public treasury in the same way as he did in the time of their predecessors, he is declared to be a man wanting in judgment, wrong in his facts, wrong in his interpretation, wrong in his conclusions and wrong in his deductions ; and, therefore, he can only do it for a malicious purpose against the very party who put him in office. Is that human nature ? Is that likely ? Will the great mass of the peopl# believe that ? I do not think they will. If there was one thing needed to justify the conclusion that the Auditor General is an honest and conscientious man, it is the very thing we are discussing to-day. This, 1 say, is complimentary to his fairness, to his impartiality, to his honesty of purpose. He is doing faithfully, no matter which party is in power, what ho believes he was put there to do ; that is, to guard the public treasury, and to see that no money is paid out unless it is authorized by parliament, and to see that payments are made in accordance with the provisions made by parliament. The hon. member defends the contract. After reading it and considering it, he comes to the conclusion that the contract for lighting the Cornwall canal and supplying power is a good one, that there is nothing wrong with it, that it is defensible, and he is willing to defend it; and he gives,

not only the present government, but the late government, a certificate of purity and competency in making this contract. What did the Minister of Finance say before dinner ? He said : After going over the contract, we agreed with the Auditor General that it ought to be revised and amended, and we submitted a draft to the Auditor General, so as to be satisfied that it would meet with his approval before we entered into it; it met with his approval, and we withdrew the Order in Council which we had previously passed. Was that not an admission that it was wrong before ? If it was not wrong, was there any necessity to change it ? Is not that the strongest argument that the Auditor General was right ? Some very severe strictures were passed on the Auditor General, because, after the government withdrew the Order in Council and endeavoured to have it go into oblivion, he allowed it to see the light. The hon. member for Brant went on to say that the Auditor General is like some of the judges, too straight-so straight that he leans over the other way. That is a very fine compliment to the judges of the country. Coming from the source it does, it will not perhaps be regarded as of much account. To say that the judges of the country are not impartial, but that they show partiality by leaning too much the other way, is the stricture of one of the parties responsible for their appointment ; and then he turns around and compares the Auditor Genera! with them, saying' that he has a similar nature, that he leans over too far the other way. I assume that the hon. gentleman must have meant ihat he leans towards the Conservative party. The hon. member says'the Auditor General is trying to provide arguments to the Conservative party to enable them to put the government out of power. In that be is unfair. What is the resolution before us ? It is a simple one, and one, in my judgment, justified by the facts which have been brought out from year to year. It is as follows :
That in the opinion of this House the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act should be so extended as to confeT on the Auditor General powers ample in every respect to protect the public interest and to safeguard the public treasury.
That is all it is. If the law to-day does not enable the Auditor General to protect the public interest and safeguard the public treasury, as it was intended by its framers it should do, then we ought to supply what is necessary to make it effective. Every year we have had our attention drawn by the Auditor General to the fact that the ,Act does not provide sufficiently .ample powers. As an evidence that his representations have a solid basis, I can point to the fact that several times the Act has been amended to meet his suggestions. That surely proves that he was right in the representations he made. Well, since the last Mr. SPROULE.
extension of the Act, he has again and again drawn our attention to the fact that other amendments are necessary. Of course as time goes on we find defects in laws which were not anticipated when they were passed. The defects in the Audit Act, the Auditor General has pointed out to parliament, so that parliament may act. We are asked to-day why the Conservative party do not bring in any amendment. What would: be the use ? How many Bills have the Conservative party brought into this House, and how many days have they not spent in trying to get the House to pass these Bills, but all to no avail ? Everybody knows that the very fact that these Bills received the support of the Conservative party was sufficient reason to bon. gentlemen opposite to vote them down. And the same fate would overtake any amendment to the Audit Act which we might propose from this side. The government would not allow any amendment proposed by the opposition to pass, because that would be a reflection on themselves. The Minister of Finance says that the Act gives the Auditor General ample powers in every respect. But if it does, bow comes it that three or four years ago the Public Accounts Committee considered this question at great length and decided that the Act was not sufficiently ample ? The ex-Minister of Finance, Mr. Foster, was on that committee and also the present Finance Minister, and that committee decided that it was necessary to give additional power to the Auditor General. Why then was that not done? It was not done because the session was short and coming to its close, and there was not time to consider what measure might be advised. At various times since the matter has been brought up in the Public Accounts Committee, but no remedy has been applied, and the Auditor General has gone on from time to time, drawing the attention of the government to the defects in the law. He has refused to pass accounts which, in his judgment, contravened some provision of the law. He has debated the point with the department responsible for the expenditure, and after being overruled has gone to the Treasury Board and. debated the point with that board, and again and again has been overruled. We are bound to assume that the Auditor General is a conscientious official, anxious to do his duty faithfully. Again and again his decisions have been overruled, and he has continued to urge that money was paid out improperly. Bet me draw attention to a ease in point. We provided by a statute that when bridges were built which cost a certain amount, the government would contribute 15 per cent of their cost. The Auditor General deemed it his duty to ascertain whether the statement of cost was a cooked one. The government thought that in so doing he exceeded his duty, but he refused to accept that view and after some time he succeeded in having an in-
*

vestigation. What was the result ? It was found that the very account to which he objected was so made up as to show that the bridge cost a great deal more than it actually did, and had he passed the demand for payment, very many thousands of dollars would have been paid over to which they were not entitled. There is an evidence that the Auditor General is right in the stand he takes. The government contended that he had no business to inquire into the details ; and had the Auditor General submitted to that contention, the country would have been mulcted a considerable sum. Why should we not make the point clear by amending the Act so as to give him the right which he claims to have ? We are told by the Finance Minister that the Act contains ample powers. If that be the case, how is that year after year the Auditor General has disputes with almost every department over the payment of money, and almost invariably has been overruled and the money paid out ? Take the Davis contract, about which there is so much talk at present. What was the objection of the Auditor General in that matter ? In the first place he drew attention to what he regarded as a very unbusinesslike contract. He pointed to the fact that if he were to authorize the money to be paid, there would be thousands of dollars paid out in return for which the country got no service whatever.
Now, if that be a fair interpretation of the Act, if tliat might be done under the Act, would it yet be a proper thing to do ? When any one receives money, he receives it for consideration given, and when the country pays money it is supposed to receive something in return. But the fact was disclosed that there was no service rendered for that money. The contractor could not give the electric light because there was no connection with the power station-the power was there but it was not applied. Yet, an account was sent in of SI it000. Suppose that money had been paid out for nothing, would the country approve it ? Would the Finance Minister defend it ? And yet the hon. member for Scuth Brant (Mr. Heyd) stands up and reads the advice of Mr. Aylesworth that, according to the law, he does not see how the Auditor General can refuse, because the contract made with the Department of Railways and Canals said that the contractor should have so much money at a certain time it failed to provide that a service should be reudered before the government incurred obligations. So, according to Mr. Aylesworth, the Auditor General had no power under the Audit Act to check this payment. Well, do not you think he ought to ''nave that power ? Do not you think it would have been in the interest of the country to amend the Act so as to have given him that power ? I think so. And
the country has long since reached the conclusion that the Audit Act should be amended so as to give the Auditor General ample power to protect the treasury. Now, when the Auditor General checks payment of money and the payment is still presisted in, the matter is referred to the Treasury Board. Here is the clause of the statute :
If the Auditor General has refused to certify that a cheque of the Minister of Finance and Receiver General may issue, on the ground that the money is not justly due, or that it is, in excess of the authority granted by the council, or for any other reason than that there is no parliamentary authority, then upon a report of the case prepared by the Auditor General aud the Deputy of the Minister of Finance and Receiver General, the Treasury Board shall be the judge of the sufficiency of the Auditor General's objection and may sustain him or order the issue of the cheque in its discretion.
In this case they overruled him and ordered the money to be paid, we think, improperly. The Auditor General fell back upon two objections. He said, in the first place, the law provides, under section 11 of chapter 37 of the Consolidated Statutes, winch relates to the Department of Railways and Canals, how a contract shall be made. This section is as follows :
The minister shall invite tenders, by public advertisement, for the execution of all works, except in cases of pressing emergency.
Now, this was a case of lighting the Cornwall canal. It was clearly not a case of pressing emergency, for the lighting of the canal could go on under the system already in use when this contract was made. So the Auditor General contended that he had the rig'ht to refuse to allow the payment of that money unless other conditions were complied with. If the contract was not let by public tender, the deputy or the clerk in the department under whom the work is done or goods supplied, must certify that the work had been done or the goods received and that the values were reasonable. The Auditor General had no such certificate before him and he demanded the certificate. They refused to give it to him. So, the contract was not let by tender, and the work was not certified to as being good value. Therefore, the Auditor General conceived it to be his duty not to allow the public treasury to be raided and the money paid. Was he right or was he wrong ? Mr. Aylesworth said that, according to the Audit Act, the Auditor General could not check the payment of that money, the Treasury Board having overruled him. Why could he not check it ? Because the provisions of the Audit Act were not sufficiently strong. That is why we propose by this resolution that the Act should be amended and strengthened. We ask the government to take the matter up. We ask parliament to express its opinion. For it would be of no use for us to propose such a law ; we

could not carry it through. The Minister of Finance asks why, if there is any defect in the Audit Act the opposition do not introduce a Bill to amend it. I have suggested the reason. It would be only a waste of time. We have not the power to put through such a measure. And, besides, it is the government and not we who are charged with responsibility of directing public affairs. We are here to see to it tnat any measures which they propose shall be as nearly perfect as we can get the majority to make them. The opposition would willingly support a Bill to strengthen the Auditor General-they would have done it last year, and they are willing to do it at any time. We hold that the Auditor General ought to have as wide powers as are necessary to enable him to effectively protect the public treasury. Alexander Mackenzie said at one time that lie was like a soldier in the trenches, sleeping on his arms that he might be ready to protect the treasury against the incursions of those who desired to get that money of the public improperly. It was to provide relief for himself and those who might follow him that he asked parliament to pass an Act authorizing 'him to appoint an Auditor General. That Auditor General he appointed. He showed his desire to protect the public treasury so far as he thought the necessities of the situation demanded it. But experience has shown us ways in which that Act can be improved. My hon. friend says that the demand of the electors, after a quarter of a century's experience, is That this Act shall be improved. There is not a doubt that that is the feeling of the public. What is true of every other law is true of the Audit Act. Every year we place upon the statute-book, laws, which, in our judgment and to the best of our knowledge and of the experience we have, are sufficient. And yet further experience shows how those laws can be advantageously amended from time to time. Parliament, after careful inquiry exercises its judgment in voting money for public purposes, and then it is left to the Auditor General to see to it that the money is spent according to the intention of parliament. Now the Auditor General, I assume, never refused, from mere wilfulness, to give his certificate for the payment of money. Iam sure every one will credit him with honesty. And it is to be Supposed that he does not wilfully get into trouble or conflict with any department, or with the Treasury Board, or with the government. But, as an honest man he is bound to fight any or all of them if that is necessary in order to maintain the proper checks upon the expenditure of public money. And he has fought them for years, until he has become sick and tired of that job. And now he says: If you will not amend the Audit Act, if you will not Mr. SPROULE.	* .
place at my disposal proper provisions and assistance such as I require to safeguard tbe treasury, then, I want you to accept my resignation.
I, as an honest man, cannot hold the position unless I endeavour to do my duty
and if the government makes it impossible for me to do my duty, if they will not put within my reach provisions that will enable me to do my duty, I want at least to show the country that I desire to do right, and when I cannot do it I want to get out-and he has sent in his resignation. I say that the country to-day regards with great suspicion that resignation of the Auditor General. I venture to say that, irrespective of politics, forty-nine out of fifty of tbe electorate today will tell you honestly, if you ask them, that they are desirous of keeping the Auditor General them of strengthening his hands rather than weakening them. They desire to keep him there because he has shown his desire and his ability to protect the public treasury, he has shown his willingness and his honesty of purpose, he has shown that he	is prepared to
fight either party, his own party that put him in that position as well as the party that was opposed to him. He has shown honesty and a high sense of duty, and has endeavoured to do his duty. Will the country strengthen his hands, will the government strengthen his hands, or will they prevent him from doing his duty ? We know that in many instances the Treasury Board has overruled him, and instead of strengthening his hands have been weakening him, instead of giving him moral support they have been discrediting the man. aud his judgment, and his ways, killing the very means that were designed to protect the treasury of the country. Every obstacle it seems to me is being thrown in his way so as to make it impossible for him to do his duty as he conceives it should be done. Does the country 'want that ? In my judgment it does not.
The Auditor General has given fair and ample notice to the government; Unless you amend this Act, unless you support my authority, I want to get out. Are they going to let him get out ? If they do, the country will know the reason why. He has told us the reason why. We draw attention to it to-day so that the country may know, that parliament may understand. We do not desire to see the Auditor General get out, we desire him to remain there. But we desire also that the Act should be amended in any needful particular so as to make his powers, in the words of this resolution, ample to protect the public interest and safeguard the public treasury. He has appealed to parliament because the government has refused to support him. Is parliament going to be equal to the occasion ? Will the representatievs of the people do their duty ? We are endeavouring to do it

on this side of the House. Who are we opposed by ? By the very men who are charged with the responsibility of protecting the public treasury. We are working in the interests of the country, we are opposed by the very men whose duty above everything else in the world is to protect the country and to look after its interests. If this government and parliament refuse, what will be the inevitable result ? What conclusion will the people reach ? They can come to but one conclusion, and that is that the government do not desire to protect the public treasury as they should, that the government do not desire to strengthen the hands of the Auditor General, the employee of parliament, not the employee of the government, but the servant of the country. They do not wish to give him that moral support, that constitutional support which they above all others ought to give him to enable him to do his duty. Then I say if they fail in this matter we will appeal to the great parliament of the nation, we will lay this subject as fully as we can before the electors of the country, and I have no doubt that when they know the whole story, when they know that the Auditor General has been refused support, when they know that he has been antagonized by the present government, when they know that thousands and tens of thousands of dollars, yes I am within the mark in saying hundreds of thousands of dollars of government money, has been improperly paid out, money paid out for which the country never got anything in return-when the people know that, they will be very likely to blame the present government. I think it will take from them thousands of votes. I shall have no objection whatever if it results in putting them out. But I would rather see them do their duty and remain in, than to be kicked out for not doing their duty. I have that much respect for the Prime Minister who leads them. I believe there are some good men on that side of the House and some very bad ones. But they remind me of Sir Oliver Mowat and his friends. A number of them were said to be very good men and a number were said to be bad. He always had one man in his cabinet called the wicked partner who would father all the bad transactions, and Sir Oliver himself was the redeeming feature of the cabinet. But in this case the worst of it is that it is the bad element that seems to predominate all the time, the government leans over that way, the bad men control the elections, and the country does not get'the benefit of the good element in the cabinet.


Wilfrid Laurier: If we do as well as Sir Oliver Mowat, I do uot think Ontario will complain.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You mean by .holding on to power. I can only say [DOT] that the hon. gentleman and his friends are very apt followers, they seem to be falling into the same line very readily, especially in the work done by the wicked partner. The wicked partner seems to be on top here, and getting much more on top every day. That is why we want to set them right, or else give the country a chance to rectify the wrong. We intend to tell the country as plainly as we can, and if the government refuse* to do their duty as they seem inclined to to-day, they will have to suffer the consequences. Now for these reasons I am in favour of this resolution. I think we cannot pass it a day too soon. The Minister of Finance says :	Why did'nt you propose
this law three years ago Why did'nt you propose it two years ago ? Why did'nt you propose it last year ? Is it ever too late to meud ? It is true that in the interests of the country it might well have been proposed three years ago, or two years ago or last year ; but because of our laches in that respect are we to go on in the same line for ever ? When we know that a wrong is being done is it not high time that we amended our ways V Though it may appear late, even at the eleventh hour a repentant sinner may return. "It is because of our desire to do right that we propose this resolution to-day ; and I can only reach the conclusion that it is because of the government's desire to do wrong that they oppose it.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Before the hon. gentleman takes his seat:	I understood
him to say that as a result of some imperfection in the Audit Act tens of thousands of dollars had been paid out without consideration. Will my hon. friend be good enough to give us some specific cases ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I mentioned one with regard to the Sorel bridge. I mentioned one with regard to this contract, where the Auditor General shows that an application was made for over $52,000 and for the most of which there was no return given to the country whatever. It may have been a defect in the contract.


Charles Fitzpatrick: My hon. friend ought to be aware of the fact that in neither case was there a dollar paid.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The government certified the accounts and was willing to pay the money, and it was because of the obstinacy of the Auditor General that the money was not paid.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The request made to my hon. friend was that he should sustain his statement that tens of thousands of dollars had been paid out. That is what I wanted.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What I said was this, that the government had made their fiat, saying that the money must be paid.


Charles Fitzpatrick: But it was not paid.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Auditor General prevented it being paid. Why was not that money paid on the Sore] bridge ? Was it the government who prevented it ? No, it was the Auditor General. Who prevented the money from beng paid out on the Davis contract ? Was it the government ? The department certified to it as all right, and it was the Auditor General who prevented the payment. Am I not correct ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: He had not the power to do it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It was saved to the country.


Mr. BRODEUR.: Then there is no necessity to amend the Act.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In the case of Corry & Laverdure, I am told that $125,000 was improperly paid out, although the Auditor General did his very best to save that to the country, but he could not do it. Take the Farran's Point canal, another case. Was I within the mark ? I was very much within the mark, I might have trebled the figure which I gave and I would still have been within the mark.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Might I ask my hon. friend a question ? We are now getting down to facts and I find that in so far as the Sorel contract, and the Davis contract are concerned, the Auditor Generad had power to stop the payment and did stop it. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) now says that in the Corry & Laverdure contract, $125,000 was paid out improperly. Would my hon. friend state whether that was discussed before the Public Accounts Committee, or what evidence there is that that was done ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not know that it was discussed before the Public Accounts Committee.


Charles Fitzpatrick: What evidence is there that it was done ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the minister dispute it ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes, certainly.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That any money was paid ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Improperly.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The word improperly is a very strange one ; a payment might be in accordance with the contract and yet be made improperly in the interests of the country. That is what the Auditor General complains of, that the payment was made improperly.


Haughton Lennox: It was not in accordance with the contract either.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It was not in accordance with the contract. Because the Auditor M. FITZPATRICK.
General desires to prevent these improper payments we want to give him ample power to do it, and if in any of these cases the money was not paid out it was not paid out because the Auditor General prevented it ; the government gave certificates to pay it and were willing to pay it.


Mr. A. C. BELL.: While there is not much disposition on the part of the government to treat this matter as one of sufficient importance to discuss it on this occasion, still there can be no doubt that in the opinion of the people of the country generally the Auditor General is the most useful official of the country. He is the gentleman who was spoken of as a very important official in the years when the Conservatives were in power, when this matter was discussed by leading and prominent members of the Liberal party, then in opposition. They said that he had an onerous duty to perform when he had the supervision of expenditure of probably $40,000,000. The importance of this proposition was emphasized by Liberal speakers at that time on account of the large amount of money in question. If that was a good argument previous to 1S96, it is manifestly much stronger to-day because now the expenditure of the country is almost double that expenditure of $40,000,000, and while it is true that the members of the administration to-day are disposed not to treat this discussion very seriously, but simply to pass it over, following apparently the line taken by the Minister of Finance in connection with it, that party did treat it seriously during the years when they were in opposition. I find that in 1895 the Hon. David Mills devoted a large part of a day in parliament to a resolution moved on a motion to go into supply, to a discussion of this matter.


Charles Fitzpatrick: On the same lines ?


Adam Carr Bell: Not on the same lines.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Will my hon. friend read the resolution ?


Adam Carr Bell: It does not seem to be included in the discussion in ' Hansard.' The discussion occurs at page 240S of the ' Hansard ' of 1895. On that occasion, I am bound to say, a different phase of the subject was treated. The point at issue then was an application of the Auditor General to the government and to parliament for assistance and relief. On that occasion, as nearly as I can gather from the speeches, the Auditor General was rather pleading for increased remuneration for his officials and increased power of control over the officials of his department. Therefore the discussion on that occasion was not by any means on all fours with this, but still it is evident from Mr. Mills's speech that he regarded this -official as being one of the [DOT]most important appointed by the govern-

ment of Canada. Ho presses particularly upon the attention of the House the fact referred to over and over again that the Auditor General is not at all an official of the government of Canada, but an official of the parliament and of the people of Canada. Mr. Mills in this discussion called attention to the fact that the duties of the Auditor General are twofold ; first, that he conducts an administrative audit in the interests of the people. That is to say, not only does he see that the various appropriations are so expended and accounted for and justified by voucher as to protect the administration, but he also sees that the government of the day uses these appropriations for the purposes for which they are voted by parliament so that there can be no question at all that on that occasion the Liberal party, as represented by Mr. Mills, gave a great deal of prominence to this feature of the case, that the Auditor General is to a certain extent exercising a supervision and control over the administration and for that reason it is urged in the course of that speech and elsewhere that that official should receive the most thorough and unlimited support from the parliament of Canada. In so far as this matter has been treated by the government on this occasion they have apparently made up their minds not to consider it very fully at this time. They have urged in the fitst place through the Finance Minister, as a reason for not considering it, that the time is not opportune, that the matter is brought to the notice of the House at a time when parliament has practically reached the conclusion of its business for this year. To my mind that cannot possibly be the reason why the government has decided not to come to the assistance of the Auditor General in this matter. If it were, it would involve our assenting to the proposition that they had no knowledge of this application of "the Auditor General until this matter was brought to their attention by the opposition. That, this House and the country know, is not the case. The Auditor General during every year, as is set forth at great length in the pages of his report, has been engaged in constant controversy with the government of the day, and so far as my reading has gone I must say, uniformly, in every case in which the Auditor General has felt it his duty to differ in opinion as to the appropriations made to the government, the government, relying on and using the authority of the Treasury Board, has overruled the Auditor General. I do not believe that any one in this House, particularly on this side of the House, is disposed to differ from the view laid down by the Finance Minister in so far as they will not consent for one moment to allow the Auditor General to assume the function of deciding the policy of this country. We are not disposed to part with one jot or title or particle of
that system which we have inherited, adopted and developed in this country under which every portion of the expenditure made by Canada must be made upon the authority of the government of the day. We do not for one moment contemplate nor see how it would be possible, or how any reasonable man for a moment could consider, that the functions of the government of Canada should be devolved upon any official, Auditor General or any one else, and therefore we, I think, are entirely at one with the government in insisting that nothing should be done to deprive the government of the day of any of its constitutional rights or powers. We look upon the responsibility of ministers to parliament and through them to the people as the basis of the system which we have inherited, which we have worked under in the past and which we must continue to work under. We do not -want any suggestions to come from the government side of the House that we are endeavouring in any way to interfere with constitutional practice. I do not think it would be possible for the minister to make it appear plain that the Auditor General, in the request he is making of the people of Canada-for he is appealing to the whole people of Canada-is asking them to give him the power of taking the government by the throat when he might see fit to do so, or to make him a final court of appeal to say when the government is doing right and when it is doing wrong. I do not think that the Auditor General has any such idea in his mind and if he had he would find no support for it on this side of the House.
I believe that the desire of the Auditor General would be to a large extent gratified by some such measure as that which has been outlined by the leader of the opposition today. The Auditor General thinks that under certain circumstances which come under his cognizance in a way to lead him to believe there has been an improvident bargain, he should be fortified to the extent that he could bring to his assistance a mode of investigation by which he could prepare himself to submit to the administration through the Minister of Finance, reasons which might induce the government to correct the defects in any contract. I do not think anything could be more appropriate for that "purpose than a reference to the Exchequer Court or to some other court in which information of a conclusive character could be derived from the examination of witnesses. There is at present in our system no means by which, if the administration of the day is disposed to be careless or prejudiced in favour of a contract, the Auditor General can make such an inquisition as would be necessary to bring before the government such information as might induce them to change their minds. We know that the people of this

country cannot have any first hand knowledge of such disputed questions, and that indeed it is hard for members of parliament to make discoveries in reference to such, because the report of the Auditor General is only in their hands twelve months or more after the transactions have been discovered. It seems to me that it would not at all be adverse to the principle of constitutional government and it would not be prejudicial to honest and economic administration in this country, if some provision were made by which the Auditor General might for a short time suspend the operation of a contract or the payment of an account until he could ascertain by some judicial process such information as would enable him to submit to the government a complete statement of his views, and of the grounds which might induce the administration to change their minds. While it may not have been intended, yet there is something disingenuous in the argument of the Minister of Finance, who does not consider the question at all, but who at once appeals to that strong sentiment in the House and in the country, which is opposed to any change which would deprive us of that system of ministerial responsibility upon which *we rest, and.must rest in this country. The Minister of Finance was simply begging the question. While I do not wish to pursue him into a detailed consideration of the Davis contract, out of the consideration of which probably this question has come to the surface, still, even in that case I would almost seem inclined to think that the Minister of Finance might find that there were some reasons which would make it advantageous to the administration to have the Auditor General, who stands between them and these persons to whom the money of the country is being paid, strengthened in his position. I should think that might be done not only in the public interest, but also for the comfort and convenience of the government itself. No harm could result by any extension of the powers of the Auditor General which stop short of confiding in him any authority superior to that of parliament, or of the ministry which parliament for the time being sustains in power. It would seem that the government would lia\ e done well if they liad copied the example of preceding administrations which have over and over again amended the Audit Act, and which have shown a disposition to strengthen the hands of the Auditor General in every constitutional manner. I would advise that this matter be treated not too lightly, because it is absolutely important for this administration and for succeeding administrations, that the people of Canada should know that the administration desires to have as sweeping an investigation as possible into the public accounts which any properly authorized ofll-cial like the Auditor General may insti-Mr. BELL.
tute. I was sorry to hear in the course of the discussion reference made to the suspicious character of the negotiations and contracts between Mr. Davis and succeeding governments in Canada. If such insinuations were made in the report of the Auditor General it was very unfortunate. It is most important that we should always extend to administrations in this country that generous treatment which we are disposed to extend even to criminals, and to believe them innocent until they are proven guilty.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That is awfully kind.


Adam Carr Bell: I do not think there could be a more unfortunate feature in our public life than that there should develop a disposition on the part of public men, or on the part of public organs to attempt to force on the minds of the people of this country, a predisposition to believe that there was a dishonest purpose on the part of any administration. We ought to assume, and we must assume, that our governments are pure. It is such a cheap, such an easy and such an abominable practice, to go on insinuating corrupt motives and corrupt acts on the part of an opponent, that to my mind every man who w'ishes a healthy sentiment in the public life of Canada, ought to discourage it to every extent in his power. We ought be willing to believe that the government of the day are doing what they can in the interests of the people. So far as I am concerned I have no sympathy with this casting of suspicions, and I regret that this matter should be discussed here at all. I do not believe there was any such corrupt bargain in the case I have referred to. I do not believe anything of the kind was intended, and if the Auditor General has introduced such an insinuation into the report he has gone entirely outside of his duties and functions, and has made a grave mistake. But, while that is the case, there can be no doubt that among the party organs on both sides, and probably among public men on both sides, there is a constant tendency to cover up their own faults by insinuating evil doing or corruption on the part of their opponents. Therefore it is to my mind in the interests of every succeeding administration of this country, to conduct our public affairs in such fashion that the people of the country shall learn to have confidence in the fact that the purpose of every succeeding government is to have the fullest and freest inquiry into all matters, so that the people of the country may always rest in confidence that the business of the country for the time being is honestly transacted. While it may not be an opportune time for the administration to engage in this work now, and while it may be enough to observe that we are approaching the end of a long session, still I

think it would be well for the administration to let it be understood that so far as they are concerned they have nothing to fear from any inquiry of any kind whatever which is conducted within proper constitutional limits by any official of the government or by anybody else. I am satisfied that this administration does not fear anything of the kind, and I believe it is in the interests not only of this government but of any government that may succeed, to make that point perfectly clear. If there is any weakness or any defect at all in the powers which the Auditor General has to discharge his duties, that defect should be repaired. So nearly as 1 can discover, the view which the Auditor General takes, and the view that all reasonable men take, is, that there may be a necessity to a certain extent, 1 do not know how far, to increase the powers of the Auditor General, to make inquiry under certain circumstances.
. If that be admitted there is a great justification for some change in the law which would enable the Auditor General to discharge his full functions under certain restrictions, which restrictions should be clearly stated and which should not be of such a nature as to admit of constant and unwarranted interference.
There should be some power granted to the officer whose duty it is to watch the expenditure. if he thinks a bargain has been made without sufficient knowledge ,of the circumstances, or that it is an improvident bargain, to suspend, for a certain time, action in the direction of payment, to enable him to institute such an inquiry as would satisfy him, and through him,'the people of the country that everything was being done that could be done to secure economical expenditure. That is, to my mind, aii that is asked for by my leader, both in the matter and in the manner in which he has introduced this question to parliament at this time. We know that the auditor was not always a feature of our politics, either in the mother country or in -Canada. There was a time, not very long ago, when there was no such office as an audit office either in Great Britain or in this country ; but no man to-day would, I think, suggest that wo should go back to those days and dispense with the audit office, and leave it entirely in the hands of an administration to satisfy the people as to the nature of the public expenditure by -simply appealing to the. country on the ground of their fitness, their character, their standing and their respect for themselves as an administration. It does not imply that a man or an administration is dishonest because you ask them to submit to certain checks and guards on expenditure. It is, to my mind, merely a proper course to follow in reference to the mul titudinous expenditures of this country, which no government can possibly supervise for itself, or in reference to the employment of the host of officials that we
have in Canada. No administration can thoroughly supervise for itself all the enormous expenditures of this country; the people cannot supervise them for themselves : and the members of parliament have no opportunity' of supervising them. We must retain the services of the Auditor General ; and when he shows a reasonable ground for the contention that he requires to have his powers increased, we should be ready to increase his powers. I feel that this is. not a matter which the opposition would be disposed to introduce as a contentious matter. It is too important ; it is above that ; it is a matter which the administration of the day should decide : but it is the duty of the opposition to bring it to the notice of the administration. There can be no question at all, I presume, that to-day, just as in the days when the Conservative party wore in power, the Auditor General looks upon the opposition as his natural allies. It is his business to watch the administration so far as their appropriations are concerned, and to watch the officials in so far as all the expenditures are concerned ; and it is only natural that he should regard the opposition of the day as his natural allies and assistants. In every ease where the Auditor General thought the government were not giving him such support as he felt himself entitled to, but on the contrary regarded him as rather overmeddling. as too carping and critical, as a man with whom, in course of time, they might grow somewhat out of patience, and to whom they might not turn a ready ear, nothing would be more natural than that he should either appeal to the country as a whole or take the natural course, during the time parliament is in session, of appealing to that body of people who constitute the opposition of the day. But, after all, this is a matter which it is the duty of the administration to deal with. If the administration can show, as they have not on this occasion attempted to show, that the Audit Act is amply effective and that there are no grounds whatever for any request on the part of the Auditor General or the opposition to improve it, then they are perfectly justified : but I do not think the government of the day -are altogether justified, when this matter is brought to their notice, in treating it as it has been treated by the administration on this occasion. It must be said that they have treated it with scant courtesy. The Finance Minister made a very-short speech. He did not profess to exert himself, but disposed of the whole subject as one which might be lightly brushed aside. He treated it as an attack by the apposition, and did not deal with the question in its broad aspects. He made only a brief reference to the particular contract out of which this whole question may be said to have taken its rise ; and, so far as tiiat particular contract was concerned, it seems to me the effect of the speech of the

Finance Minister was to justify the position of the Auditor General. The result would seem to go to show that by the intervention of the Auditor General the great purpose to which the people of the country are devoted -the economizing of the public funds-has been served. If that is true, it is a very powerful argument why some careful inquiries into this matter should be made.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. SAMUEL BARKER.: I do not intend to occupy many minutes in the remarks that I propose to make on the subject now before the House. It is not, 1 think, necessary that I should do so. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition dealt fully with the outlines of the Bill which he suggested, and the reasons he gave for suggesting such a measure to the government, have not so far been answered. So far there has been no attempt whatever to reply to my hon. friend. It was a matter of surprise to me that the hon. the Minister of Finance should have avoided the substance of the question before the House, as he did, by referring to what he called the abstract motion of the leader of the opposition. The Minister of Finance knows perfectly well-no one knows better-why my hon. friend moved that abstract motion. He knew that the object of my hon. friend was to keep himself within the rules of the House. He knew that my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, made this abstract motion in order that he might lay before the government the draft or form of a Bill which could become law only if taken up by the government. There is nobody in this House who is not perfectly aware that if to-day a Bill of that character were introduced by anyone from this side, it would not have the slightest prospect of becoming law. There is no hon. member who does not know that the only chance such a Bill would have of getting upon the statute-books would be for the government of the day to take it up and put it through the House. It was for that reason that the leader of the opposition took the particular method he did, and laid before the House and the country a proposition that I think the government ought to have accepted. In the course of his remarks, the leader of the opposition said that he was not wedded to the particular wording of the Bill. He did not care exactly in what words the subject matter was expressed. All he proposed was to lay before the House what he thought was required as an improvement to the Audit Act and to leave to the government to adopt what phraseology they pleased, so long as they gave effect to what he considered was required. Therefore the Bill is before the Mr. BELL.
House, to all intents and purposes, as fully as if it had been introduced in the ordinary course. Everybody knows how impossible it would be for this side to have such a measure adopted. The only possible way of its becoming law would be for hon, gentlemen opposite to take up the measure we suggest. That suggestion has been made, and we are waiting yet for some reply to the remarks which the hon. the leader of the opposition gave in support of the measure he outlined.
My hon. friend the Minister of Finance pleaded the right of parliament to do wrong if it chose and deprecated any limitation of its functions. Those are in effect the words he used. Well, we could not restrain or limit the powers of parliament even if we desired to do so. Nobody contends that it is possible for us to restrain or affect or limit parliamentary power. But I would like to ask this of the Finance Minister. Would he be good enough to state what sentence there is, from the beginning to the end of the proposition made by the leader of the opposition, which can be in any way construed as an attempt to interfere with the powers of parliament. Every passage of the Bill we propose, shows that' there is not the slightest intention on the part of anybody to interfere with the fullest control by parliament. On the contrary what the leader of the opposition wants, is that parliament shall have the means of itself dealing with the subject. He does not want to give to any judge or auditor the power which parliament itself alone should exercise. In what possible manner can the proposed Bill interfere with the powers of parliament ? What is the proposition ? It is that in the event of the auditor appointed by this House and acting for this House, being of the opinion that the occasion called for such action on his part, he could petition the judge of the Exchequer Court to investigate certain matters that have come before him as auditor. The proposition is not that the judge shall deal with the question, not that he shall decide as between the government and the party claiming money, but that he shall investigate and report to parliament for the action of parliament. Surely in the face of such a proposition, the contention of the Finance Minister that we are endeavouring to get rid of the paramount authority of parliament is simply absurd. On the contrary we are endeavouring to increase the effective power of parliament. We are endeavouring to give parliament the means of dealing with matters which are now dealt with in the cabinet and secretly.
The Minister of Finance says that he cannot vote for the motion of the leader of the opposition, because it implies that the powers under the Audit Act are not now sufficient. In effect

he contends that the Audit Act, passed many years ago under conditions very different indeed from those of to-day, cannot be improved to meet the circumstances in which iwe now live. Well, Sir, I 'have heard of Conservatism and Old Toryism, but for for such a proposition as this to come from a Liberal and a member of a Liberal government is certainly an extraordinary thing. Would it not be an improvement to provide that, when the Treasury Board overrule the Auditor General, the officer of parliament, they shall give reasons for that overruling ? That is one of the propositions of the hon. leader of the opposition. If that were adopted, the report of the Auditor General-and he is bound to report to parliament the overrulings of the Treasury Board *-would give us not only the fact of the overruling but the reasons for it. Would anybody say that that would not be an improvement ? We read, session after session, Treasury Board decisions simply telling us that the Treasury Board do not approve the action of the Auditor General and overruling that action. That is all that is told us. These gentlemen may be right or they may be wrong, but, in their magnificence they are altogether above informing us why they take the particular view they do. Now the Auditor General, I say again is*an officer of parliament, not an officer of the government; he is put there to overlook the expenditure of the government. He has before him in some particular case, the claim of a contractor or other person for a sum of money and the voucher and certificate of one of the ministers,' the head of one of fhe departments of the government. Looking into the case he comes to the con-;clusion that there is something wrong- not necessarily something dishonest, we need not go into questions of dishonesty here, but something imprudent, informal, or, perhaps irregular-in the contracting of the debt. He refuses, acting for the public, to certify for the payment of the money. Well, what is done ? The Auditor General is overruled. By whom ? Why, by a committee or board of the gentlemen he is set to watch, by the Treasury Board, consisting of members of the cabinet. The public who trust the Auditor General are so particular about his independence that they will not allow the government to discharge him but provide that he is to be discharged only by parliament itself. But his decision is overruled by the colleagues of the head of the department *who demands the money. So far, good, perhaps. I quite admit that in public affairs it would be impossible to leave it to any Auditor General or any other officer, no matter who he may be to have the last word in relation to expenditure of money. Nobody disputes the honesty of the Auditor General, but people may sometimes doubt his judgment. He is only human. Therefore, it would be wrong to
make him a Czar and give him the right to say finally that moneys shall or shall not be paid. But, when he is overruled by an interested body, by the government of the day, who perhaps not dishonestly, but for reasons of their own, want the money paid, is that to be the end of it ? It would not be right, it would not be in the public interest that the Auditor General should be absolute; but is it in the public interest that the ministers should be absolute ? Is It to be for all time to come, with the growing importance of the transactions in this country, that a difference of opinion between the Auditor General and the minister is to be absolutly decided by the minister, through the minister's colleagues 1 Surely, if that is to be the case, there is little essentially good in the auditorship. It is quite true the Auditor reports the overruling to parliament. But that overruling is reported to parliament after the transaction is closed, because the Treasury Board have the power to order the money to be paid and without giving reasons. We ask, therefore, on this branch of the Bill, that, when the Auditor General is overruled the reasons for the overruling shall be stated, in order that when the report is made to parliament, we shall know not only why the Auditor General has objected but why his objection has been set aside.
Then, we contend that some special remedy should be provided for extreme cases, and I will refer to that later on. Nobody pretends-the leader of the opposition would be the last to pretend-that this special remedy was to be used for every occasion. It is not probable, it is not even possible, that it will come in to frequent use. Because, the Auditor General is an officer of parliament and If he is found to bring up every petty question before parliament, parliament will very soon deal with an officious petty officer of that kind who cannot appreciate the significance or importance of particular transactions under his consideration.
Now. Sir, the requirement of the reasons for overruling is not the only amendment that has been suggested. Section 48 of the Audit Act was evidently framed for the purpose of enabling the Auditor General, from time to time, to make suggestions to parliament. It was, no doubt, foreseen that, however careful parliament *might be in the framing of the Audit Act, many things would occur in the experience of an auditor which might well be reported to parliament for its consideration. Therefore, section 48 of the Act was inserted as ja sort of safety valve, if I may so call it, and a very useful one it is in my opinion. Now, section 48 as it stands in the Act today, enables the Auditor General to make special reports to parliament. As the Act stands it reads thus :
In reporting as hereinbefore directed for the information of the House of Commons, the re-


GC19 COMMONS G620
[Stage Direction]
suit of the examiniation of the appropriation accounts, the Auditor .General shall cal'l attention to every case in which cheques have been issued without his certificate-
That, of course, is not a matter of auditing, that is ignoring the Auditor, and he is expected to call the attention of parliament to it.
-or in which a grant has been exceeded-or in which money received by a department from other sources than the grants for the year to which the account relates has not been applied or accounted for according to the directions of parliament-or in which a sum charged against a grant is not supported by proof of payment- or in which a payment so charged did not occur within the period of the account, or was for any other reason, not properly chargeable against the grant, or was in any way irregular-
Then the leader of the opposition proposes to add two provisions, and I desire to call the attention of the First Minister particularly to them, because, in my judgment, they are of very great importance to the people of this country, especially in regard to one of the departments. The first is :
-or in which a sum charged against a grant for capital account was expended wholly or in part for a purpose propwly chargeable to revenue account
[Stage Direction]
Now, upon that subject let me say a few words. We have again and again discussed in this House the proper application of expenditure for capital and for revenue. We find, in passing the estimates every year, that large sums are granted on capital account. It is impossible, when the estimates are before the House, however anxious gentlemen here may be to do their duty, to kuow whether the whole of that money is properly chargeable to capital or not. The government obtains a grant for, say, half a million of money applicable to a certain line of expenditure, and to be charged to capital. For example, in the railway grants a sum of three or four hundred thousand dollars may be applicable to expenditure upon bridges, and half a million in some years has been granted on capital account ifor steel rails. Now, no one in this House, when the estimates are passed, can undertake to say absolutely how much of that should be capital and how much revenue. But when the accounts come before the Auditor General after the expenditure has taken place, the Auditor General can tell that and can, by obtaining expert advice, know very closely indeed how much of that money should have been really charged to capital and how much to revenue. But as the statute has already been passed upon the estimates, making it all applicable to capital, he. as auditor, has nothing to do with it; all he can say is that ¥500,000 has been expended upon rails and $350,000 upon bridges, and upon the Act which was passed by parliament he is directed to charge all Mr. BARKER.
to capital. Now, I say that the Auditor General, while carrying out strictly, according to his duty, what parliament has directed him to do. that is to charge that money up to capital, should be enabled and required to report to this House specially that it has come to his knowledge in the investigation of the accounts that a portion, perhaps all, of that which was so charged to capital ought really to have been charged to revenue account. Can anybody dispute that this is an important feature of auditing ? The Auditor General cannot help us as the Audit Act stands. The estimates have been passed, they have become an Act of parliament. He is directed to charge a certain expenditure to capital, and he must obey, though he finds in the course of the year that the government is renewing bridges with that capital appropriation. If he were to report the fact to parliament we could see that sometimes a half a million of money that has been charged to capital and added to the debt of the country has enabled the minister of the day to show a profit of several hundred thousand dollars on the operation of the railway ; and the result of the hon. gentleman showing such profit is that the apparent profit is used to justify expenditure in other directions. Why should we not know the tru^h ? Is there any business man throughout the length and breadth of this Dominion who, in his own affairs, would not say : I want to know precisely what we are doing, I want to see what is a capital charge and what is a revenue charge It may all come out of my pocket, but I want to know exactly how the business is going on. And so will the people of this Dominion. It may not matter to us whether the debt is incurred on capital account or whether we have had a deficit in the mgs of the railway, it is all a debt. But we do want to know whether the railway is being worked at a profit or at a loss, and it is a' proper thing for that purpose that such a report as this should .come from the Auditor General to parliament when he finds that the estimates, as they have been granted by parliament, are cloaking the truth. Therefore, I say that this is a proper amendment to add to the old Act.
miion thorp is a second addition proposed :
-or in which by reason of the generality of the appropriation, or otherwise, he has been unable, to properly check or control the expenditure.
Now, that arises very largely in connection with the same department, but it does not apply solely to that department. Hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House will recollect that it has become a feature of the Railway Department that the whole of its estimates, involving from two to three or four million dollars, is summed up in about half a page. But take any other department of the government, and you will find greater detail of every expenditure. The

result is this :	We find three, or four, or
five hundred thousand dollars asked, for a certain description of expenditure. Take one instance, $3S5,000 say for strengthening bridges. It is put in the estimates in that general and vague way. We get out from the minister here, and endeavour to put upon * Hansard,' how many and what particular bridges he is going to strengthen, and how much he wants to expend upon each bridge. Now, it may be a question whether the Auditor General can go to ' Hansard ' and say to the department later on : I shall not allow you to expend more on that particular bridge than you asked parliament to allow you to expend on it ; I shall not allow you for any bridge more than you said you needed for that bridge ; and if you do not expend the amount you asked for a particular bridge, the surplus that you did not require shall not go into your general expenditure, but shall lapse.
' That is the way business is done. If an engineer upon a railway asked $20,000 to renew or strengthen a particular bridge and expended only $10,000 upon that bridge the other $10,000 would lapse ; he could not put tlie balance in his general expenditure and use it as he pleased ; yet the result of these general estimates that are placed upon the statutes of the country under the present system is that the railway department can do what it pleases with the money. It is obvious that if this system is continued as it has been going on for years past and as it may have always been going on for aught I know, the minister may ask $300,000 or $400,000 to strengthen bridges and he may expend the whole of that money on one-half of the bridges and leaves the other half to come up next year. Therefore, the Bill provides that the Auditor General shall be at liberty to report that under an estimate given in that general form he is unable to properly check the expenditure and prevent the department from using that money otherwise than as was intended. This Bill in this respect provides a needed check upon the departments which is lacking under the present Audit Act.
After all, however, the main question is the reference of certain matters to the judge of the Exchequer Court. Let us see how that comes about. A claim is made upon a department and is passed by that department so that it comes before the Auditor General for his consideration. The Minister of Finance says that the Auditor General has full power, that he can make any investigation he likes, can send for papers, and examine people under oath. That is all true, but, after the Auditor General has done all that, after he has called his witnesses, Examined the papers, taken testimony upon oath and decided in his discretion that the money should not be paid, what happens ? Why he is overridden by the Treasury Board, who will order the 211
money to be paid, and that without giving a reason. Should it be left in that position ? The colleagues of the minister at the head of the department whose accounts are being questioned by the auditor are the final judges. It is quite true that the Auditor General can report these facts to parliament, but it does appear to me-and I think this wall commend itself to every gentleman in this House-that when there is a dispute between a department and the auditor or between the Treasury Board and the auditor, both parties to the dispute may become a little prejudiced. They are all human, ministers just as well as auditors, and the Treasury Board ministers are anxious to stand up for their colleagues and their colleague is anxious to stand up for what he calls his department. The auditor, on the other hand, is no doubt anxious to stand up for his decision and so when we get the papers before us as reported by the Auditor General, either one side or the other claims that there is prejudice. The ministers say : Oh, thife auditor is trying to rule the country and the ministry. The Auditor General, no doubt, says :	The ministry is
trying to get things through because the department wishes to get them through. Neither of these is quite the functionary that an impartial jury *would like to rely upon, and therefore it seems to me desirable that in important cases the judge of the Exchequer Court should be allowed to take evidence, report all the circumstances to parliament in order that parliament might take action. It may occur to some that that would interfere with the progress of business. Is that so ? First of all the proposition is that after the Auditor General has been overruled he must, if he wants to appeal, file his petition within ten days. Now, I take it that the world is not going to come to an end, because there is a ten days delay in settling a question of that kind. I think most people would be delighted that the delay did not exceed ten days. What then ? Within those ten days the Auditor General must file his objection in the court and give notice to the Treasury Board. The Treasury Board and the Auditor General can then fight it out if they please, but in order that the delay might not injure a contractor the judge before whom a matter comes up may order the money or a portion of it to be paid forthwith. How would that apply in such a case as has been mentioned here ? Take the Davis case. There you have a contract running over many years. A claim for the year's service comes before the Auditor General ; -there is a dispute ; he refuses to pass the account ; the Treasury Board overrules him and he files his objection. Now, what would the judge probably do in a case like that ? Any judge would say in his discretion : Well the country for this year has had that service ; I will order that you pay at

[Stage Direction]
once whatever appears to be reasonable for this year's service, but I will go on and inquire into the whole of this contract and report to parliament so that when it comes before parliament next session they may deal with the case. Would that be unreasonable ? WoUd there he anything in that prejudicial to the contractor ? What happened in this case ? Owing to the protest of the Auditor General and perhaps to a little public comment upon the matter, the government, instead of waiting for parliament dealt with the matter themselves, and induced the contractor to modify the terms. The hon. gentlemen seem to think that that shows there was no. necessity for the judge. To my miud it shows that in such a case we ought to have a judge. It is quite true that in this particular instance the government did find that the contract was a bad one for the people and did induce the contractor to modify its terms, but where would the country have been if the government had not arrived at that conclusion ? Supposing that the government ha'd concluded :	We
are going to stand by the department and not alter the contract. What they admit by their conduct to have been an injury and outrage upon the public, would 'have stood for all time, because we would have had no means of getting at the true facts of the case.
The fact that the government themselves, under the protest of the Auditor General, have been obliged to alter and modify a contract is the strongest argument as to the importance of having means in other cases to ascertain whether modifications, or alterations, or cancellations should take place. I press that upon the First Minister. I have no doubt the right hon. gentleman has the utmost confidence in his own uprightness and probity and in his desire to do what is right in the public interest; but there may not always be such a First Minister as he ; there may not always be ministers such as his colleagues, and we may not always have cabinets who would be so willing to admit that in 1900 they did wrong, and who in 1902 would coerce the contractor to abandon his legal rights and take a modified agreement. They might not even always have the power to compel the contractor to modify his terms. If this reference could be made to a judge who would send for that contractor and for the department and for the Auditor General and get all the facts and report to parliament, then that omnipotence about which the Minister of Finance is so anxious would come into play, and parliament could insist upon justice being done, and parliament could insist that (he contract, outrageous as it might be, should-of course after making all due compensation-be cancelled as a matter of duty to the people. It is not right that it should lie' left to the mere discretion and whim of Mr. BARKER.
the government of the day, to say whether they will go to a contractor and point out to him that the contract entered into was a blunder. I am not making any charge of impropriety, but on the face of it, it is absolutely clear that there was a blunder in connection with this contract ; for Mr. Aylesworth points out that the contract made in 1900 actually does not follow the terms of the Order in Council authorizing it, and that possibly it would be found that a contract so entered into would not be en-forcible. We may find other occasions in which the government, not wilfully but through the blunder of some person enters into a contract that is not in accordance with what they themselves intended. Why should not such things as this be brought out by an inquiry ? It is not necessary to impute fraud and wrong doing. There may be occasions among governments, as there are among business jjeople where blunders are perpetrated, and why should they not be rectified ? Why should the rectification be left to a ministry, who perhaps at certain seasons cannot afford to admit that they have made a blunder ? Why should it be left to them to overrule the Auditor General, and then merely tell us their Treasury Board did not agree with him. Surely it is in the interests of the country that there should be such an inquiry as is proposed in the Bill in a proper case; and what is the harm? If this power were used by the Auditor General unnecessarily or unreasonably the remedy lies with ourselves. He is our officer and we can dismiss him. He will not dare do such a thing ; the law would be used but seldom. The best protection this country could have against improper conduct on the part of politicians of either party, would be the deterring effect of such a law on the statute-book. I am surprised that the Minister of Finance gave so little attention to the propositions that have been made. I cannot understand any government, I cannot understand this government, refusing what is really a protection to themselves. Its acceptance would advance them in the esteem of the people because it would show that they were willing to have a proper check on behalf of the public as against themselves and as against their departments.
Charles Fitzpatrick: The leader of the opposition asked this House to declare : that the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act should be so extended as to confer upon the Auditor General powers ample in every respect to protect the public interests and to safeguard the public* treasury, the inference being, that the provisions of that Act are not now in every respect sufficient to protect the public interest and to safeguard the public treasury. It will be

proper for us to consider what are the present safeguards before we deal with suggested changes. Incidentally I may observe that the Audit Act has now been in force for about twenty-five years. Some of the best men on the other side of the House, have been endeavouring to point out the necessity for some changes in the Act, and I think without offence I may say, that they have brought to the discussion of this question not only the information they may have acquired during their experience in parliament. but as well, information which must have come to them through daily contact with the Auditor General for some time past. And, notwithstanding their personal experience, and notwithstanding the information they may have acquired as a result of their [DOT] intercourse with the Auditor General, they have not been able to point out a single case which has occurred during these twenty-five years in which a dollar of public money has been paid out as a result of some defect in the Audit Act.


Samuel Barker: Can the minister tell us on how many occasions the decision of the Auditor General has been overruled ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Evidently when they have been overruled they have been properly overruled, and if they have not been properly overruled how does it come to pass that parliament has not investigated the question and determined as to whether the Auditor General or the Treasury Board was right ? Is it to be assumed forsooth, that the Auditor General is to be right on all cases and that the Treasury Board, representative of all governments that have been in power in this country, has always been in the wrong ? Is it to be assumed, as was said this afternoon for instance, that the Auditor General always seeks the best legal advice that can be obtained, and that having obtained the best legal advice he invariably follows it-when it agrees with his own opinion.
So that I presume that when the Auditor General has decided one way, if the Treasury Board has overruled him, the Treasury Board, in the opinion of my hon. friend, must always be in the wrong. If that applies to the present government, my hon. f'-iend from Hamilton must remember that it applies with equal force to those who [DOT]have gone before. I may be permitted to observe that to the tone of those who have spoken on this subject no exception can be taken. I do not for a moment pretend that it has not been discussed in a proper spirit and tone by hon. gentlemen opposite. It is a serious question, and I agree that it ought to be the subject of investigation by parliament. But my hon. friend the leader of the opposition said that one of the reasons why there should be a change in the Audit Act- and he spoke as if it was in his judgment the paramount reason-were the frequent 211J
overrulings of the auditor by the Treasury Board. Have these been more frequent under this government than they were before ? The hon. leader of the opposition speaks with very great authority in this House, not only because of the position he occupies, but also because of his personal character ; but something, it seems to me is required to support that assertion. I have caused some inquiry to be made, though I have only had a few hours at my disposal for the purpose, and I think I may safely 'say that the overrulings in recent years have not exceeded t'liose of the years pre-ceeding 1896. So that if these overrulings form a reason for a change in the Audit Act, that reason existed prior to 1896.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: May I remind the hon. gentleman that the Audit Act was amended twice to meet the views of the Auditor General?


Charles Fitzpatrick: And it was suggested that it should be amended very much oftener. I have only looked into the matter very cursorily, because, while the hon. leader of the opposition sent me a copy of this amendment, I had not an opportunity to look at it until I came into the House at 11 o'clock. In 1880 the Public Accounts Committee recommended that the Audit Act should be amended, but nothing was done.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am quite sure it was amended.


Charles Fitzpatrick: If my hon. friend will look at Bourinot, under the Audit Act, he will find that amendments were recommended by the Public Accounts Committee in 1880. and that those amendments were not made.


Robert Laird Borden: The Act was not amended in 1880. but it lias been amended in some respects three times.


Charles Fitzpatrick: At other times other amendments were suggested. My hon. friend 'is not aware of the fact that the Auditor General has had a standing grievance, not only against this government, but against other governments. He appears to play the role of the Ishmaelite, whose hand is raised against all men, and against whom all other men's hands are raised.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: He must be an Irisliman, because he is always ' agin ' the government.


Charles Fitzpatrick: No, he just missed being an Irishman. If he were an Irishman, he would have a keener sense of humour, and I am quite sure he would not have read his own reports which he has published each year and survived the effect. I (have no quarrel with the Auditor General. He has been good enough to say, I notice, that as

the result of some statements I am supposed to have made, he has come to the conclusion that the government are not going to amend the Audit Act, I have looked over all the statements w*hich I have made this session-and I do not make so many that I am not able to review them-and I can find no evidence that I said at any time anything implying that the government did not intend to amend the Audit Act if an amendment appeared necessary. I venture to say that no gentleman in this House or in this country has a higher (regard for the Auditor General's great personal character and work, and his 'honest and sincere desire to do his duty according to his lights than I have. I want, however, to recur to what I said a moment ago. During all these years that the Audit Act has been in force, a great many thousands and millions of dollars have been paid out by the Auditor General ; and notwithstanding the enormous capacity for criticism which he undoubtedly possesses, and notwithstanding the ingenuity which my hon. friends on the other side of the House are undoubtedly endowed with, no one has been able to point to a single case in which one dollar of public money has ever been paid out because of any defect in the Audit Act. My hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) said-and
I am sorry to say that the statement was repeated by my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule)-that tens of thousands of dollars have been paid out of the public treasurv without any consideration having been received for them. Where is the evidence in support of that? Wild, rash statements of that sort are good enough perhaps in the byroads and the sideways of the country, but they are not good enough for the House of Commons. A statement of that sort ought not to be made without something being advanced m support of it. My hon. friend from East Grey ns a rule is careful in the statements he makes, but I ask him if he can point to a single case in which, not tens of thousands, but a single dollar has been paid out without consideration having been received for it Mv hon. friend named the case of Corry & Laverdure. If my hon. friend would make a statement of this sort in this House on his own personal knowledge, no person would accept his word more quickly than I would; but when he made that statement, he was obliged to say that he made it from information.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes.
perform the duties they owe to their constituents and to the country to allow a payment of even $100 to be made to any firm of contractors without consideration, by this government or any other government, and not have it investigated. They know what their duty is and how to perform it; and if such a scandalous transaction as that occurred, can any one pretend for a moment that there would not have been a gentleman to rise on the other side of the House and denounce it, and bring it before the Public Accounts Committee, and, as a result, have this government expelled from power, as they ought to be expelled if guilty of any such transaction ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is hard to expel them when they have the votes. Is it not a fact that in the Davis case, if you can believe the letters that passed between the Auditor General and the Railway Department, that department certified to an account although nothing was received for it, and that the money was paid only because the Auditor General was overruled by the Treasury Board ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: There again. I can scarcely believe it possible that my hon. friend, with his long parliamentary experience, would for a moment say that a money payment had been made, and fihat after the payment was made the Auditor General was overruled. That is impossible. The payment can only be made after the Auditor General is disposed of. It cannot be made in advance.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I did not say it was (made in advance.


Charles Fitzpatrick: You must not get away from the fact that Mr. Davis did not receive one farthing in respect of that contract.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I assume that he did.


Charles Fitzpatrick: My hon. friend must not assume what is not true. He must assume what the fact is, that he did not receive a dollar.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: For this reason, had I not a right to assume that ? The Auditor General objected to the payment unless a certificate was given by the Railway Department to the effect that value had been received or that the contract had been let after tenders were invited, neither of which was the case. But he was overruled by the Treasury Board and still the claim was sustained. Beyond that I did not go, for I assumed that after that the money was paid.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I would like to know where the information is. I would like to know when the inquiry took place lief ore the Public Accounts Committee When any such statement as that was proved. It seems to me that our friends on the other side of the House are far too anxious to


Charles Fitzpatrick: It was not.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am quite willing tc be corrected -and accept the correction, But if the money was not paid, was that not due to the fact that the Auditor General prevented payment ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: 6629	-JULY 13, 1904	6630


Charles Fitzpatrick: 
Thomas Simpson Sproule: That was my understanding.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I challenge that statement. 1 go further and say it is impossible it could be true-my hon. friend understands of course the sense in which I use the expressions

because if it wez*e true, my hon. friends opposite would not have allowed twenty-four hours to pass by without demanding an investigation. And if they did not, they would be, as has been suggested, recreant in their duty. And I am quite certain they are not. But eliminating altogether the question of duty, I am quite sure they would not allow such an opportunity as that to pass by to criticise this government and discover the first scandal which can possibly be charged to it since 1896.
I am not disposed to say that some changes might not be made in the details of the Audit Act. And if changes are necessary in order to enable the Auditor General to more effectively perform the duties assigned to him-not the duties of Czar of Canada, not the duties of controller of the destinies of this country, but the duties of Auditor General-if anything be required to enable him more adequately to perform those duties, all he has to do is to point out in what respect the Audit Act is imperfect, and he will be met by this government with open arms. We have no desire whatever to do otherwise than give every facility to that gentleman, who was appolnt-ed by Mr. Mackenzie and whose office was created by the Liberal party, to adequately audit any claim made on this government. But before I proceed to deal with the suggested changes, will my hon. friends bear with me while I point out the safeguards that we now possess ? The estimates for the public service are prepared each year in each department by the officials of that department, and after these estimates have received the approval of the head of the department, they are brought down to parliament. When they come to parliament they are fully discussed. Every item is open to public discussion and must be justified. And we who have sat in this House the last few years know that the severe critics of the opposition will insist on almost every dollar of every item being justified before the item is allowed to pass. When that is done we have the appropriation, and when the Appropriation Act is passed, it is for the executive to deal with the money appropriated and to be expended. And you must bear in mind that not a dollar can be paid out by the executive except with the approval of the Auditor General. And if an account is sent to him for approval and he considers that it requires to be investigated, he exercises to the extreme limit his powers of investigation. Why, at the present time if I were asked to make a suggestion with respect to amendments to the Audit Act, my suggestions would be that his powers of investigation should be limited, at all events, with respect to time. That is to say, he should not have the right to keep before him for three, four, five and six months before reporting to the Treasury Board, as he can do now, an account sent to him to be audited. His powers of investigation are absolutely unlimited, and if anything were required to support that statement, I need only refer this House to the correspondence exchanged and the investigation held with respect to this very Davis contract. That matter was before the Auditor General for months at a time, and when the accounts came in he required not only a careful examination of the contract, but he employed, as one of my hon. friends said this afternoon, the best legal talent available to aid him in his investigation. He went further. He went down to the canal and made a personal investigation. And not content with that personal investigation, he summoned the engineer of the department, Mr. Munro, and instructed him to inquire. Not content -with Mr. Munro, he sent for Mr. Hoffmeister, the gentleman who was connected with the Soulanges canal. Not content with that he summoned three engineers to his assistance -the engineer of the electric light company of this city, Mr. Parke, of Toronto, and a professor from McGill College, Montreal. So he had not only the benefit of the investigation by Messrs. Munro and Hoffmeister, but also by these three expert engineers I have just mentioned, and he kept the mat-

ter before him as long as he chose. Anti there is no provision that I know of which can limit the time during which he may hold an investigation or which can limit the powers conferred on him. What is there to prevent him taking all the time he chooses and making every investigation he pleases ? He has got these powers just as fully as they could be exercised by any judge of the Exchequer Court. After the matter comes before him and after he holds this investigation, after he examines all these witnesses and causes all these inquiries to be made, then forsooth when it suits his own good will, if lie has a leisure moment, he decides one way or the other- either in favour of the payment or against it. And if he decides against it, then there is an appeal to the Treasury Board. The matter then comes before the Treasury Board, and if there is a question of law involved, it must be referred to the Department of Justice for an opinion. And when the matter comes before that department, it is disposed of by the deputy minister with the concurrence of the minister. The opinion of the Department of Justice decides the question of law, and it is only in the event of that department giving an opinion adverse to the Auditor General's contention that the Treasury Board acts. Now, it has been suggested incidentally that in one case the Treasury Board had overruled the Department of Justice. I should like to have a reference to that case. I do not believe it possible such a case exists, because it would be a practical violation of the Treasury Act.


Frederick William Borden: The Department of Justice only intervenes where the Auditor General decides on the ground that there is no parliamentary authority.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes.


Mr.   I@: I do not understand that the amendments I suggest alter the law in that respect.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I am not referring to my hon. friend at all. I am referring to , something said by my hon. friend from Sim-coe (Mr. Lennox) with reference to the case of Corry & Laverdure. It is only after all this has been done that the Treasury Board acts. And if the Treasury Board orders the issue of a cheque, then parliament requires tnat all the correspondance exchanged between the Auditor General and the Treasury Board should be submitted to parliament at the next session. Now, it is suggested that there ought to be an amendment to the Audit Act, so that the Treasury Board might be obliged, as I understood iny hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker), to give a reasoned opinion in support of its overruling. Of course, the Auditor General is obliged, in his reference to the Treasury Board, to give reasons for the position he takes. There may be something to be said Mr. FITZPATRICK.
in support of that, but see -what there is on the other side. What would be the advantage in giving the reasons for the overruling, as my hon. friend from Hamilton argues 1 It would be that members of parliament, when they are called upon to examine into the controversy .between the Auditor General and the Treasury Board should be in a position to weigh the reasons on both sides, and so reach a conclusion whether the Auditor General or whether (he Treasury Board is right. Technically, there may be something to be said


Samuel Barker: May I ask the minister (Mr. Fitzpatrick) why the report is sent at all ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I say that technically there may be something to be said in favour of that view. And when it comes to the refinement of a point, my hon. friend from Hamilton seldom goes wrong. But what is the advantage ? It is that parliament may be able to decide as between the Treasury Board and the Auditor General. Now, both the report of the Auditor General and the overruling of the Treasury Board comes to parliament. The gentlemen who overrule the Auditor General are here in parliament to give then' reasons. Why cannot the reasons be given here ? Why state the reasons for an overruling when you can have the gentlemen here who made the overruling, and may catechize and cross-examine them on the subject ? Are you to have one set of reasons in the report on the overruling and another given here in parliament ? When you get the Treasury Board Report, the payment has been made by the Auditor General ; and, after the Auditor General has made this payment, the whole matter must be referred to parliament. It comes here for the consideration of parliament, and when it is before parliament the constitution provides proper machinery for any further investigation required. You have the Public Accounts Committee, before which you can go, and to which ail these questions may be submitted. By that committee these matters can be fully investigated. That committee has greater powers than are possessed by any court in the country. Everybody knows that the Public Accounts Committee is not bound by rules of evidence or by rules of procedure ; its powers are inquisitorial ; you can inquire into any fact in any manner you please and bring in any evidence you choose, and this you cannot do before a court. If you bring the matter before the Exchequer Court you must proceed according to the well-known rules of law. And my objection-passing on rapidly from this, in order to relieve the House from the necessity of listening to me for an undue length of time-my objection to any reference to the court is that, as a lawyer, I object to any confounding and confusing of the legislative functions of parliament with

the judicial functions of the court. We do not want a judge of the Exchequer Court to investigate our affairs. We do not want to share any of the functions we are called upon to perform with any judge or any court. I am not dealing with the personnel of the Exchequer Court, nor do I take into consideration the individual who happens to preside over the court at the present time ; but *1 say it would be an abandonment of our duties as a parliament to confer upon any court the right to investigate any questions under our control. And let me add, in view of the experience, short though it may be, that I have had as minister of the iCrown, and. especially that in the Department of Justice, that one or two, or even half a dozen, judges of the Exchequer Court would not be enough to perform the duties that would arise under this proposed measure. If the Auditor General had the power to refer any question about which he had any doubt to the Exchequer Court,
I think we should And the records of that court pile up with amazing rapidity.
Now, I do not want to deal with the question of the contract that has been raised, but 1 would like to echo, feebly it is true, but at least earnestly, the sentiments expressed by my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Bell) just before the House rose at six o'clock. It seems to me that we in this country are too much given to imputing to our public men improper conduct and improper motives. So far as I am concerned, I am far from being willing to believe that all this profligacy and corruption exists in the public life of Canada. On the contrary, the lesson I learn from the experience I have acquired since I entered this House is that there are men in this House, on both sides of it, who, if they gave to their private affairs one tithe of the time, one tithe of the energy, one tithe of the industry, that they give to the public affairs of this country, they would be very much further advanced, so far as their personal affairs are concerned. And I take it that if there is any wrong-doing in connection with anything for which the government is responsible, the remedy is not to be found in making idle, vain charges. For, after all, we must bear in mind that slander and libel will travel miles while truth is getting its boots on. We must not overlook the fact that unfortunately there are those in this country who are too prone to believe everything wrong as concerning public men. There are those in this country-and I speak of both sides of politics-who are too prone to believe that every man who comes to this House comes for his own personal profit and his own personal advantage. And I say that that is not fair to the public men o? Canada; it is not fair to the men who occupy positions in this,House to proceed, by insinuation. to suggest wrong-doing. The proper course is to make a statement and, having made it. to abide by the consequences after a full and fair investigation.
Now, I have, perhaps, travelled further than I had intended to do and further than I ought to have done. But, briefly, the view l take is this, that so far as the Audit Act is concerned, that Act now contains all that is necessary to enable the Auditor General to carry on the duties which it was originally intended he should perform. If to enable him to more faithfully perform those duties amendments are required, the government would be, not only willing, but anxious to do anything necessary to facilitate his task. But I say it is not by substituting the courts for parliament that we can accomplish that object. And, so far as the Auditor General is concerned, I repeat what I said a moment ago : I have no quarrel with him personally, but he is too much of a man, I assume, and too vain of his own opinion, not to see that people who differ from him should not be afraid to declare their differences. And when I come to discuss the matter further, I shall have occasion to point out inaccuracies in connection with the statement in connection with the Davis contract far more serious and more important than the one pointed out by the leader of the opposition this morning.


Mr. JABEL ROBINSON.: I am not about to discuss the legal phase of this question.
I have listened attentively to the speeches made this afternoon and this evening. I was especially struck with the speech of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick). I do not wish to flatter him, but he has thrown more light on yiis subject, for me at least, than anybody else who has spoken.
I was pleased to hear him say that the government is willing and anxious to amend the Audit Act. If that is done I think that is all the present auditor will require. Now I think if an inquiry is made, I have no doubt it will satisfy the Auditor. I think he is not an uureasonable*man, if he had been he would not have occupied that position for 26 years. He was appointed by Mr. Mackenzie when premier of this country, he was well known to the premier, he sat in this House, he was*a useful member of this House, he was the best mathematician in this country, and would not have received the appointment if he had been an inferior man. His services were needed at that time. The country was being robbed right and left, according to what Mr. Mackenzie himself said. He said he had all he could do, he had to stand guard over the public chest to keep the thieves away. That is why he appointed a man of the stamp of Mr. McDougall. Then when the Conservatives came into power four or five years after, and during the 18 years they remained in power, they retained the services of Mr. McDou-gali, they held up both his hands, and I never heard they had any accusation1 against him. I never heard that the opposition of that day had very much against | him either. So he must have been a pretty good man in that oflice. The Minis-

ter of Justice tells us this evening what an able officer he is, how he has gone down to the Cornwall canal, taking engineers with him, and made a thorough investigation as to the lighting of that canal by these lamps, and ascertaining whether the government were paying too much for them. 30 cents a night seems to me to be altogether too much. However, that is not my business except as a member of this House whose duty it is to see that we do not pay more than a thing is worth. The government should inquire into this matter, they should have inquired long ago whether the previous government had made a foolish bargain. or not. It seems to me rather late in the day to make these inquiries. However, the Auditor tells us that they are paying too much, and if so, then I think the government ought to assist him with a view of paying only what is right. I think it is our duty to maintain the present Auditor in his office. It will cost us less. If you superannuate him-he is only 65 years of age and he is good for ten years more-if you superannuate him you will have to pay him almost as much money as the next Auditor will get, that is, you will have to pay two auditors and you only require one. He is quite able and competent to discharge those duties, so I think the government had better amend the law ; he is asking nothing unreasonable and I think the government should do it. Now speaking of auditors, do not the farmers, does not everybody in this country know what auditing means and what it costs ? Why, Sir, there is not a village, town, township or county, or a loan society, or any other business corporation but requires an auditor to look into its financial affairs. Some business corporations have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars by inefficient auditors. Now when you have a may whom the whole people of this country respect, in whom you have full confidence, try and keep him as long as you can. Why, Sir, it is to my own knowledge that one loan company in a town near where I liwe have lost thousands and thousands of doliars through an inefficient auditor. I am pretty sure that the government will take this matter up. I am speaking on their behalf, I sympathize with them ; I do not want them to go to the country with this affair hanging over their heads, having to meet the charge that they have thrown out the most efficient auditor this country ever had for the purpose of putting some man in his place that is anxious for the job. That is what they will surely be charged with if they let him go.
House divided on amendment (Mr. R. L. Borden).
YEAS :
Messieurs
Alcorn,	Henderson.
Armstrong,	Hughes (Victoria),


Jabel Robinson: Avery,	Ingram,
Barker,	Kaulbach,
Bell,	Kidd,
Bennett,	Lancaster,
Birkett.	LaRiviere,
Blain,	Lefurgey, *
Borden (Halifax),	Lennox,
Boyd,	LSonard,
Brock,	MacLaren (Perth),
Broder,	Maclean,
Bruce,	McGowan,
Carscallen,	Monk,
Casgrain,	Morin,
Clare,	Northrup,
Clarke,	Pringle,
Cochrane,	Richardson,
Culbert,	Robinson (Elgin),
Daniel,	Roche (Marquette),
Donnelly,	Rosamond,
Earle,	Smith (Wentworth),
Fowler,	Sproule,
Ganong,	Taylor,
Gilmour,	Vrooman,
Gourley,	Ward,
Hackett.	Wilmot,
Halliday,	Wilson.-56.
 NAYS : Messieurs
Angers,	Lang,
Archambault,	Lapointe,
Bazinet,	I.aurier (Sir Wilfrid)
Bcith,	Lavergne
Bfiland,	(Drummond & Arth
Bickerdilce,	Law,
Blanchet,	LeBlanc,
Borden (Sir Frederick), Logan,	
Bourassa,	Loy,
Brodeur,	Macdonald,
Brown,	Mackie,
Bruneau,	MacKinnon,
Bureau,	Macpherson,
Calvert,	McColl,
Carbonneau,	McCool,
Champagne,
Christie,
Costigan,
Cowan,
Davis,
Delisle,
Demers (Levis), Demers (St. John), Desjardins, Emmerson,
Erb,
Ethier,
Fielding,
Fisher,
Fitzpatrick,
Gallery,
Galliher,
Gauvreau,
Gibson,
Girard,
Gould,
Grant,
Guthrie,
Harwood,
Haszard,
Heyd,
Holmes,
McGugan,
Mclsaac,
McLennan,
Marcil (Bagot), , Marcil (Bonaventure), Matheson,
Meigs,
Mignault,
Mulock (Sir William), Murray,
Oliver,
Paterson,
Prefontaine,
Puttee,
Reid (Restigouche),
Riley,
Rivet,
Ross (Rimouski),
Ross (Victoria, N.S.), Ross (Yukon),
Russell,
Scott,
Sifton,
Sinclair,
Smith (Vancouver), Stephens,
Sutherland (Essex), Talbot,
Hughes (King's, P.E.I), Tolmig. Hyman,	Tucker'
Johnston (Cape Breton) Turgeon, Johnston (Lambton), Wade, Kendall,	Wright.-94.

PAIRS :
Ministerials.	Opposition.
Dyment,
Sutherland (Hon. J.), McEwen,
Wallace,
Parmelee,
Campbell,
Ross (Ontario),
Gervais,
McCarthy,
Copp,
Lewis,
Laurier (L'Assomption) Cartwright,
Tobin,
Harty,
Lovell,
Tarte,
Thompson
(Haldimand),
MacLaren
(Huntingdon),
Morrison,
Douglas,
Proulx,
German.
Amendment (Mr. R. PROCEDURE RE
McCormick,
Haggart,
Sherritt,
Tisdale,
Pope,
Osier,
Clancy,
Kemp,
Seagram,
Hale,
Robinson
(Northumberland), , Johnson (Cardwell), Tupper,
Ball,
Reid (Grenville), Kendry,
Dugas,
Calvin,
Roddick,
Porter,
Thomson (Grey),
Lavell,
Tolton.
L. Borden) negatived. CONCURRENCE.


William Stevens Fielding: Mr. Speaker, before we proceed in committee with the estimates which have already been under consideration, I have a suggestion to make as respects which I have had a conversation with my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden), and in which I. think I shall have his concurrence. Our session has now advanced into the new fiscal year and we have no supplies voted. From day to day claims will come in for the services of the current year, some of which may not be very urgent, but many of which are* of a character that cannot conveniently be postponed. That would notably be the case in regard to the civil service and the payment of labour generally. In the ease of larger claims, perhaps, no serious harm would come from a little delay, but it is very inconvenient to have claims of that character delayed even for a very short time. I have therefore to propose that the committee shall grant us what is called a ' vote on account ' to the extent of one-fifth of the items that have not already been dealt with by the committee. We have dealt with a number of items which now stand on the order paper for concurrence. At the earliest possible moment I will ask the House to concur in these items and I would besides now ask the committee to favour us with this general vote of one-fifth of the items which have'not yet been considered. I quite realize that in asking the committee to make this appropriation, it is necessary to have an understanding as to the effect of the committee granting this vote on account. Many of these items may possibly be the subject of consideration and debate. It is quite possible that some
gentlemen may wish to object to some of them and therefore it should be perfectly understood that in voting for this one-fifth, as a matter of urgency, no hon. gentleman should be held as committing himself to the expenditure, but that every member should be absolutely free to discuss the matter as fully as if this vote had not been passed. It is a matter of urgency, it has been done on a number of occasions in past years and I hope I shall have the concurrence of hon. gentlemen opposite in meeting these urgent claims in the way I have suggested. I therefore beg to move that
A sum not exceeding the amount set forth below, be granted to His Majesty for the following services for the year ending the 30th June, 1905

Then we set forth all the items not yet dealt with and take one-fifth in each case.


Robert Laird Borden: The same question arose last session and I then satisfied myself that it had been the practice, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) has just stated, to concur in such a vote on account It is thoroughly understood, as I thought it was thoroughly understood last year, that in assenting to this vote for reasons which are in the public interest, we are not in any way depriving ourselves of the right to object to any item or to discuss to the fullest possible extent any of the items, a vote on account of which is thus given. In order that there may be no possible misunderstanding on that subject,
L now express my concurrence in what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) has said. We are voting these items not because we have considered them, not because we are prepared to approve of them all, but because they are submitted by the government and no doubt will eventually be passed, and for public reasons it is necessary that many of them at least should be passed in this manner, in order that the public service might not suffer. In that view and only in that view, I assent to the proposal which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) has just made.


Mr. BOYD.: I wish o^ice more to enter my protest against the causes which have made it necessary to have this vote pn account taken. That necessity is brought about by the late date at which parliament is called together, and I enter my protest most strongly against the present practice as I did last session ; at that time, I procured from Hansard ' that the premier when in opposition held views expressed by myself on this matter. Coming as I do from one of the outlaying portions of this country, coming here at a great sacrifice, at a season when every man who has any business to attend to should be at home looking after it, coming here in the spring and staying here away into the summer and fall as we have been doing for the past few years, and 1 as we seem likely to continue to do. I once
6639	COMMONS	6640
more protest on behalf of the people I represent, on behalf of those members who have to stay here Sunday after Sunday, week after week, month after month, when other members who happen to live in constituencies close to Ottawa, can come and go and attend to their business, spending three or four days out of each week in Ottawa, devoting the rest of their time to their business at home. Gentlemen representing constituencies in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba and the Northwest Territories and British Columbia, have to stay here day in and day out, week after week, month after month, all to suit the convenience of the government of the day. This governaoent is not the only offender ; previous governments have been equally at fault in this respect. I say that this House should be called together not later than November and that members of the government should see that their officials have their reports ready so that the House may meet at some reasonable time and not have it sitting at such a late date to suit the whim of the government or of some official of the government as has been the case in the past. If I thought that by not acquiescing in this vote I would help to bring about that happy day, I would do everything I could to prevent the government securing this money. In this case, I shall allow it to pass, but if it is to occur again the Minister of Finance may make up his mind that I shall oppose it so far as I am able.
Mr. SI'ROT'LE. We have been repeatedly challenged across the floor of the House for allowing all votes to pass without objecting to them. It was said last year that we voted all the money that was voted without objecting to more than two or three of them. Now this vote is part of the main estimates, and it must not be understood that in assenting to this we are assenting to the use of every dollar of money that is voted or that we are depriving ourselves of the privilege of adversely criticising the expenditures involved in the supplies which we are voting to-night. That right we intend to enjoy to the fullest extent and we do not wish to have it thrown across the floor aferwards that we did not object.


William Stevens Fielding: I euti ely concur in the view of my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) that in passing these items, no member is to feel that he is committing himself or in any way restricting his freedom of discussion.


William Findlay Maclean: Would not the Minister of Finance make some reply to my hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) in regard to the holding of the sessions ? I am firmly of opinion that a great improvement can be made in the conduct of the business of this House and also in the time of year at which the House is called together. I heard the hon. member from the


Nathaniel Boyd: western province (Mr. Boydi make the same protest last year ; I have heard him make it again to-night, and I think that every man in this House is of opinion that some improvement can be made and the protest having been entered, I think we are entitled to some statement from the government that they will seriously consider this protest and endeavour to arrange the public business so that it can go through with greater facility. These prolonged sessions are getting to be a serious thing for the members of this House. I feel it, and a great many hon. members in this House feel it, and we are looking for some kind of relief. It would be well worth the consideration of perhaps a joint committee to try in some way to improve the present condition of affairs.


Samuel Hughes: The relief which my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) seeks may probably be obtained before the next session of the House, because if the government ventures on a general election, it will be no longer in their power to fix the time for the calling of parliament.


Mr. LOGAN.: You have another guess.


Mr. FRANK OLIVER.: I wish to support the position taken by the member from Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) in calling for an earlier opening of the session of parliament, but 1 cannot support the attitude of the rnon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) or of the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes). As a specimen of cold blooded nerve, the appearance of these two gentlemen on the scene at this particular stage of the game, beats the record. I do not hold the government blameless for not having called the session earlier, but it is a matter of notoriety, it is a matter within the knowledge of every member of this House, that while the government has1 been to blame for not calling the session earlier, that has not been the sole reason for the undue lengthening of the session. It is not by any means the sole reason why we are here in mid-summer when we should be at home attending to our business. If the length of this session has been a burden to the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean) and to the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes), surely these gentlemen can sympathize with us who have had to stay here day in and day out, week in and week out, month in and month out, while t'hey were attending to their own business, or serving their own pleasure at home or anywhere else they may have been. If this House is in session to-day in the middle of summer, it is because from day to day and from week to week, if not from month to month, a handful of members on the other side of the House (have deliberately, persistently, and purposely obstructed the business-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear hear.

Some lion. MEMBERS. Order, order.


Frank Oliver: The spectacle

Some lion. MEMBERS. Order ; take It 'back.


Frank Oliver: The spectacle ; the disgrace to the country-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I rise to a point of order and ask your ruling, Mr. Chairman, if that language is to be allowed in this House.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I was just about to remark that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) cannot say that hon. members purposely obstruct business.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Deliberately obstructed business.


Peter Macdonald: Or ' deliberately ' either.


Frank Oliver: I will amend that statement by saying


Some hon. MEMBERS: Take it back.


Frank Oliver: I will take it back unreservedly and say, that so far as I can see their obstruction was absolutely purposeless.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Frank Oliver: I want to state the fact so that it may go on* record for the benefit of the electors of this country, that from day to day and from week to week, a handful of members of the opposition, numbering from ten to fifteen and perhaps not more than twenty, have held this House in session, not discussing questions of principle, not discussing questions of importance, but discussing trivialities, discussing quibbles, discussing anything that could delay the business of parliament. If the electors of (this country knew the manner in which their business was conducted in parliament by certain of their representatives on the other side of the House, they would be ashamed of these representatives and ashamed of themselves.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Sit down.


Frank Oliver: Because it is possible for members to live within a days ride of this House to transact their business at home and still put in an occasional appearance here, it is a fact that these gentlemen systematically do so, and those of us who are not in t'hat happy position are compelled to suffer in consequence. We have suffered year in and year out, and so far we have suffered in silence. But, when men who pay very little attention to their parliamentary duties siuch as the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean), get up to read lectures in this House, it is time for somebody to speak out and to tell the electors of this country how their business is being transacted by a portion, at any rate, of their representatives.


Mr. INGRAM.: We have now heard from the independent member from Alberta (Mr. Oliver), and I have been recently reading what is perhaps the causd of the hon. gentleman's speech to-night. Probably it will ?be news to hon. gentlemen of this House to know, that my hon. friend has received some government patronage, and he is now paying back to the government a return for the patronage they have bestowed on him.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


Andrew B. Ingram: Does any man deny it ? My hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) has stated in this paper that he is an independent man, an independent supporter of the government, and yet to-night he finds fault with gentlemen on this side who in their judgment have criticised the estimates, and have .given their attention to public business.


Mr. SCOTT.: Might I ask a question of my hon. friend (Mr. Ingram) ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Sit down.
plr. SCOTT. If I have the hon. gentleman's permission I will ask 'him a question.


Andrew B. Ingram: Speak louder.
. PJr. SCOTT. I would ask the hon. gentleman if he is serious in stating that the l|on. member for Alberta has received patronage from the government ?
ilr. INGRAM. I made the statement land the hon. member for Alberta did not deny it. Is the hon. member for West Assi-niboia (Mr. Scott) a wet nurse for the inem-.ber for Alberta '!


Frank Oliver: To tell the truth I did not consider that any statement made by the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) was-worthy of denial.
T Mr. INGRAM. We can refer to the public press, and we can find from the hon. gentleman's own newspaper something about ,that transaction. Do I understand him to -xLenya.it ?


Frank Oliver: Deny what; make your statement.


Andrew B. Ingram: Has my hon. friend received any government patronage ?


Frank Oliver: Certainly not.


Andrew B. Ingram: Then I will put it a little stronger. Has the hon. gentleman's newspaper office published any immigration literature for which the government paid ?


Frank Oliver: Published immigration literature ? Do you speak of advertisements in the newspaper ?


Andrew B. Ingram: Never mind getting down to particulars ; just state whether it is so or not.


Frank Oliver: In the first place the hon. gentleman does not own a newspaper ; in .the next place the newspaper with which the hon. gentleman is connected has not published any government Immigration literature.


Andrew B. Ingram: We understand the hon. gentleman to deny


Samuel Hughes: He does not deny it.


Andrew B. Ingram: Am I correct in understanding the hon. gentleman to deny that the newspaper office with which he is connected received government patronage ?


Frank Oliver: The newspaper with which the hon. gentleman is connected has certainly received government patronage.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Frank Oliver: It has been receiving it ever since it has been a newspaper, both from the late government and from the present government. There has been no change in the conditions in regard to that matter.


Andrew B. Ingram: My hon. friend did not think it worth his while to reply to the member for East Elgin, but he has been forced to do it, and he cannot show that he did not receive the government patronage. Now, I would like to say a few words with respect to the prolonging of this session. I want to tell my hon. friend from Alberta that if it were left to that hon. gentleman to criticise or find fault with any action of the government, we would find him minus his independent spirit, except of course when it suited himself. On this occasion it evidently suits him to rise in his place and defend the government and condemn hon. gentlemen on this side of the House for doing what they consider their duty. When the election takes place it is certain that hon. gentlemen opposite ' will find fault with the opposition for not criticising the public accounts. They will assert tuat we did not record our votes against the expenditure of this government. We are from day to day doing what we believe to be our duty in drawing the attention of the government to certain improper expenditures. So long as we are here we propose to continue in that course, and we do not propose to be lectured by the hon. member for Alberta. If that is the extent of his independence, we would ask him to kindly remain silent for the balance of the session, while we proceed with what we believe to be our duty. It is true, that the criticism on the estimates is confined to a comparatively few members on this side of the House; but I think we can claim the credit Mr. OLIVER.
of having at least as many men capable of criticising the estimates as hon. gentlemen opposite had when they were in opposition. We can say this also with a great deal of pleasure, that our criticism has been carried on in a gentlemanly manner. We have not used the language which the hon. gentleman's friends used previous to 1896. We have used language that has been strictly parliamentary and that we are not ashamed of, and in criticising these estimates we propose to continue in the same tone of language. Hon. gentlemen blame the opposition for extending the session. I want to know from the government if they are assisting in shortening the session by retaining to this late date certain public measures which we find on the order paper-no 'less than seven measures? Are we to blame because these measures have not been brought down ? Every hon. gentleman knows that in connection with constitutional government in this country or in any other, one of the weapons the opposition have in their hands is the estimates. Why do they reserve the right to criticise these estimates? First, to object to any unreasonable expenditure; and, secondly, as a means of hastening the government to bring down their measures in order that the opposition and the country may know what they propose to lay before parliament. All this is our right and duty, which we intend to exercise and we do not intend for one moment to tolerate any interference with our rights so long as we are exercising them in what we believe to be the best interests of the people of this country.


Frank Oliver: I just rise to say that I am very glad the hori. gentleman does not approve of the remarks I have made. They were not made with the view of securing his approval.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Cornwall canal, enlargement, $26,500.
William Stevens Fielding: It is to be noted that all these sums will now be reduced to four-fifths. That is merely clerical work which I shall have to ask the clerks of the House to attend to.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is a revote of $8,450. Last session, $136,000 was voted, all of which was expended but $8,450. The total expenditure on this canal in connection with these works up to the 1st of May, 1904, was $7,016,328.33. The amount asked for is to be expended as follows; section 1, repairs and enlargement of the regulating pier of old lock, No. 17-estimated amount, $15,500; protection to North Bank at Pitt Street, $3,000; Sheik's Island, final estimate, $8,000. These three sums total $26,500.


Mr. PRINGLE.: Might I ask the minister if there is anything in this appropriation for building workshops ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Not iu this-particular vote. It will come later.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: I would like to take this opportunity of calling the attention of the Minister to the very dilapidated state that the wharf at Cornwall is now in-not the canal wharf, but the lower wharf at which the Richelieu steamers land. This wharf is in wretchedly bad condition, and I would like to know if any steps have been taken to have it repaired or rebuilt ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That particular wharf, being on the river, is under the management and control of the Public Works Department and does not come under my department.


Mr. J. D. REID.: I suppose this item includes the lighting and so on, and I may just as well bring that matter up now.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It does not include the lighting, bnt I suppose my hon. friend might as well bring it up now as any other time. The link between this item and the subject to which my hon. friend refers is to be found in the fact that this vote has to do with the Cornwall canal.


John Dowsley Reid: Perhaps the minister would explain the position of the government in so far as this contract is concerned ? Why did they extend the term of the original contract given in 1896 ? Why were changes made ? The minister should be able to give us a full statement of this whole matter, because it looks a very questionable one.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I was sympathizing with the complaints made regarding the length of the session and therefore was not going to inflict on the committee any very lengthy details. But it seems to me that the whole matter has been explained, and the explanation has been repeated iso often that it would be like imposing on good nature to inflict it again upon the committee.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I think we could stand it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I know how long suffering my hon. friend is, but it seems to me it is only a diseased mind which could suspect anything wrong in connection with this transaction. I think I have explained why the $26,500 are required, and it is for my hon. friends opposite to _sliow why it should not be voted. Having shown that the money is absolutely necessary, there should be no question about passing the vote.


John Dowsley Reid: I have asked the minister a reasonable question and he states, that on account of the length of the session he does not feel like inflicting any further explanation on the House. In fact, he treats the whole matter as a joke. But let me tell him that in 1896 the government then in
power entered into a contract for the lighting of the Cornwall canal for twenty-one years. In addition it was specified in that contract that the government were to pay 30 cents per light for the number of lights that would be required, a certain amount per horse-power for any horsepower required, and they were to have the right to expropriate the whole property at any time on paying five per cent over the original cost. Under that contract the government were not compelled to take the power or any of the lights unless they saw fit to do so. They might establish another waterpower if they chose and run their own lights or in any other way take power to open or manage their gates themselves. They simply specified that if they wished to work under this contract, they might do so. However, nothing was acted upon under that contract until the year 1900, just before the elections. At that time an Order in Council was passed by the government stipulating that there must be 250 arc lights placed on that Cornwall canal at a cost of 30 cents per light per night for the whole 365 days of the year. Thus the total cost for simply lighting the Cornwall canal was $27,375 per year. In addition an Order in Council was passed stipulating that the government should take 400 horse-power per annum for operating the locks, gates and bridges, at a cost of $63 per horse-power or $25,200 per annum. The government were thus to pay $52,500 per annum for lighting and operating the lock gates on the Cornwall canal. That is the contract which was made by the government now in office. These 400 horsepower which the government were to use for operating the locks, gates and bridges would only be used nine months in the year. They could not be used during the winter months, as neither gates nor the bridges are then opened. So that the stipulations of $63 per annum per horse-power really meant $63 per nine months. When this government were thus changing the contract and making a contract different from that passed in 1896, why did they not contract only to pay for this horse-power during the time it was used ? Because in making the rate $63 per annum, when they were only to use the power during nine months, they were really paying at the rate of $80 per annum. But that was not the most serious point. In addition they also passed an Order in Council extending the duration of the contract from 21 years to 84 years, or until 1979. Was there any reason why this contract should be extended ? Surely if the contractor had a contract for 21 years, that was quite long enough. That time, I should think as a member of this House, was sufficient; it was as much as any contractor could reasonably expect from the government or from a private concern.


Charles Fitzpatrick: My hon. friend, of course, has read the contracts and does not want to misconstrue the position.

Mr. ,T. D. REID. Certainly not.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Then, he will be delighted to know that the original contract was for twenty-one years with the right to renew for three consecutive periods of twenty-one years each.
Mr. ,J. D. REID. At what page do we find that ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: At page 9 of the genera] terms and conditions which are referred to in the lease.


John Dowsley Reid: I have the original contract.


Charles Fitzpatrick: No doubt, but the hon. gentleman has not the general terms and conditions that are referred to in the lease.


John Dowsley Reid: Where are we to find them ? We go to the blue-book for information.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The hon. gentleman Is going on the information that it has pleased the Auditor General to give the country, not on the facts.


John Dowsley Reid: Does the hon. minister wish to state that the Auditor General has mis-stated the case.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Oh, yes, certainly.


John Dowsley Reid: The minister in his place in this House says that-


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes, I say so. There is no hesitation, equivocation or doubt about it-I say it positively. And I appeal to the hon. gentleman who made the contract and who is now sitting in this House.


John Dowsley Reid: Will the hon. minister read the clause ? Why have we not had this information before the House ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I will read it. Take page 6 of the blue-book. It says-
Witnesseth that the said lessor in consideration of the rents, covenants restrictions, provisos and conditions contained, described and expressed herein and in the annexed terms and conditions which are hereby adopted by the lessee and made part of this indenture-
And so on.
Now, a part of the information which is not in the blue-book but which should have been included in it and which was attached to the original contract, a copy of which I hold in my hand and which l lay on the table in order to-make it a public document, is these annexed terms. On page 9, you will find the following as article 20 :
Article 20.-The first day of July, A.D. 1895, and the first day of July of each twenty-first' year thereafter following shall be dates from or up to which respectively the term of this lease of water-power shall be computed. The lessor covenants and agrees that if during the term of his lease the lessee do well and Mr. FITZPATRICK.
truly keep and perform all and singular the covenants, agreements and undertakings on the part of the lessee to, be kept and performed as herein and in this particular lease contained, then the said lessor shall or will, at the expiration of the term of the lease, on the written request of the lessee made at least three months before such expiration, execute and deliver to the lessee, or to his legal representatives and recognized assigns, a removal of the* said lease for a second term, w'hich shall then he of twenty-one years, and also at the expiration of the aforesaid and of every subsequent period of twenty-one years, for eighty-four years from the said first day of July, A.D. 1895, and then to be completed and ended, with the same covenants and conditions as contained herein.
There is the original lease, and these are the terms of the original agreement. And I want now to state-because this is of some importance-that there is not a departure to the extent of one hair's breadth from the terms of the original lease with respect either to the price, the period the lease has to run, or the conditions of expropriation under the lease made in 1900 or at any time thereafter.


John Dowsley Reid: I differ from the hon. minister. So far as the time is concerned-


Charles Fitzpatrick: No, settle one thing at a time.


John Graham Haggart: Are the specifications attached to the lease ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Here is the lease, the hon. gentleman can read it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why were not these papers laid on the table long ago ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: The hon. gentleman had better ask the Auditor General.
, Mr. SPROULE. I understood they were asked for and promised some time ago.


Charles Fitzpatrick: No, that document was never asked for.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) asked for papers which included that. I did not ask for this particular document because I did not know of its existence.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Then, I apologize,
I was mistaken, I did not know that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Haggart) had asked for it. However, I have given communication of this document before.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Did the hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden) get the papers he asked for ?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, but I did not know of the existence of this one.


John Graham Haggart: I asked for the lease, the specifications, the Orders in Council, and also certificates of the chief engineer and the deputy head of the department

showing the value. Have these been brought down ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: As to the values, I have the certificates of the three experts appointed by the Auditor General.


John Graham Haggart: But has the hon. gentleman the values determined by the department ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: There is no question about the values.


Edward Frederick Clarke: May I ask if the hon. gentleman has laid on the table all the documents in existence bearing on this matter ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: No. The documents in existence go back to 1894, and they make a pile a foot and a half high. But I undertake that any document the hon. gentleman .wishes for he shall have it, so far as I can control them.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The statement has been made just now that one hon. gentleman who asked for information was not aware of the existence of this document, which, evidently, is a very important one, and which should have been presented to the House by some person, especially in view of the report of the Auditor General.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I am not now saying anything with respect to the members of the opposition, but any man reading that document compiled by the Auditor General could see that it is an incomplete document. It refers to the terms and conditions attached to the contract. These terms and conditions were never produced because they would belie the statement heralded throughout the country with respect to the terms-


Edward Frederick Clarke: If the Auditor General has made any statement the effect of which would be to mislead or deceive the members of this House, it was the bounden duty of the government to implement that statement and place parliament in possession of ail the facts. I asked the hon. minister a moment ago if he had laid all the documents on the table. I understood him to say tout the documents go back to the year 1894 and are very voluminous. We are entitled tc get all the information that would enable us to come to a conclusion on this question.


Charles Fitzpatrick: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) would indicate any document to which he wishes access, lie can have it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: If the hon. minister will lay all the documents on the table we can examine them and see which are germane to the question before us.


Charles Fitzpatrick: It would take longer than to the end of the session to copy the whole file. But, let us proceed regularly. We are not, after all, interested in befogging the issue ; we are interested rather in clearing this transaction up. And the question is whether the contract was for twenty-one years, or for eighty-four years.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, no.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes, one thing at a time. Let us settle each point as we go along.


Edward Frederick Clarke: But surely if the desire of the government is that the issue shall not be befogged it rested primarily with them to implement the information of the Auditor General.


Charles Fitzpatrick: We are doing that.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It is a long time since the statement of the Auditor General has been published. If there has been any misconception, surely the responsibility rests upon the minister or his colleagues for not bringing down the documents which would supply the missing links in the information already before us.


Charles Fitzpatrick: A month ago I made a statement in the House correcting a statement made in connection with the time and nobody has undertaken to deny it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. minister tells us that it would take longer than from now to the end of the session to copy these documents. But, surely, we cannot discuss this matter unless we are in possession of all the documents ? That statement must appeal with some force^ to the hon. minister. We get this information piecemeal. For instance, the document which the hon. gentleman has laid on the table is put before parliament for the first time, as I understand it, to-night. How can we be expected to grasp the meaning and effect of this document placed before us in the midst of a discussion at a quarter to eleven o'clock ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: We are dealing with a contract not made "by us, but made in 1896 by the government that preceded us. The hon. gentleman who made the contract is here, and he can be questioned.


Edward Frederick Clarke: An hon. gentleman has made the statement within five minutes that he has asked for information long ago that has not yet been brought down.


John Graham Haggart: The Minister of Justice will probably answer me this : Is the lease that is made latterly upon the same conditions as was embodied in the one I made ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Absolutely.


John Graham Haggart: Then you have the power of fixing what rent you like for the lights?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Of course ; at the expiration of every period of twenty-ose years. It is because men have been assuming all manner of things with respect to it

that the present impression exists. The original contract, if I may be permitted to say so, was entered into in 1896, in the month of June ; but the entering into that contract was only in pursuance of an agreement that had been made previous to the Sth of February, 1896, which was then embodied in an Order in Council at the time. That contract, which was made at that time with respect to the period which the contract was to run, with respect to the number of lights, has not been departed from to the extent of one hair's breadth. The only thing that has been done by the subsequent contract is to do what the original contract provided should be done, that is to say, that the government engineer should determine the number of lights to be used and the quantity of horse-power necessary to operate the canal. That is all that has been done, and in every other respect the contract remains as it originally was. The original contract provided that Mr. Davis should supply light at the prices mentioned there, for the period mentioned there, and should supply power at the price mentioned in the original contract in 1896, for the period mentioned there, but that the number of lights would have to be fixed when the Cornwall canal was finished, when the construction was ended, and that the number of lights should be fixed by the one man competent to fix them, that is to say, by the government engineer, and that the number of horse-power should be determined by the government engineer, he being the only man competent to do It. That Is all that was done in 1900-to fix the number of lights and the number of horse-power. In all other respects the contract is the original contract.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman is under a mistake. He deduces from the statement of the Minister of Justice that this contract for the prices and for the lights extended for a period of twenty-one years. The fact of the matter is that there is a statement in the original contract which allows the government to fix the price and to determine the period. That is one of the conditions that you can fix or reject. Is not that what is in the contract ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Certainly.


Edward Frederick Clarke: This presents a new phase cf the subject to those or as who are desirous of ascertaining all the facts. The statement made by the Minister of Justice is certainly, coming from a gentleman in his position, a serious statement, so far as the bona tides of the Auditor General is con-perned. In view of that fact, we ought to have these documents distributed amongst the members of the House at once.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I will suggest further, that we should have the original documents, with the original signatures on them and the original specifications attached-all that laid on the table of the House.


Charles Fitzpatrick: 


Edward Frederick Clarke: If these matters will lead to a fuller, fairer and more intelligent discussion of this question, the House is entitled to be put in possession of all of them. There are no two opinions about that. I think if the Auditor General has, as the Minister of Justice has suggested, deceived the members of this House and the people of the country in the statement he has presented to us in his report, that it was the bounden duty of the government, at the earliest possible moment, to remove, any impression that might have been caused by the publication of the statement of the Auditor General, and by placing before us these documents, so that they may be read into the report.	,


Charles Fitzpatrick: If the hon. gentleman will look at the Auditor General's Report from beginning to end he will not find in that report anything to justify the statement that we have departed. from the original contract with respect to the extension of time, except in so far as that may be a matter of inference, because in one letter the Auditor General says that the safeguards which surrounded the public interest in the original contract did not appear in the second contract. That is the extent to which he goes, but he does not in any part of his report say that the original contract w'as for a term of twenty-one years. On the contrary, if my hon. friends will read the opinion of Mr. Aylesworth, on page 21 of the Auditor General's Report, they will find this statement:
There appears an Order in Council of October 9, 1900, authorizing the agreement of October 19, 1900, under which the claim to payment is now made, but it is to be observed that this agreement of October 19, 1900, in fact amounts to nothing more than a fixing of the quantity of electric horse-power and electric light the contractor is to supply.
That is all it amounts to, and that is all in the Auditor General's Report.
Mr.. OLARKE. Of course* we are bound to accept, the statement of the hon. gentleman. The Auditor General is not here to make reply and answer the statements the Minister of Justice has made. In view of that fact, I repeat, and again urge upon the government, that we are entitled to have all the documents which have any bearing on the statements published by the Auditor General printed and circulated amongst the members of the House, in order that we may give an intelligent consideration to this whole matter.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I do not think there ought to be any time lost in correcting the false impression that exists with respect to this contract. I think myself that a great deal of misapprehension exists in the public mind with respect to this contract For instance, I saw in the Montreal ' Gazette,' about the 30th of June, probably one of the most respectable newspapers pub-

iished in Canada, a statement to the effect that this original contract made for a period of twenty-one years was subsequently extended for a period of eighty years by this present government. That is absolutely incorrect ; and when a paper of the authority of the Montreal ' Gazette ' makes a statement of that kind, it is time that we should correct it.	[DOT]


Edward Frederick Clarke: I appeal to the hon. gentleman that if the public are being misled to any extent, if the members of the House are being misled to any extent by the publication of the Auditor General's Report, or by the article published in the Montreal ' Gazette,' it was the bounden duty of the government to place the House in possession of the facts that would remove the misapprehension that existed.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That is what we are doing now.


Edward Frederick Clarke: You are doing it now ; and in view of the fact that these documents are being presented to us now, I think they should be printed and circulated at once amongst all the members, in order that w.e may have an opportunity of becoming seized of all the facts.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I made this statement a month ago, and I think now the time has come to speak with absolute frankness and candour in connection with this matter. I think that two or three gentlemen on the opposition side and two or three on this side should get together and look at the papers and decide which of the papers belonging to this voluminous record shall be published. That is perfectly fair, and 1 am quite prepared to acquiesce that the whole record should be examined.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It seems to me that we ought certainly to have placed before us all the documents that have any bearing on this matter. I do not know whether, the suggestion of the hon. gentleman could be improved or not. It seems to be a reasonable suggestion that some persons in whom we have confidence should examine these documents and select those that are pertinent, with a view of having them printed at once for the use of the members of the House. We want to get all the facts, and it is of the most vital importance to us that this House and the country should know whether the Auditor General, intentionally or unintentionally, has by anything that has been inserted in his report, or by anything that has been omitted, from his report, misled the public as to the true intent and meaning of this new contract.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Of course there must not be any misrepresentation about this ; I would be the last man in the world to charge the Auditor General with deliberately' misleading the public. I want to state my facts and do not want to be responsible 212
for inferences. The statement of fact which I make is that, attached to the original contract which is to be found at page 7 of the Auditor General's Report, there are terms and conditions in the schedule which are not produced by the Auditor General and which do not form part of the contract as he has printed it. That is the statement I make.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. gentleman said something further, that the omission of that portion to whch he has referred has misled the public, and the Auditor General of course is responsible for that omission.


Charles Fitzpatrick: And I say now- and my hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) must not speak for me, he is much more eloquent than I am but I like to make my own speeches if he does not mind. The statement that I made was that in those specifications and terms and conditions attached to the original contract there was a clause which provided for a renewal of this contract for eighty-four years. That is what I say and by that statement I will be bound.


Mr. COCHRANE.: There was no compulsion ; you need not have renewed it if you had not seen tit.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That is another question. At the period of renewal at the end of each twenty-one years provision is made that the rent shall be changed by the lessor ; at the expiration of each twenty-one years the government has the right to determine the amount of rent the lessee is to pay.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I submit that if there is any substantial difference in the two con-t*acts, that is an additional reason why they should long ago have been laid before parliament. If the last contract made any great change from the original contract and the renewal we should have had all the contracts here before us before discussing them.


Charles Fitzpatrick: You have them.


Edward Frederick Clarke: If the hon. gentlemau had sat reading that report as late as I have he would see the difference.


Robert Laird Borden: Undoubtedly there is a reference to these terms and conditions by the Auditor General, perhaps he may have thought that it was sufficient to attract the attention of the public to these terms and conditions in that way. Therefore, I think we should not be hasty in attributing anything to the Auditor General. Article 20 of the General Terms and Conditions which would seem to provide for a lease of the water privileges is as follows :
The first- day of July, A.D., 1895, and the first day of July of each twenty-first year thereafter following shall he dates from or up to v'hich respectively the term of this lease of water-power shall he computed. The lessor



covenants and agrees that if daring the term of his lease the lessee do well and truly keep and perform all and singular the covenants, agreements and undertakings on the part of the lessee to be kept and performed as herein and in his particular lease contained, then the said lessor shall or will, at the expiration of the term of the lease, on the written request of the lessee, made at least three months before such expiration, execute and deliver to the lessee, or to his legal representatives and recognized assigns, a renewal of the said lease for a second term, which shall then be of twenty-one years, and also at the expiration of the aforesaid and of every subsequent period of twenty-one years, for eighty-four years from the said first day of July, A.D., 1895, and then to be completed and ended, with the same covenants and conditions as contained herein, unless modified as provided for in article 24, and with the exception of the rent, which rent shall, at the end of each term of years, be determined by the lessor, and if not agreed to by the lessee, the said rent shall be determined by the Exchequer Court, whose decision, after hearing the evidence of engineers, experts or other parties, which either the lessor or lessee may wish to present^ shall be binding as to the rent payable for the renewal term : Provided, that if the lessee fail to keep and perform all or any of the said covenants, he shall not be entitled to any such renewal of his lease. The foregoing provisions of this article shall in no way interfere with the provisions and stipulations of article 21.
Under the agreement of 1896, the terms under which electric light was to be provided are set forth, but it is well to read In this connection article 24 which also is referred to. Article 24 is as follows
As to leases granted under the present provisions, the lessor shall also have and hereby reserves the right to modify any of such provisions in any subsequent lease granting a renewal thereof, but without affecting, however, the mutual rights and obligations of the parties thereto in respect of the amount of water-power leased and of the right of the lessee to use the same for the purposes originally contemplated. Provided also, that the lessee shall not be entitled to any such renewal lease or further term of the land, water-power or premises, as provided in article 18 of these presents, unless the rents reserved in the then existing lease have been punctually paid and all the conditions therein set forth to be fulfilled by the lessee have been duly fulfilled.
Now I understand that it is the argument of the Minister of Justice and I have been following him as closely as I can, that there is a definite agreement, under the agreement of June 25th, 1896, as to the period during which electric power shall be supplied. Do I correctly understand the minister as meaning that the lessor is bound to accept electric power for a period of eighty-four years, being a period coterminous with the term of years for which the lease Is granted ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: That is another question. The question now under consider-Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
ation is whether or not there has been any departure from the terms of the original agreement with respect to the extension in any respect whatever. I say there has not been.


An hon. MEMBER.: Oh, oh.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Evidently imperfect knowledge is the trouble in connection with this whole matter.


Thomas Chase Casgrain: Dees my hon. friend say that there are no changes between the first contract passed in 1896, and the last contract passed in 1903 ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: That is what I said.


Thomas Chase Casgrain: As to the number of lights and horse-power ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: The number of lights and horse-power was not provided in the first contract at all.


Thomas Chase Casgrain: My hon. friend is wrong. I shall read it to the hon. gentleman at once. It is provided in the first agreement, which will be found at page 7 :
That the lessee shall supply electric power to the satisfaction of the chief engineer of Railways and Canals for the working of all the locks on the Cornwall canal at sixty-three dollars per horse-power per annum.
That the lessee shall also supply and work electric direct current arc lights of not 'less than 2,000 candle power, in perfect working order, at such points and such number as shall, from time to time be deemed necessary by the chief engineer aforesaid, running all night.
And so on. Now therefore the number of lights and the number of horse-power was to be determined by the engineer. The second contract, which is to be found at page 11, contains this clause :
It is therefore agreed between the said parties hereto that the said Michael P. Davis shall under the said indenture furnish and supply to Her Majesty electric current for power purposes as aforesaid not less in any one year than four hundred electric horsepowers, and also supply and work electric direct current arc lights not less at any one time than two hundred and fifty lights, nor, without the consent of the lessor, more' than two hundred and seventy lights.
. A third contract which is at page 41, changes this again and it is said :
Now this indenture witnesseth that in pursuance of the aforesaid agreement, and in consideration of the premises, and of the considerations in the said indentures of the twenty-fifth day of June, 1S96, and the nineteenth day of October, 1900, contained, the said parties hereto mutually agree, and it is hereby agreed and declared that at and from the 1st day of July, 1903, and thereafter during the continuance of the term granted and agreed on by and in the said two indentures, the said Michael Patrick Davis shall supply such electric power, not exceeding four hundred horse-power


My hon. friend will notice the difference there.
-to the satisfaction of the chief engineer of railways and canals, as may by the said engineer be from time to time required in writing for the working of the locks and other purposes.
The same provision is repeated as to the electric light, but there again the contract says that the lights shall not exceed at any one time 250. You therefore have three distinct contracts as to the number of lights and horse-power, that are to be furnished. In the first contract it was to be determined by the chief engineer ; by the second contract the government was to pay for not less within one year than 400 electric horse-power and 250 lights, and by the third contract it was changed again and the contractor was to supply horse-power not exceeding 400 and lights not exceeding 250. There are three differences here. The Minister of Justice cannot now say that there was no difference made in this respect between the first contract executed in 1896, and the last contract executed in 1903'.


Charles Fitzpatrick: My answer to that is very simple. I will not travel over all the contracts, because this argument is made merely for the jiurpose of befogging the issue. The statement I made was that in the contract of 1900 there was no departure from the original contract except in respect to the number of lights and the number of horse-power, and I said there was no provision in the original contract with respect to lights and horsepower. I made that statement and ' Hansard ' will bear me out in that. What my hon. friend (Mr. Casgrain) has done, is to read what has already been read as to the number of horse-power and lights to be determined by the chief engineer. All the second contract of 1900 did was to put into effect the original contract, and to do that which the original contract contemplated ; that is to say, to fix the number of lights and the number of horse-power as recommended by the chief engineer. That was what was done and that is all that was done. When we come to deal with the other contract as to the change we can easily deal with that, but one thing at a time. My hon. friend the leader "of the opposition asked me as to whether or not the original contract provided for the renewal of the right to supply horse-power for four consecutive periods amounting to 84 years, or whether or not the original contract had merely in contemplation the right to a lease of the power and of the land. The original contract had in contemplation lease of the power and of the land for 84 years ; that is to say, the government parted with possession of the land and parted with possession of the power, and the original contract contemplated that Davis should supply electric light and should als~ supply 2121
electric power. The distinction my hon. friend has in his mind, is. that the obligation to take the power and to take the land was only for twenty-one years, whereas the lease of the power and the land continued to exist for 84 years. Here is the answer to that. On page 11 you will find the contract that we have made with Mr. Davis in 1900, and you will find in this contract that after having made provision for the number of lights and the number of horse-power, it is said :
Nothing herein shall be taken to vary, other than as above specified or provided, any of the provisions of the said indenture.
The original indenture remains absolutely the same with all its provisions, except that we determine the number of lights and the number of horse-power to be supplied.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does it not make a change in regard to the payment ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: No.


Robert Laird Borden: I may say that I want to get at the meaning of the two contracts and the difference between them if any, and what I shall suggest now is for the purpose of having it answered by the Minister of Justice for my own information. The agreement of the 25th of June, 1896, granted the use of certain water to Mr. Davis for a period of 21 years for the purpose of creating power. By virtue of the general conditions which were attached and which became part of the agreement, that period could be increased to 84 years subject to the conditions, some of which I have read, and the conditions which I have read give power to the lessor to vary the rent at the conclusion of each period of 21 years, and in case of difference that rent was to be determined by the Exchequer Court. I may say in passing, that is one case in which the Exchequer Court has been called into action in connection with a government contract, although this afternoon the Minister of Justicg did not seem to think that that was very good policy.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I do not think it is.


Robert Laird Borden: I am glad to find that that general principle is recognized by the terms and the conditions with regard to leases of water-power, which I understand have been in force for many years. In addition to the general conditions, the lessee made certain covenants and his first covenant was that he would pay a rent of $1,000 yearly every year during the term, for the use of the land and the power which was granted to him. That yearly rental was to be paid in advance on the second of January and the first of July each year, except during the first two years when he was not to be charged because his plant for the purpose of developing power would then be in the course of construction. Then follows the provision :


G659 COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
That the lessee shall supply electric power to the satisfaction of the chief engineer of railways and canals for the working of all the locks on the Cornwall canal at sixty-three dollars per horse-power per annum ;
That the lessee shall also supply and work electric direct current arc lights of not less than 2,000 candle power, in perfect working order, at such points and such manner as shall,, from time to time be deemed necessary, by the chief engineer aforesaid, running all night whenever so required, along the caDal, &c.
Then the lessee , was obliged to place such poles as should be directed for the purpose of conveying this power to the lights anti I suppose also for the purpose of conveying power to the stations at which it was to be received for the operation of the canal. Up to that point you have not very much more than this ; that the government have the right to name the number of lights and they have the right to fix a certain number of horse-power which are to be supplied by the lessee. But until the government fix the number of lights and horse-power which they require, the lessee has not very much comfort out of the contract so far as anything is concerned that he might receive out of it. Up to that time it is an option on the part of the government, with the qualification that when they do exercise that option, they shall pay for the light and the power supplied at certain fixed rates. Does that idea agree with the view of the Minister of Justice ?
Charles Fitzpatrick: I do not know, so I could go quite that far.
Mi-. R. D. BORDEN. The hon. gentleman has bestowed more attention than I have on the contract, and when he comes to speak he will correct me if I am wrong. In directing my attention to the second contract dated October, 1900, the Minister of Justice has quoted this provision of the contract :
Nothing herein shall be taken to vary, other than as above specified or provided, .any of the provisions of the said indenture.
That would be very well indeed if it stopped there ; but there is something very significant immediately after, and which seems to indicate that my view as to the term during which light and power should be supplied, viz., that it cannot in any event under the first contract exceed the time of twenty-one years, is the correct view ; , because we find that to be the understanding of the parties as evidenced by the provision which immediately follows in the contract and which is :
This agreement shall extend for twenty-one years from the date of the said indenture No. 12336, and shall thereafter be further extended by successive renewals to the first day of July, 1979, thus making the term of this contract coexistent with the leasing portion of the said indenture, and shall be binding on Her Majesty, her successors and assigns, and upon the said Mr. R. L. BORDEN.


Michael P.: Davis, his executors, administrators and assigns.
That would seem to me to be a direct statement by the parties of their understanding of the first agreement, and to express that understanding in this way, that the terms of the first agreement, so far as light and power are concerned, do not extend beyond the period of twenty-one years. Then the contract of the 19th of October, 1900, proceeds to make the term during which this light and power shall be supplied to the government co-extensive with the term already existing for the leasing of the land and water-power. I do not see how it is possible, in view of the terms of the contract of 1896 and of this provision which I have just quoted, to contend that the contract of 1900 did not extend for the term of sixty-three years the term during which the light and power should be accepted from Mr. Davis. As pointed out by my hon. friend from South Simcoe. that is borne out by the terms of the Order in Council of the 18th of October, 1900, which is supplementary to the Order in Council of October 9, 1900, and which is as follows
On a memorandum dated October 15, 1900, from the Minister of Railways and Canals, recommending that the Order in Council of October 9, 1900, authorizing the entry into contract with Mr. M. P. Davis in respect of the lighting, &c., by electricity of the Cornwall canal, be amended to such effect that the terms of twenty-one years therein named as the term of the said lease may be extended by successive renewals to July 1, 1979, thereby bringing it into conformity with the lease of water-power granted to Mr. Davis mentioned in the said order.
That Order in Council, of course, makes it perfectly clear that in the opinion of the government at that time the term of the contract for supply of light and power was not co-extensive with the term of the lease of land and water ; and the object of the Order in Council was to give the necessary-authority for the making of the contract dated October 19, 1900, under which the term is extended from twenty-one years to eighty-four years. It would therefore seem to me. subject to such correction as may he offered my honourable and learned friend the Minister of Justice, that there was in that very important respect a divergence in the contract of 1900 from the terms of the contract of 1896. I might summarize the difference between the two contracts. Under the contract of 1S96 the Crown had an option, but was not effectively bound to accept any particular amount of power from Mr. Davis, although if it did accept power, it was bound to pay for it at a specific rate. Under the contract of 1900. the amount of power which must be paid for at that rate was definitely fixed. Under the contract of 1896 there was no agreement binding upon the Crown as to any number of lights which the Crown was hound to take at the rates

specified, although if the Crown did agree to take any number of lights, they must be paid for at the rate specified, 30 cents per light for each night. Under the amended contract the Crown became bound to pay for a definite number of lights on the terms of the contract of 1896. Under the ''contract of 1896, however, the Crown did enter into an agreement to accept a certain number of lights and a certain quantity of power, to be afterwards defined. but only for the period of twenty-one years. That would seem to be in conformity with the general terms and conditions under which the Crown had the right to vary the rent at each particular period of twenty-one years; and therefore the Crown in making the bargain as to light and power, would naturally restrict itself to a term of twenty-one years in order that when that term expired it might vary the price, or say, we will not proceed further with this because the prices at which power and light can be furnished are materially different now from what they were when this contract was first entered into. But under the contract of 1900-1 speak subject to correction. by the Minister of Justiee-that was absolutely departed from, and the terms as to price which were fixed by the contract of 1896 for a period of twenty-one years only, became then fixed tor a period of 84 years. In these three important respects it seems to me as at present advised, that there were very important differences between the contract of 1S9G and the contract of 1900.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I think it will perhaps be advisable, in the interest of the House and of the country, to have the terms of the contract set out, so that we may understand exactly what they mean. The original contract of the 23tli of June, 1896, contains the following paragraph :
To have and to hold, the said lot of land and the said surplus water and such increased flow of water into the said canal from the said creek through any works of the lessee, as appurtenant to the said lot of land for the erection of an electric plant and the operation of the machinery therein, and the privileges, rights and easements thereof for the term of twenty-one years from and after the first day of July, A.D., 1896, and ended on the first day of July, A.D. 1917, and thereafter for a term or period of twenty-one years, renewable as is provided and mentioned in the annexed general terms and conditions.
Here you must read in of the annexed general terms and conditions article 20 : The first day of July, A.D. 1895, and the first day of July of each twenty-first year thereafter following shall be dates from or up to which respectively the term of this lease of water-power shall be computed.
That is read into the original contract, which provides for the granting of this power for the erection of an electric light plant and the operation of the machinery ; that is the object for which it is conferred.


Hon.  H. R.@: L, BORDEN. Will my hon. friend
pardon me if I make a suggestion simply for the purpose of getting down to the real issue, if there is any, between us ? I do _ not understand that the development of light and power by the lessee was solely for the purposes of the government ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Not solely, but chiefly.


Robert Laird Borden: That may or may not be ; we cannot tell :	but	it is contemplated that he shall develop it for other purposes.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes. and that is important in connection with what I am quoting :	*
The lessor covenants and agrees that ifl during the term of his lease the lessee do well and truly keep and perform all and singular the covenants, agreements and undertakings on the part of the lessee to be kept and performed as herein and in his particular lease contained, then the said lessor shall or wilt, at the expiration of the term of the lease, on the written request of the lessee made at least three months before such expiration, execute and deliver to the lessee, or to his legal representatives and recognized assigns, a renewal of the said lease for a second term, which shall then be of twenty-one years, and also at the expiration of the aforesaid and of every subsequent period of twenty-one years, for eighty-four years from the said first day of July, A.D. 1895, and then to be completed and ended, with the same covenants and conditions as contained herein, unless modified as provided for in article 24, and with the exception of the rent.
It is not necessary for me to read, further. So that you have the original lease containing the condition that it is to be renewed for four successive periods of twenty-one years and that the lease is granted to Mr. Davis, not only of a lot of land, but of the surplus power for the purpose of erecting electric plant.


John Graham Haggart: These are the general
specifications attached to all leases.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes, every canal lease of water-power has the same provision and there is no exception in this case. It is the usual form attached to all leases :
And the said lessee covenants and agrees to pay Her Majesty the Queen, Her heirs and successors-
That is what the lessee obliges himself to do

And the said- lessee covenants and agrees ter pay Her Majesty the Queen, Her heirs and successors, the rent or sum of one thousand dollars yearly and every year for the rent of the said lot of land and for the use of said surplus water and any increased flow of water into the said canal from the said creek through any works of the lessee ; all such water to be drawn and conducted from and out of the Cornwall canal at the regulating weir, as shown on the plan hereunto annexed.

The said yearly rent shall be paid in advance on the second day of January, and the first day of July, in each year, dating from the first day of July, A.D., 1896, the rent for the first two years, in consideration of the erection of the necessary buildings, machinery and other works, not being charged.
Then follows this important clause :
That the lessee shall supply electric power to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer of Railways and Canals for the working of all the locks on the Cornwall canal at $63 per horsepower per annum.
That is his obligation. He gets a lease of the power for the purpose of erecting plant and machinery for a period of eighty-four years, 'and he obliges himself to pay a rent and to supply the power. Where is the restriction there as to twenty-one years? His rent is to continue throughout all the term of the lease, which is for four successive periods of twenty-one years each, but at the expiration of each period the Crown has the right to increase the rent. His obligation is to supply the power and lighting and that continues throughout the entire term of the lease. The next paragraph provides :
That the lessee shall also supply and work electric direct current arc lights of not less than 2,000 candle power, in perfect working order, at such points and such number as shall, from time to time be deemed necessary by the chief engineer aforesaid, running all night whenever so required, along the canal, and maintain and keep the same in good order and condition and provide all electrical connections, labour, tools, plant, material and everything necessary for the regular operation of the plant at his own cost and expense at thirty cents per light per night.
My construction of that agreement is that it provides for the lease to Mr. Davis of the surplus water of the Cornwall canal, after the requirements of the canal have been provided for and after all leases then existing and all leases that might thereafter be made had been satisfied. He got the surplus and in addition he obtained the right to construct some works at the entrance of the canal so as to increase the flow of water. He obtained that for four successive periods of twenty-one years each and his obligation was to pay the rent and supply power. First look at the reasonableness of the conditions, for after all we have to look at this contract in the light of the conditions existing at that time. The government was parting with the possession of the only available means of lighting that canal by electricity and of providing the electric power necessary to operate it. The government was handing these over to Mr. Davis for eighty-four years. Is it not a reasonable construction to put on this agreement that when the government was parting with that power to Mr. Davis, it stipulated that Mr. Davis should provide what was necessary to operate and light the canal. Anri that obligation to supply the power and the Mr. FITZPATRICK.
lights will be coexistent with the terms of the lease under which he took possession of the means necessary to do that which the government wanted to have done. Let .us go back to the original agreement and I can see no reason why there should be any dispute with respect to it. That original agreement was as good a one from a business standpoint, as it was possible to make. It provides for the price to be paid for the lights and the power, and the question is whether at the time the lease was made these prices were fair and reasonable. Can that be successfully disputed ? I say it can not. I say that at the time this lease was made the prices stipulated were reasonable. The only possible criticism would be that the government did not provide that at the expiration of each definite period the prices might be reduced, because ordinary prudence would anticipate a reduction in the cost of electric power, and provision should have been made that at each recurring period new prices might be fixed. But the contract provides that at the expiration of each period of twenty-one years the government has the right to determine the rent which Mr. Davis is to pay. ,If the government continues to pay high prices for light and power, it may charge a proportionately high rent for the lease of the land. In this way it has the upper hand. I shall not weary the House any more with this contract except to this extent. We must bear in mind that it was not possible at that time to de-. termine the number of lights that would be required and it was equally impossible to determine the number of horse-power. The canal was then in process of construction, and it was impossible to say, before it was completed, what number of lights would be required to light the canal and what number of horse-power would be required to operate the locks and gates. Consequently the government said : We will oblige you to supply the power and the lights and we will fix the price : but in so far as the number of lights and horse-power is concerned, that will be fixed by the government engineer when the canal is ready to be put into operation. And in the year luOO, when the canal was completed, the government engineer, as appeared by the Order in Council, fixed the number of lights and the number of horse-power required. And what has been the result ? The number of lights which he estimated has been found by three experts appointed to investigate, with the consent of the Auditor General, to be exactly the number required. That appears by the Auditor General's Report on page 47 :
The 250 lights appear to be no more than sufficient to light the canal, as the lamps which are placed 400 feet apart are not too Close for proper illumination.
That is the conclusion of the experts, so that the number of lights fixed in antiei-

pation by the Deputy Minister of Railways and the government engineer has been found to be exactly what was required. The government engineer also, under the terms of the original contract, was to fix the number of horse-power, and he made an estimate which will be found on page 33 of the Auditor General's Report. They fixed the number of horse-power at 417. The contract provided for 400. When we get down to detail, as we shall in a few minutes, I think, I can give the report prepared by* the government engineer which shows that what he anticipated is borne out. It shows the exact number of locks, the number of gates, number qf bridges, sluices, weirs and so on, and the exact horse-power for each and shows the quantity of power actually required for the purpose of the canal to be 451 horse-power.


Robert Laird Borden: Did not the experts report 125 ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: No. The experts went down and examined the canal with a view to the work to be done and the installation that it would be reasonable immediately to adopt, and recommended that a contract be entered into immediately and that was the exact number of horse-power is found in the Auditor General's Report at the foot of page 49. That horse-power is given there at 268. In advance of the experts the Auditor General, not satisfied with the position he took said : We will not take any estimate or average ; there is the canal and there are the appliances and we will pay for the number of horse-power actually supplied. And it was ascertained at the time that the horse-power actually supplied was 126. And he provides in the draft contract that the power required for all the appliances might amount to 400 horse-power, because the contract provides that Mr. Davis is to be paid up to iOO horse-power. The Auditor General knew that. The only trouble is, as I said in discussing the matter before, there is no use trying to get away from the issue-that this was entered into with Mr. Davis in 1900, and he was obligated to provide the power within a certain time- I think it was two years-and at the expiration of that period the government ought to have had the equipment necessary to utilize the. power he was ready to supply. When he had made his bargain and completed his contract, he came to the government and said :	Where are the appliances
on which this power is to be used ? And the government was compelled to acknowledge that it was not ready. Experimenting had been going on and the work could not be finished. Mr. Davis said : According to the strict terms of the contract I am entitled to be paid for a certain horse-power because I am ready to supply it, and if you cannot use it that is your fault ; I have done all that I am obliged to do. Was not that a
fair and reasonable position for Mr. Davis to take ? The difficulty arose through the government, in the course of experimenting with winches and so cn required on the canal being prevented from getting ready in time. For instance, three different winches were experimented with. And, to show how this thing has gone, let me say that the experts who were dealing with the winches calculated that these appliances would require, to move them, ten horsepower each. It has been found now that it takes twenty horse-power to move each winch. There are six winches on the canal, so 120 horse-power is required for winches alone. It seems to me the matter is a simple one. Mr. Davis, having executed his part of the contract, was entitled to ask the government to .pay him, whether they were ready with their part of the work or not. That was what it came back to. And the government, not being ready at the time found it convenient to take advantage of the section of the contract and say to Mr. Davis : We will have to modify the terms of your contract or else take over the whole thing under the expropriation clause. To suggest corruption under these circumstances seems a little far-fetched. If Mr. Davis had a corrupt bargain with either government or with anybody connected with either government and was in a position to enforce it he would not have taken the position he did. The best evidence of the honesty of all parties is that everybody has acted in good faith and that not a dollar has been paid out improperly or unreasonably. So far as I am personally concerned, I know Mr. Davis. He has been carrying on a large public contract in my own constituency. 1 know Mr. Davis's character sufficiently well to say that he would not be connected with any corrupt bargain with any government. If he has any political preferences, they do not cause him to lean to our side. He is an honest man, I am sure he is a good contractor, and would not want to do anything but what is fair and right, and, so far as this contract is concerned, he has not done anything but what is fair and right.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course, I had not got to the stage of criticising the terms of either one contract or the other. The subject with which I was dealing, and which the Minister of Justice left to the latter part of his remarks was the difference between the contract of 1896 and the contract of 1900. I will not go over the ground. .1 have already gone over. I have pointed out that under the agreement of 1896 there was, in fact an option in the government, because the government were not bound to take more than one light or one horse-power. To take that much would have satisfied the terms of the contract.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I agree with that. It was a question to be determined by the government engineer.


Robert Laird Borden: I agree with that. We are not so far apart as to the construction of the agreement, except in one respect which I shall mention a little later. I admit the power of expropriation in the agreement of 1896 is a very important one and its usefulnesss was illustrated by what the Minister of Justice has said-that it was the means of inducing Mr. Davis to enter into a different agreement after the Auditor General had raised some objection to the proposed payments under the two agreements of 1896 and 1900.
The Minister of Justice did not deal, it seems to me,- with one very important matter that was bl-ought to his attention in my remarks. Under the agreement of 1896 the lighting and power were to be supplied only for twenty-one years. I directed the hon. gentleman's attention to the very plain and definite statement in the agreement of 1900. I do not see how there could be any answer to it. And I am sure the hon. minister does not see how there could be any answer beeaues he has made no reference to it. It says :
That is what the government themselves say. looking at the contract of 1890 :	The
agreement which we made was for a terme of twenty-one years. Even if my construction of the agreement of 1896 were not 'the true one. still it seems to me that the government had power to say exactly that which they did say in the Order in Council of 1896. They were not bound to take more than one horse-power or more than one electric light from Mi-. Davis, and if they saw fit to take 250 lights and 400 horse-powers, they could accompany it by a stipulation which they inserted in the Order in Council of October, 1896, namely, that their contract to take more than that should be in force only for a term of 21 years. I do not' see that there is any answer to that argument, which, I place with some confidence before the House and before the Minister of Justice, because the first matter we want to settle is whether the Auditor General is right in the position which he has taken tLat there was in that regard an extension of time for supplying light and power from 21 years to 84 years.
This indenture shall extend for twenty-one years from the date of the said indenture No. 12336, and shall thereafter he further extended by successive renewals to the first day of July, 1979, thus making the term of this contract coexistent with the leasing portion of the said indenture, and shall be binding on Her Majesty, her successors and assigns, and upon the said Michael P. Davis, his executors, administrators and assigns.
Now with that clause of the agreement of 1900 staring us In the face, is it possible for us to say t'hat the parties to the agreement of 1896 understood anything else ? They have placed under their hands and seals as distinctly as the English language can 'state it, their understanding that under the agreement of 1896 light and power were to be supplied only for a term of 21 years. How are they going back on that ? So far as the government is concerned, I have pointed out the Order In Council of October 16, 1896, which expressly states the same thing in so many words, speaking of course only for the government, because the Order in Council would not bind Mr. Davis. Further than that, even by tbe Order in Council of the 9th October, 1900, the same thing is stated, and it is In the latter part of that Order in Council :
It to be an express provision that, in the event of any difference of opinion arising between the contractor and the Department of Railways and Canals as to the number of horsepowers actually supplied, that quantity shall be determined by three arbitrators, one to be named by the Department of Railways and Canals, one by the contractor, and the third by the two so named ; or failing agreement, by judge of the Exchequer Court ; the said contract to be in force for a term of twenty-one years.


Charles Fitzpatrick: 


Charles Fitzpatrick: 
Robert Laird Borden: That is what the agreement says.


Charles Fitzpatrick: From my standpoint that is not the agreement. I contend that the original agreement provided for the 1 leasing to Mr. Davis of the surplus power

and of the land for 84 years, and that the condition upon which that lease for that period is granted to hjm is that for that period of 84 years he shall pay $1,000 a year, subject to changes at each renewal, and that the obligation to pay the rent and the obligation to supply light and power are coexistent or coextensive with the condition of the lease, that is to say, that the one is for 84 years and the other is for 84 years also.


Robert Laird Borden: The Minister of Justice can take that position only by arguing that both parties under tlie terms of the agreement of 1900 to which I have referred, were under a misapprehension as to the true construction of the contract of 1896. If the Minister of Justice is right as to the meaning of the agreement of 1896, then you never would have found this clause to whiqjs I have drawn attention in tlie agreement of 1900, because it would have been absolutely absurd. You will observe that in the first part of it they say this :
That nothing herein shall be taken to vary, other than above specified or provided, any of the provisions of said indenture.
Then they go on to make a provision that is absolutely inconsistent with the view which my hon. friend entertains of the meaning of the agreement of 1898, there cannot be any question about that. Both parties say distinctly in this agreement what the government has said in both Orders 'in Council, that under the agreement of 1898 the term during which the government were obliged to accept light and power was a term of 21 years, only not a term of 84 years. And we are always entitled, as the Minister of Justice knows, to construe one agreement, where its meaning is in any way doubtful or ambiguous, by other agreements made between the same parties ; and when we find any possible doubt as to the meaning of the agreement of 1896 we have a perfect right to go to the agreement of 1900 for the purpose of understanding anything which is in the slightest degree doubtful. Construing both agreements together, as we are bound to do, it necessarily follows that the agreement of 1S98 did not mean a term of S4 years but meant a term of 21 years.
However, as the Minister of Justice has very fairly suggested that there should be some gentleman named on this side of the House to look at the voluminous file which relates to this matter, X shall be very happy if the gentleman whom 1 name will be willing to act. I would name the hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart), the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) and the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) as three gentlemen on this side of the House who will be prepared I think to undertake that duty.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: Before tills discussion closes, there are one or two things concerning which 1 would like a little light myself.
I think it would be well that the Order in Council of the 8th February, 1896, should be brought down. >


Charles Fitzpatrick: That is down, that is a recommendation to Council, and the Order in Council is dated the 18th. 1 have not got the recommendation, X have got the Order.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: Well, probably this matter will come up for discussion again after the other documents are brought down.


John Graham Haggart: I would like for my own sake to have one document produced. I acted in reference to the prices on the recommendation of the department and if I remember rightly there is a written report as to the value of the lights. I remember particularly the departnient inquiring into the cost of lighting in seven or eight places, and that the rate of $63 per horsepower as tlie value of tlie energy was arrived at. There was no such thing in the country then as electric light for sale, and I ordered the deputy to arrive at some reasonable rate. There is a report in reference, to the lighting at 30 cents per night.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The experts appointed by the government with the consent of the Auditor General say in their report that the price charged for power is, perfectly reasonable. That will be found in the report.


John Graham Haggart: There is a doubt on that, a serious one, I suppose.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: 
Charles Fitzpatrick: I do not know what the amount paid is but we ought to be able to ascertain that.


Mr WILSON.: I would like to ask the ' Minister of Justice if the Auditor General
COMilOXS
has hall an opportunity of seeing the papers -which -were laid on the table to-night. My information is that he did not see them or know of their existence. .


Charles Fitzpatrick: The terms and conditions of the lease ?


Mr. WILSON.: Yes.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I do not know that he has seen them, but the lease which he publishes refers specially to them, so that in order to understand the lease -and I am sure he understood it perfectly well or otherwise he would not have reported on it-he must have read the conditions; he could not have understood the lease without it, and of course I assume he must have seen that document.


Mr. WARD.: Early in the discussion I understood tile Minister of Justice to say in reply to the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. J. D. Reid) that the Auditor General, in not publishing the terms and conditions of the lease of 1896, had concealed from the public the fact that the lease of 1S96 was renewable.


Charles Fitzpatrick: If my hon. friend understood me to say that, I fear that these words must have escaped me. It does seem to me that it is impossible to understand the effect of the original lease without understanding the terms with respect to the revenue. If my hon. friend will look at page 7 he will see that it is there stated that it is renewable as is provided and mentioned in the annexed general terms and conditions.


Henry Alfred Ward: My hon. friend will see that the insinuation against the Auditor General was that he had concealed from the public the fact that that lease was renewable at all. If my hon. friend will read that portion of the lease he will find that it says that it is :
To have and to hold . . . from the first day of July, 1896, and ended on the first day of July, A.D. 1917, and thereafter for a term or period of twenty-one years, renewable as is provided and mentioned. in the annexed general terms and conditions.
I do not think my hon. friend would wish to do the Auditor General any injustice in this matter and i think he should withdraw what he said about the Auditor General with regard to there not being a clear statement in his report that that lease of 1896 was renewable.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I am in the judgment of the House as to what I said and I will refer my hon. friend to ' Hansard.' I think he will find that I made the statement before as I make it now,that you could not find in the Auditor General's Report, if you looked at it from beginning to end. a paragraph, clause or line which says that * Mr. WILSON.
this contract was not renewable. My trouble about it is that my hon. friends opposite, my hon. friend from- Grenville (Mr. J. D. Reid) for instance said that this contract was only for 21 years and was not renewable. Everybody says that and it seems to me that somebody must have gathered that impression from somewhere outside and they have not read the agreement. Furthermore I will refer to the Montreal 'Gazette,' a paper of the greatest respectability. I do not always agree with the ' Gazette ' but when the Montreal ' Gazette ' made that statement I thought it was time to correct it. However. if I made any statement about the Auditor General wilfully suppressing anything I withdraw it. He may be guilty of all the crimes in the calendar but lie'eer-taily is not guilty of lack of courage.


Haughton Lennox: There is another view of the matter that I think has been overlooked. 1 am looking at section 32 of the Audit Act, which is the only clause governing this matter. It provides that no cheque for public money shall issue except in certain cases and it provides among other things for the overruling of the Auditor General under certain circumstances. Now I think that not only must the Minister of Justice withdraw the implications that he cast upon the Auditor General, but he must also withdraw them as regards the Minister of Finance, if this is the only clause, and I think it is, that provides for the reporting of this matter to parliament in the Auditor General's Report. The concluding clause of clause 32, that is subsection 2, provides :
The Auditor General shall In alii such cases-
That is in all cases where he has been overruled as I understand it.
-prepare a statement of all such legal opinions, reports of Council, special warrants and cheques issued without his certificate, and of all expenditures incurred in consequence thereof, which he shall deliver, to the Minister of Finance and Receiver General to be by him presented to parliament not later than the third day of the session thereof then next ensuing.	'
It may be that the Minister of Justice will point out to me that this is not the provision under which this statement is prepared, but there seems to be no other provision of the Audit Act which covers the matter and the duty of reporting on this Davis transaction and all other cases of overruling rests not so much on the Auditor General, as upon the Finance Minister and Receiver General. If there has been any omission, and if the Minister of Justice,was justified in raising any objection however shadowy against the Auditor General, I think it should rather be transferred to the Minister of Finance. I believe as a matter of fact that the Minister of Finance has always brought down the report.


John Dowsley Reid: The original contract specifies for twenty-one years, subject to renewal upon conditions.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That is right.


John Dowsley Reid: I find that the government, by Order in Council on October loth, 1900, extended it by successive renewals to 1979. That Order in Council makes it imperative on the government to continue the contract for eighty-four years, whereas the original contract was simply for twenty-one years.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Renewable.
Mr. .7. D. REID. The original contract made it renewable subject to certain conditions, whereas this contract says it is to continue to 1979.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That is in the original agreement.


John Dowsley Reid: This original contract was made in June, 1896, immediately before the Conservative government went out of power. It was not necessary for this government to accept it if they did not wish to do so. If they had said one horse-power or one light, they would have carried out the original contract.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Of course, my hon. friend will understand that he and I differ on that point.


John Dowsley Reid: If the Minister of Justice differs with me, I would like to hear his explanation.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Well, I do not think my hon. friend is quite fair to me. He and I get along very well together, and it is not treating me very handsomely to tell me, after I have been trying to explain this one point for an hour, that I have not given an explanation.


John Dowsley Reid: The very day this gov ernment passed an Order in Council indicating 250 lights and 400 horse-power they assumed the responsibility of that contract.


Charles Fitzpatrick: No doubt.


John Dowsley Reid: They assumed the responsibility of paying $52,000 a year_ for lighting the Cornwall canal. The Minister of Justice will acknowledge that I am right in that.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I am afraid I cannot.


Henry Robert Emmerson: You do not mean lighting alone. There is the operation of the canal by electricity and many other things included.
. Mr. J. D. REID. You pay $52,000 a year for lighting the Cornwall canal and for horse-power to move the gates.


Charles Fitzpatrick: To move the gates and the bridges ; and there are the workshops and quite a number of things.


John Dowsley Reid: Well, put it all in.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes, you might as well include it all.


John Dowsley Reid: The government passed that Order in Council when they had before them the fact that for the Soulanges canal which is about the same length and has the same number of locks as the Cornwall canal


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


John Dowsley Reid: The Auditor General states that the Cornwall canal has seven locks and two bridges and the Soulanges canal six locks and seven bridges.


Charles Fitzpatrick: My hon. friend would be amazed to hear that on the Cornwall canal there are eleven locks and on the Soulanges canal there are four lockst according to the certificate of the chief engineer of government railways, dated on the 2nd of July, 1904.


John Dowsley Reid: Perhaps that may be right, but I quoted from the official record.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Not from the official record; you are taking it from the Auditor General's Report.	.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not know that the Auditor General is trying to mislead us.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Oh, I do not think so.


John Dowsley Reid: The Cornwall canal is twelve miles and the Soulanges canal eleven and a half miles, and yet for lighting the Soulanges canal and operating the bridges and locks in the same way as the Cornwall canal, it only cost $9,800 per annum.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That is not correct Mr. J. D. REID. I am taking it from the official records.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The official records show that the wages alone, with the cost of operating, is $11,131, to which you must add interest.


John Dowsley Reid: The Minister of Justice says that it cost $11,044.


Charles Fitzpatrick: $11,131 ; I want to be strictly correct.


John Dowsley Reid: To which you add the interest of the cost, $160,000.


Charles Fitzpatrick: You are again
wrong ; the cost is $218,175.


John Dowsley Reid: That is $6,000, so tha,t that makes $17,718' on the Soulanges canal.


Charles Fitzpatrick: What about your depreciation ?


John Dowsley Reid: Never mind that.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Never mind any thing.	*


John Dowsley Reid: Well, I would take it $17,000, interest and all, oil the Soulanges canal.
-Mr. FITZPATRICK. What about depreciation of plant ?


John Dowsley Reid: That would not be 10 per cent.


Charles Fitzpatrick: At 10 per cent it would be $21,000, and that would bring you to $38,000 on the Soulanges canal.


John Dowsley Reid: In ten years you would renew the plant. The Minister of Justice makes a contract for $53,000.


Charles Fitzpatrick: For double the work.


John Dowsley Reid: The Minister of Justice knows that there is not a depreciation -of 10 per cent.


Charles Fitzpatrick: You gave the figures.


John Dowsley Reid: Suppose there were, it would only amount to $30,000 on the St. Lawrence canals.


Charles Fitzpatrick: What would be the depreciation ?


Mr.   .J. D. REID@: It would not amount to 2 per cent per annum.


Charles Fitzpatrick: If you look at the Auditor General's Report, at page 50, you will find that the average depreciation is 0 per cent. There would be $12,000 for depreciation.


John Dowsley Reid: Does not the hon. Minister of Justice make a contract for $53,000 ? He estimated 250 lights.


Charles Fitzpatrick: No, because I put double the work on.


John Dowsley Reid: He puts double the
lights.	,
Mr, FITZPATRICK. M.v hon. friend is wrong again. On the Soulanges canal the lights are 213 arc and 310 incandescent. If he figures out 13 incandescent to 1 arc light, he will get the exact number.


Haughton Lennox: I suggest that we leave the matter until we get the information.
Item allowed to stand.


Henry Robert Emmerson: 1 want to give some information with respect to item 98. Some Uon. member asked for the number of the operating staff on the canals. I have that here. I was also asked to give the estimate of the cost of the electric lights on the Welland canal and also the estimated cost of the motive power for bridges and gates. In the one case it is $100,000 and in the other case $150,000, the two making $250,000 for the electric lighting plant and for the motive power plant on the Welland canal.


Mr.   .J. D. REID@: 


Mr. BLAIN.: Is that the contract ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have that.


John Graham Haggart: How many horsepower for lighting ?


Henry Robert Emmerson: 500.


John Graham Haggart: I think we can wait for the rest of the information until tomorrow.
Progress reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the business for to-morrow ?


William Stevens Fielding: If the clerks have the work ready, we shall ask the House to [DOT]take concurrence, in accordance with the understanding this evening. After that the Minister of Justice will take up the Railway Bill, and if supply be reached, we shall take up the estimates of the Minister of Railways and Canals.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, House adjourned at 12.25 a.m. Thursday.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, July 14, 1904.