1904-04-25

Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I wish to know whether the return with respect to the Vancouver dry dock has been brought down?


Hon. JAS. SUTHERLAND (Minister of Public Works).: The correspondence is being prepared as quickly as possible. There was seme difficulty in understanding from the hon. gentleman's motion, what correspondence is referred to, but I suppose it is the correspondence with Mr. Jackson. It will be brought down in probably a day or two.


Robert Laird Borden: I thought it was easy to comprehend the order of the House. It was understood to include all correspondence relating to the matter.


James Sutherland: I have no doubt it was to my hon. friend and to me, lint some of the officials did not seem to understand it, as most of the correspondence is with another party of a very similar, or almost the same name.


Vol.   I.@: A month ago, an order was granted for copies of all contracts re-

specting the carriage of the mails from the St. Lawrence during the, past four or five years. I would suppose that there ought to be printed copies of these contracts on file, and it would be easy to bring. down. Another matter, which has not been standing quite so long, relates to the correspondence concerning the appointment of a postmaster in the town of Huntingdon.


Right Hon.   S@: That motion is on the order paper for to-day ; it has not yet been moved.


Robert Laird Borden: Very well, I understood it had been moved in my absence.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I asked the Secretary of State this morning to expedite all these orders that had been moved for by my hon. friend, and he said he would do so, but he thought they had all been brought down.


Right Hon.   S@: The return with regard to the mail contract from the St. Lawrence, has to do with the Department of Trade and Commerce. Lest it might be inferred it was in my department, I -wish to say that I do not know anything about it.


Robert Laird Borden: I quite understand.



CENSUS, 1901-INDUSTRIAL ESTABLISHMENTS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. KEMP-by Mr. Lancaster-asked :
1.	What was the number of industrial lishments in Canada, according to the een of 1901 ?
2.	What was the total fixed capital ?
3.	What was the total working capital *	,4.	What was the total number of employ . -	[DOT]5.	What was the total amount in wages pduring the year ?	76.	What was the total value of raw ("ater [DOT]7.	What was the total value of articles p duced ?
Hon. Sir FREDERICK BORDEN ter of Militia and Defence). Tbe Minister Agriculture has left the following ansu with me :
1.	$14,650.
2.	$209,378,638.
3.	$237,537,849.
4.	313,314 on wages ; and 17,453 on
aries.	„,n464
5.	$89,573,204 for wages ; and $]3,41L for salaries.
6.	$266,527,858.
7. $481,053,375.	ese
With the exception of butter and
factories, the census of manufactures gve was taken for establishments employWo hands and over.
Mr. DAVID HENDERSON (Halton).: When may I expect a return ordered by the House on the 23rd of March respecting the payment of certain wages in connection with Bronte harbour ?


James Sutherland: Instructions have been given to get the information as quickly as possible.


David Henderson: It ought to be very easy to get; I apprehend it is in the department.


James Sutherland: Perhaps the engineer in Toronto will have the information ; there will be no unnecessary delay.



QUESTIONS.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. CLARKE-by Mr. Lancaster-asked : ' [DOT]
1.	Has permission been given, by Order in Council or otherwise, to any person or company to import American cattle in bond, slaughter them in Canada, and export the meat and other products ?
2.	If so, to whom was this permission given, on what date, for what length of time, and on what terms and conditions ?
3.	At what ports may the cattle be entered, and where must they be slaughtered ?
Hon. WM. PATERSON (Minister of Customs).: Under an Order in Council of 1880 and regulations thereunder, the slaughter of swine in bond is permitted, but not of any other live stock or cattle.


KEREMEOS INDIAN RESERVE.
Mr.  R. L.@: 
Hon. CLIFFORD SIFTON  .@Minister the Interior: ^jty
1.	Yes ; from residents of Headley and vicinity.
2.	No.
3.	Answered by No. 2.	. n It
4.	The petition is under considerat [DOT] gf is hoped that a satisfactory adjustm t0 the matter may be made shortly, s" ieiter permit of the construction of the
for which a site is sought.


POST OFFICE AT ST. JOHN D'IBERVILL
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MONK-by Mr. Lancaster-ask ^ ^
1.	Howr many petitions have been addr ^ of a the government, relating to the s® j^n (j'lber site for the new post office at St. J
ville ?	. , tup said sit '
2.	Has the government selected tne
and if so, what is that site ?	be cOt°
3.	When will the new post omce menced ?
Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: 4.	Has the contract for the construction been given out, and to whom ?
.Hon. JAS. SUTHERLAND (Minister of Public Works) :
1.	Two.
2.	No.
3.	Date not fixed.
4.	No.


TOBACCO CULTURE.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MONK-by Mr. Lancaster-asked :
1.	Has the government sent an agent to the state of Wisconsin, or anywhere else, to investigate the question of tobacco culture ?
2.	If so, who is the said agent, what were his instructions, and what are his salary and expense allowance ?
Right Hon.   S@: In the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, I beg to answer :
1.	Yes, two to the state of Wisconsin.
2.	Pierre Denis and J. B. Dugas. Their instructions were to investigate the methods practised in that state of cultivating, curing and preparing for the market the tobacco grown there, and to report on the same to the Minister of Agriculture. Their salaries are at the rate of one hundred dollars per month each with necessary expenses of living and transportation.
LIGHTING OF THE WELLAND C-^NAL.
Mr. BENNETT-by Mr. Lancaster-asked :
1.	Has any contract been entered into by the government with any person, or persons, for the lighting of the Welland canal 1
2.	If such a contract has been made, who are the contractors, price for lighting, and duration of such contract ?


Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister) :: 1.	A contract has been entered ipto for supplying power to light the Welland canai by electricity.
2.	The contractors are the Lincoln Electric Light and Power Company. Price for the power is on a basis of $14 per h. p. per annum. The contract is for a term of ten years.
PURCHASES FROM LAMONTAGNE & CO.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria) asked :: 1.	Were the goods supplied by Messrs. H. La-Jhontagne & Company, Montreal, amounting to |45,956.35, as shown by the Auditor General s tteport, on page 2i05, purchased by tender '.
2.	If tenders were called for, who were the Parties tendering ?
Was the lowest tender accepted .
. Hon. Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia and Defence). Nearly all this Amount represents artillery harness supplied by Messrs. H. Lamontagne & Co. to the department. This had hitherto been supplied by the War Office or by English firms, with
the guns with which it was to be used. Upon consideration, the government thought it advisable to adopt the principle of having all work of this kind done by Canadian concerns so far as possible. The goods supplied by this firm were made according to samples furnished by the War Office, and the prices therefore were based upon War Office rates, and the firm was selected because of its having had experience in doing similar work to the satisfaction of the department.


PURCHASES FROM THE OTTAWA CAR COMPANY.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES asked :: 1.	Were-the goods supplied by the Ottawa Car Company, Limited, amounting to $21,163.93, as shown by the Auditor General's Report, on page 2105, purchased by tender ?
2.	If tenders were called for, who were the parties tendering ?
3.	Was the lowest tender accepted ?


Right Hon.   S@: This amount represents repairs to artillery equipment and other similar work which had hitherto been done in England, and which could not be done by any Canadian concern until special equipment had been provided for the purpose. It was thought advisable to have the work done in Canada at some convenient point in Ontario. The Ottawa Car Company equipped their works for this purpose at a very considerable expense, upon the understanding that they would receive work of this kind at prices based upon War Office rates. The company is now able, not only to do the necessary repairs, but also to undertake the manufacture of new wagons, limbers and similar artillery equipment. Similar work is also being done at the Dominion government arsenal at Quebec.


TOBACCO TRADE WITH BELGIUM.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MONK-by Mr. Lancaster-asked :
1.	What is the total amount paid to Mr. Blaise Dugas, of the county of Montcalm, in connection -with his last mission to Belgium, regarding the tobacco trade ?
2.	Did said Dugas make a written report to the government upon the result of his mission to Belgium ? If so, what date does report hear, and when was it handed in to the government ?
3.	Has there been export trade in tobacco from Canada to Belgium ?
Right Hon.   S@: In the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, I beg to answer :
1.	$470.25.
2.	Yes. Mr. Dugas' report is dated January 10th! 1903, and was received on January 21st, 1903.
3.	Only a small export trade as yet, averaging about 7,340 pounds of tobacco annually from 1898 to 1902, inclusive, but Belgium imports large quantities, of which we hope to increase Canada's share.

St. JOHNS, P.Q., POST OFFICE SITE.
Mr. MONK-by Mr. Lancaster-asked :
1.	Is it the intention of the government, before selecting a site for the new post office, in the town of St. Johns, P.Q., to consult the municipal authorities of said town, the bankers, manufacturers, and particularly the business men of Richelieu street, as to which would be the most convenient site available ?
2.	When will the said site be finally decided upon ?


James Sutherland: The question of the purchase of this site is still under consideration.
Mr. MONK-by Mr. Lancaster-asked :
1.	Has the government inquired from real estate owners in the town of St. Johns, P.Q., as to the price of their properties, in connection with the site of a new post office ; and if so, from whom has the government sought such information ?
2.	What are the prices asked by such real estate owners ?


James Sutherland: Offers have been received and are now being considered. It does not appear advisable at the present stage of negotiations to disclose the prices given.


SECOND READING.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 68) respecting the Hudson's Bay and Northwest Railway's Company.-Mr. Oliver.	-

Mr.   T.@: CHASE CASGRAIN (Montmorency)-by Mr. Sproule-moved :
For copies of all Orders in Council passed under and by virtue of the statute 3 Edward VII., chapter 53, entitled * An Act respecting the management and control of public and other works.'


Rt.   H@: I would suggest to my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) that it might be better not to press this mqtion because my hon. friend from Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain) desires to speak upon it. The Order in Council asked for in the motion has already been brought down.
Motion allowed to stand.


MOTIONS AGREED TO WITHOUT DISCUSSION.
[Stage Direction]
For copies of all documents, memorials, petitions, reports and correspondence, in relation to the removal of the post office at Osselceag, or Hampton station, in King's county, N.B., from the railway station to the store of R. H. Smith. -Mr. Fowler.
For copies of all letters, telegrams, correspondence, petitions, memorials, documents and papers, relating to the recent appointment of Mr. Boyd to he postmaster at the village of Sir P. W. BORDEN.
Huntingdon, in the province of Quebec ; or lating to the filling of the vacancy occasi? , by the death of the late postmaster.-Mr. i [DOT]	[DOT]
Borden.
For a return giving names of all delegates sent by the government from Canada to Gre Britain and Ireland, or any European eoun- y. during the year 1903 ; with the amount paid . each delegate by way of salary and expens * and the nature of the duties performed by ea delegate ; giving districts where those du were performed.-Mr. W. J. Roche.
-Mr-
For a return showing :	,
1.	The quantity and value of raw cotton -
ported into Canada during each of the Pa", ._g years ; also exports of same, if any, au same term.	^
2.	From what countries it was imported, a the amount in value from each country. ^
3.	The quantity and value of manutac
cotton imported into Canada during each o past six years.	t
4.	From what countries it was imported, the amount in value from .each country.
5.	The quantity and value of manufactur ^ cotton exported from Canada during each the past six years.
6.	To what countries it was exported.-Wm. Ross (Ont.)
For a return of all letters, petitions respondence between D. H. McDowel,
M.P., and the government, relating to 'h v
ment of rebellion claims and the issue ox _^
breed scrip in the Saskatchewan distric * Davis.	ker
For a return of all petitions, letters an 0	_
correspondence between the Half-breeds	ernkatchewah district and the Dominion	cf
ment, relating in any way to the grieva lgg3_ the said Half-breeds, for the years the 1884 and 1885. Also correspondence betw an!] Dominion government and their °mc vj0us others in the district of Saskatchewan, P>
t0 to the Rebellion of 1885, relating in any the grievances of the said Half-bre [DOT] Davis.	. . pe-
For copies of all documents, memoria ^jjer titions, letters, reports of engineers.	ction
correspondence, in relation to the co jjav-of the railway from Southport to M* jgland 1 hour, in the province of Prince E"War wjth said return to include all correspond	roUgh
regard to the construction of the hu>
bridge, in said province.-Mr. Lefurg J- liau0r
For a return showing the number	sjnc0
permits issued for the Yukon >rern o£ par-the date of the last return ; the name . tft0 ties to whom said permits were i permit ; quantities of liquor covered by eacn n ffllts the names of all parties to whom sa. j per-were assigned (if assigned) by the o & mit-holder.-Mr. Bennett.	jim
For a return giving details with r'i®a,rfagt and actual cost of construction of the o gdwarn Murray Harbour branches of the r	jiurraf
Island Railway between Southport * river, as follows :-	. mne9 doSa
Miles clearing, and cost per m**e ' bb[Dg, an0 cutting, and cost per mile ; miles g cjj exca' cost per mile ; cubic yards of soll<* ,le * ditch' vated, rale per yard, and cost per	. cUbi
iug, rate per yard, and cost per , c0gt P® yards borrowed, rats per yard, - .je ; farn mile ; public crossings, cost pet'	per mlle'
crossings, cost per mile ; ballast* j

fencing, cost per mile ; rail fastenings, cost per mile ; beam culverts, cost per mile ; length of sidings in feet, and cost of same ; stations, where placed, and cost of each ; miles of tracklaying, and 'cost per mile ; three-foot iron pipes, how many, and cost per mile , eighteen-inch vitrified clay pipes, and cost per mile ; steel trestles, length of same, and cost per mile ; total cost of work to date ; description and size of engine-house and turn-table ; also, capacity of water-tank, and where situated - Mr. Lefurgey.
For a return showing :-
1.	The total quantity of coal furnished to the government during the fiscal year ending 30th June last, for use in the public buildings, works and institutions, maintained or administered by the government.
2.	The quantity of coal furnished during this period for use m each public building, work or institution, stated separately ; and the names of the persons from whom the several lots were obtained ; the rates of payment, and the total cost in each case.
3.	The cases where such purchases were made by tender.
4 The sums of money paid during this period, or allowed, bv way of heating or fuel allowance, in lieu of or commutation for fuel ; and in what cases and to what sums respectively, such allowances were made. Mr. Clare.
For copies of all petitions, memorials letters and other correspondence, between the Maritime Board of Trade, the Charlottetown Board of Trade, the Alberton and West Prince Board of Trade, and the government, with regard to a subsidy for a line of steamships to ply between Chatham, New Brunswick ; Alberton and New London, on the north shore of Prince Ldward Island ; Sydney, Nova Scotia ; the Magdalen Islands, and St. John's, Newfoundland.-Mr. Hackett.
For a copy of the contract between the gov-eminent of Canada and the Manchester liners, in force during the season of 1903. Mr. b. D. Smith-by Mr. Lancaster.
For copies of all letters and other correspondence, between the Board of Trade of Alberton, Prince county, Prince Edward Island, and any °ther party or parties, and the government, relative to the importing of a fishing population, the construction of patent driers, and the gen-oral encouragement of the deep-sea fisheries on the north shore of Prince Edward Island. Mr. Hackett.
For a return showing : -
The post offices, drill halls, armouries, and other public buildings the government has erected or improved, or undertaken to erect or improve, since 1896 ; and showing in each case : (a) the original estimated fotal cost, including beating and lighting, &c.; (b) the actual cost, if completed ; (c) if not yet completed, the present estimated total cost ; (d) the towns, cities °r villages in which the said post offices, drill balls, armouries and other public buildings have been erected ; te) the population of the said cities, towns or villages, respectively. Hr. Clare-by Mr. Lancaster.
For a return showing : -
, 1. The number of allotments of 240 acres or band made to Half-breeds In Manitoba, and tne total acreage cover 'd by the same.
. 2. The number of scrip to Half-breivl children in Manitoba, and the total face value of the same.
3	The number of scrip to heads of Half-breed families in Manitoba, and the total face value
of the same.	.	.	. .	.	. .
4	The total number of scrip to original white settlers in Manitoba, and the total face value
of the same.	.	, .
5	The number of scrip issued in commutation of hay privileges in Manitoba, and the total face value of the same.
6	Scrip and land warrants issued for military services.
7	Scrip issued to the Northwest Mounted Police
8	Scrip issued to colonization companies ; names of companies, and the face value of such
SC9.1PA11 other scrip issued by the Department of the Interior ; to whom ; for what purpose ; and respective face value of the same.
10. Number of each cash and land scrip issued to the Northwest Half-breeds.
" 11. Number and face value of all the abovedescribed scrip outstanding on the 31st December, 1903.-Mr. LaRiviere.
For a return showing list of passes issued, and to whom, on the Canadian government railways and steamers, from January first, 1903, to January, 1904, other than those Issued to senators and members of the parliament of Canada.
__Mr. Bell-by Mr. Lancaster.
For' copies of Orders in Council, departmental orders, or letters, defining the respective duties of the chief engineer of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and of the commissioner Of lights-Mr. Northrup-by Mr. Lancaster.

Mr. L. P. DEMERS (St. John find Iberville).: (Translation.) I move :
That the government take immediate steps to put ail end to unlawful transactions carried on by firms known as ' Compagnies de Credit ' and other such concerns.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of the House to the business done by a number of firms known under the name of ' Compagnies de Credit.' and which have been incorporated by the government of Canada. The avowed object of those companies is to facilitate for their clients the purchase of diamonds, watches, jewels, furs, furniture and other wares, in accordance with a scale of prices and terms laid down by them.
They call themselves ' Compagnies de Credit.' possibly,-as suggested by * Le Frix Count lit.'-for the very reason that tbe.i do not grant credit to any one. As a matter of fact, they are so-called capitalizing institutions. To the person who deposits vuth them two dollars a week for fifteen Meeks. Hint is $30 altogether, they *wct to pay Deposits may be continued for n iterm of 150 weeks, or three consecutive yeai e if desired After having thus deposited 8300 the depositor, under the agreement, will be , ..titled to $750. The same rule applies to a!/subserHlers : there is no drawing of lots . evorv depositor lias the promise that he vul! receive 150 per cent on his investment.
10The business carried on by these firms ,n;iy seem wonderful, and they are avail of

it Here, for instance, is the circular issued by one of these companies called * La Soci6t6 de Credit Hebdomadaire, limitSe,' which guarantees not more than 100 per cent profit. The manager of that company gives the following answer fo question No. 4 :
4th question :-What means have ' La soeiete de Credit Hebdomadaire limitSe,' of paying such large dividends to their subscribers ?
Answer : La Soeiete de Credit Hebdomadaire, limitee," is to small capitalists what railway companies, steamship, street car, insurance companies and banks, etc., etc., are to people of wealth. As a matter of fact, every one of these last named companies spends hundreds of thousands, and even millions, of dollars in expenses each year, and notwithstanding this enormous expenditure, provides for its shareholders a high rate of interest on every share they own. But only people of large means, semi-millionaires, hold stock in such companies while small capitalists are in a position to secure only a low rate of interest on their investments. ' La Socifitg de Credit Hebdomadaire, limitde," incorporated by the Dominion government, and supported by reliable as well as shrewd business men, financiers, in a word, enables all persons of good will, through its various kinds of agreements, to reap large profits on their investments. That company puts large rates of interest within the reach of small capitalists ; but, we repeat it once more, we do not promise fabulous returns ; we secure from investments only what business men can secure from them, as stated on the back of each agreement.
As will be noticed, the manager is very careful not to state through the use of what business methods it is possible to obtain such large returns. That answer given by ' La SociStS de Credit Hebdomadaire, limi-tee,' by that sedate company, made up of reliable and shrewd business men, reminds me of that given by William T. Miller, who won universal notoriety in connection with the Franklin syndicate : 1 The way to wealth is as plain as the road to market/
However, he did not promise such large returns ; he was content with 100 per cent a year, while some of the firms we have to deal with promise 700 per cent a year. That same Miller stated elsewhere :
This may look impossible to you, but you know there must be a way where one can double their money in a short time, or else there would be no Jay Gould, Vanderbilt, or Flower Syndicate and other millionaires.
That was the only explanation offered ; that is to say, uo explanation was given. The effects of these schemes are being felt just now in Montreal and vicinity. Workingmen and others who have taken an interest in these concerns and deposited with them part of their earnings are facing a sure loss. Some of them deposit as much as twenty or even twenty-five dollars a week. If, as I believe, the companies are being operated on a wrong principle, it will mean ruin for a number of these poor people of Montreal and other districts of the province.


Louis Philippe Demers: I think the government should cancel their letters patent. Possibly, the Minister of Justice, after studying their legal status, may reach the conclusion that criminal proceedings should be instituted foy conspiracy and fraud. There is no doubt the promoters know that they will be unable to pay what they promise. They are aware that it is a fake. So that a charge for conspiracy with a view to swindling the people, would be in order. 1 shall not undertake to point out to the Minister of Justice what proceedings should be taken; I am satisfied he will readily find some way of remedying this evil. All I wish is that the imposition practised on the people by these companies be promptly put an end to.


Wilfrid Laurier: Before my hon. friend resumes his seat, will he say whether he is in a position to suggest the means which the government might adopt.


Louis Philippe Demers: (Translation.) I think an efficient means would be a writ of ' scire facias ' for the purpose of cancelling the letters patent granted to these companies. They are content with taking in the people's money, and the government would be warranted in taking out a ' scire facias,' in case they do not deem it advisable to institute a criminal action. At all events, in my humble opinion, there are grounds for government interference.


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the companies to which the hon. member has just drawn the attention of the House are simply cases of organized fraud. It seems evident that they are not fulfilling the purpose for which they were incorporated. They are openly infringing on their charters. Their existence is sanctioned by law; but their transactions are unlawful. Instead of carrying out the object for which they were incorporated, they are deliberately going against it. And 1 agree with my hon. friend that there are only two classes of people in these concerns, those who rob, and those who are robbed, as stated in the newspaper article which he has just read. The difficulty is to find a remedy to this evil. My hon. friend suggests that the government should at once take steps to cancel the charters of these companies by means of a writ of ' scire facias.' That means is available to any subject of the king.
At all events, the attention of the government having been drawn to that point, I shall request the hon. Minister of Justice to take it up at once with a view to putting a stop to such an unfortunate state of affairs. And as my hon. friend has thereby, I think, attained his object, I shall ask him to withdraw his motion.
Motion withdrawn.


Louis Philippe Demers: 


RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT BIEL.
[Stage Direction]
On the Order being called for :
Resuming adjourned debate on the prop°s^ motion of Mr. Fitzpatrick, that Bill (No. -1, -Act to amend the Railway Act, he referret.* the Select Standing Committee on Rail"' [DOT] ' Canals and Telegraph Lines.
Wilfrid Laurier: 
Robert Laird Borden: 
Wilfrid Laurier: 
Wilfrid Laurier: No, with understanding that ultimately the Bill " go to the Committee of the Whole.


Robert Laird Borden: 
Wilfrid Laurier: 1 would like to undertake, either, to control ^ action of the bon. member for Line01' ^jni Niagara. But perhaps we may indue later on to reconsider bis purpose.
Order allowed to stand.


CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT-
[Stage Direction]
On the Order being called for :	4
Resuming adjourned debate on th® P1 g) A® motion of Mr. Lancaster that Bill Of ' no"' Act to amend the Criminal Code, l"11-" read the second time.	, „
[DOT] i- tbe
Wilfrid Laurier: 
Mr. LANCASTER.: The Minister of Justice said he was going to deal with this matter in a general Bill that he was going to bring down, and he could see no objection to taking the two up at the same time.
Order allowed to stand.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Customs-salaries and contingent expenses of the several ports in the various provinces and in the Northwest Territories, including pay for overtime of officers, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $1,184,865.
[u", 1904.\nFrom the Tenth day of March to the Twenty-fifth day of April, inclusive.\nAbbreviations of well known words and Parliamentary expressions are used in the following :_1\xb0, 2\xb0,\n3\xb0, First Reading, Second Reading, Third Reading; 3 m. h., 6 m. h., 6 w. h., Three Months' Hoist, 'six Months' Hoist, Six Weeks' Hoist; *, without remarks or debate ; Accts., Accounts; Adjn., Adjourn; Adjd., Adjourned; Aint., Amendment; Amts., Amendments; Amalg., Amalgamation; Ans., Answer; Ass., Assurance; B., Bill; B.C., British Columbia; Can., Canada or Canadian; C.P.R., Canadian Pacific Railway ; Com., Committee ; Co., Company ; Cone., Concur, Concurred, Concurrence ; Consd., Consider ; Consdn., Consideration ; Cor., Correspondence ; Deb., Debate; Dept., Department; Depts., Departments ; Div., Division ; Dorn., Dominion ; Govt., Government; His Ex., His Excellency the Governor General; Hse., House ; H. of C., House of Commons ; Incorp., Incorporation ; Ins., Insurance ; I.C.R., Intercolonial Railway; Man., Manitoba; Mess., Message; M., Motion; m., moved. Neg., Negatived; N.B., New Brunswick; N.W.T., North-west Territories; N.S., Nova Scotia; O.C., Order in Council; Ont., Ontario ; P.E.I., Prince Edward Island ; P.O., Post Office ; Par., Paragraph; Prop., Proposed ; Q., Quebec; Ques., Question ; Recom'., Recommit; Ref., Refer, Referred, Reference; Rep., Report, Reported; Reps., Reports; Res., Resolution ; Ret., Return ; Ry., Railway ; Rys., Railways ; Sel., Select; Sen., Senate ; Sp., Special; Stmnt., Statement; Sup., Supply; Suppl., Supplement, Supplementary; Wthdn., Withdrawn-Wthdrh, Withdrawal ; Y.N., Yeas and Nays; Names in Italics and parentheses are those of the mover.\nAlcorn, Geo. O., Prince Edward.\nCivil Service Act, Procedure re Promotions, &c., (remarks) in Com. of Sup., 1843, (i) Customs, Deptl. Increases and Salaries : in Com. of Sup., 1798, 1843, (i)\nDora. Elections Act, 1900, Legislation re (Ques.) 1137, (i)\nG. T. Pacific Ry. Co.'s B. 72, (Sir Wilfrid Laur-ier) on prop. Res., 1009, (i)\nSupply :\nCivil Govt.-Customs (salaries) 1798.\nVoters' Lists for Unorganized Territories, Preparation, &c., (Ques.)1137 (i).\nArmstrong, J. E., East Lambton.\nSupply :\nCustoms (salaries) 1903 (i).\nBarker, Sami., Hamilton.\nCivil Service Act, Over-riding, &c., re Increases (remarks) in Com. of Sup., 1830 (i). Customs, Depth Salaries and Increases, &e.: in Com. of Sup., 1830.\nDixon, F. A., Cor. with Aud. Gen. (remarks) in Com. of Sup., 1840.\nG. T. Pacific Ry. Co.'s B. 72 (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) on prop. Res., 1548 (i).\nG. T. Pacific Ry. Co.'s Deposit, &c. (Ques.) 40? (i). *", 'Employes on Eastern Division, Salaries\n&c., (M. for ret.) 223 (i).', 'Surveys, &c., (M. for ret.) 223 (i).\nA\nBarker, Sami.-Con.\nI. C. R., Earnings and Expenditure for 19034 (Ques.) 1139 (i).', ' Eight months, Feb. 28, 1904 (Ques.)\n1665, (i).\nNational Transcontinental Ry.: See " G. T.\nPacific."\nSupply:\nCivil Govt.-Customs (salaries) 1830. Transcontinental Ry.: See \' G.T.R. Pacific.\'\nBell, A. C., Pictou.\nCopper Crown Mining Co., Ry. Siding at Pictou, Cost, &c. (Ques.) 989 (i).\nG. T. Pacific Ry. Co.\'s B. 72 (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) on prop. Res., 1648 (i).\nMilitia Dress Regulations, Reimbursement to Officers (Ques.) 1665 (i).\nPasses issued by Can. Govt, on Rys. and Steamers for 1903-4 (M. for ret.*) 1882 (i). Pugwash, N.S., Postmaster, Name, &c. (Ques.) 1667 (i).\nSuction Dredges, Mar. Provs., Contract re, &c. (Ques.) 1665 (i).\nBennett, W. H., East Simcoe.\nAddress, on the, 130 (i).\nFinnigan Site for Oshawa P. O. (remarks) in Com. of Sup., 612 (i).\nGaynor & Green, Ref. to in Debate on Address, 145 (i).\nu']
Robert Laird Borden: Will the hon. gentleman explain in the first place the increase of $25,000.


William Paterson: 
Robert Laird Borden: I suppose the hon. gentleman has had some estimate presented to him by his department naming the ports where the staff requires to be increased, showing the additional number of officers Which will be required at each port. Perhaps it would he well to let the House have that information.


William Paterson: 
Mr.   R.@: l. BORDEN. I do not exactly father from the remarks made by my hon. 00
friend whether this, after all, is due to the increase in the personnel of the staff or whether it is proposed to utilize the increased vote for the purpose of increasing the salaries of the staff as it exists at the present time. My hon. friend seems to be a little too indefinite about that. We ought to know whether this is required for additions to the staff or whether it is required for the purpose of increasing the remuneration of the present staff. It seems to me that my hon. friend ought to be able to show, how much, if any, is for additions to the staff, and how much is for increases in the salaries of the existing officers, because it does not seem to he proper that we should vote money for one purpose which may be devoted by the hon. gentleman to another purpose. That would be regarded by an ordinary business corporation as a very loose way of presenting such a matter to the shareholders and it seems to me that my hon. friend is not quite explicit. If there are any salaries to he increased should he not have a statement here to present to the committee showing the increases that are to be made, and if there are to be any additions to the staff, should he not be prepared, when he asks for $25,000 additional, to say what additions are to be made, where they are to be made, and for what purpose? We did not get very much from my hon. friend except a rather indefinite reference to the increases in the staff and then some equally indefinite references to increases in the salaries of the staff. For which is this ? Is it for both ? If so, how much for one and how much for the other ? If increases in salaries, how much are they and why are they to be given ? If increases in the personnel of the staff, where are they to be made, and what is the justification for making them ?


William Paterson: I thought I explained that. This is the amount estimated to be required to provide for the extra business that it may be found necessary to provide for at the outside ports and leave a margin that will permit us to increase, if they are found to be deserving, the salaries of some of the officers in the service. The hon. gentleman asks for some particulars. I will be gl;id to give him all the information I can, but it is impossible to give him the details that he asks for. He will see that it is impossible. These moneys are to be expended during 1904-5, extending a year beyond now. We may find that, during the course of the financial year for which these estimates are taken, circumstances arise under which, perhaps, we have to appoint officers that we had not thought would be required. Business has suddenly developed at some new port. Some place, not yet a port, lias presented claims to the department for the convenience of the public and in the interest of the public it is desirable to establish a port. Then we have to

COMMONS [DOT]
appoint an officer for that place. This must be so with the business increasing so rapidly, and it is evident that there cannot be given the particulars that the hon. gentleman asks for now. It would be impossible to work the department in that way. It is therefore for the committee to consider, whether, in view of the increasing revenue, and the increasing work of the Customs Department, it is an excessive sum to place at the discretion of the department in order to provide for the expenditure that may be found necessary during the twelve months of the next fiscal year.


Robert Laird Borden: The difficulty I have with the hon. gentleman's position is that he does not place the committee in a position to judge, for itself. Suppose my hon. friend asked the committee for $250,000, instead of for $25,000, the committee would have just as much justification for voting that amount as for voting the $25,000, because, it would have to rest on something that is in the mind of my hon. friend and his ' officers, and which is not before the committee. The committee has no information about it. The committee, I am sure, is disposed to give to the hon. gentleman a sufficient appropriation to carry on the busing of the country, and to properly deal with the increasing business. The criticism I am making is that my hon. friend does not come with any sufficient information beyond a very general statement that this money will be required and his appeal to the committee for an increase would be just as valid if he said $250,000 instead of $25,000. The committee would be just as much justified in voting that as in voting him $25,000. The fact is that we have no real information before the committee that would justify it in voting either one or the other of these sums. I would have supposed that my hon. friend would have received a report from his subordinate officers aud that report would have set out certain facts to be presented to the committee upon which the committee would be justified in voting an additional sum over and above the amount which was found necessary last year. "Would my hon. friend tell me how much was expended last year under this vote ?


William Paterson: I presume the estimate of last year was very close. It has to run to the first of July, and it is expected that by that time it will have been virtually [DOT]expended. In reference to my hon. friend saying that you might gs well ask fo" $250,000 as for $25,000, if he gives it a moment's consideration, he will see that that would not follow at all.


Robert Laird Borden: I was paying my hon. friend a compliment, when I said he would have just as much justification in one case as in the other, because, my hon. friend would have said that it was necessary. I meant to put it in this way, that
my hon. friend's word is just as good fm $250,000 as for $25,000.


William Paterson: 
William Paterson: 
Robert Laird Borden: I did not expect that my hon. friend (Mr. Paterson) would . be inspired with the spirit of prophecy, such as he apparently thinks would be necessary, No one imagines for one moment that he or any officer in the department, would be able to tell absolutely what changes must be made during the next fifteen months. However, as a fact, it would be only eight or nine months, because if the next session of parliament is called in the ordinary course in January he could bring down a supplementary estimate. Even for that period of eight months I do not ask him to judge of everything infallibly or to be able to prophesy, but I do ask him to show me one place where his department expects an increase of the staff or an increase of salaries to be necessary. He must know something about the present conditions. There is an estimate of what the increased revenue will amount to up to the end of the present fiscal year ; and whoever attends to that work ought to be able to give some of the information that I am asking for. My hon. friend speaks of the statistical staff, which I think he says numbers fifty-three. Has the labour of that staff been confined entirely to the work which we see in the report of the hon. gentleman's department, or have they ever endeavourd to

estimate anything of this kind We have largely increasing importations. Are there any statistics in the department which would indicate how much labour is involved in the manufacture or production of these goods ? That would be a very valuable piece of information for the public to have. Have the hon. gentleman's staff also considered whether or not any material portion of that labour might be profitably employed in Canada in the production or manufacture of those goods ? It is of course desirable to have produced in Canada all articles which we can possibly produce here. Would it not be important for his department to investigate these importations, especially in new lines of goods, with the view of judging to what extent they1 could be produced in the country ? I do not knbw whether this question has ever been taken up by my hon. friend since he has been in charge of the department, or indeed by any of his predecessors. At any rate, I should be glad to have him give the committee any information, if there be any, on that subject, and in default of that, let me know what he thinks of the suggestion.


William Paterson: What the hon. gentleman refers to, so far as I apprehend his meaning correctly, is not within the scope of the, duties of the statistical branch of the Department of Customs. I think their work has been confined exclusively to compiling statistics relating to our own department. Possibly the Dominion statistician, who gets out the Year-book, may have paid some attention to that matter ; but of that I cannot speak positively, because I' have not read his book lately. The Department of Trade and Commerce keeps track of the statistics of trade with foreign countries more than we do, but I do not know that it has done anything in the direction of what the hon. gentleman suggests. As to what I think about it, I can only say in a general way that any information that can be got in relation to the trade and commerce of the country is valuable ; but I fancy there would be a good deal of difficulty in accomplishing what the hon. gentleman is seeking. For instance, all parties are agreed that raw cotton, which comes into Canada very largely, is an article that cannot be produced in this country and should therefore come in free. I presume that my hon. friend refers more to manufactured goods. That is an involved question, because a great many manufactured goods are placed on the free list or on the 5 or 10 per cent list for the purpose of promoting trade in this country and giving employment. This is the raw material from which other things are manufactured in this country, and the people engaged in that work are desirous of having it on the low scale of duties or else absolutely on the free list. So that I see difficulties in the way of getting accurate information as to the amount


Robert Laird Borden: 
Robert Laird Borden: 
Rt.   H@: We have been inquiring into it more or less. As regards the amount of labour employed hi the various industries, my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) will find in the latest census returns that this question has been Pretty fully investigated. As far as the statements made by the various manufacturers may be depended upon as to the Rffiount of raw material they use, the proportion of labour and interest oil capital and on plant, &c., the information has been fully set forth. These reports of course have not yet been placed in the hand of my hou. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) but I hope they will be in a few weeks. They give a Very large amount of information on the Object.
Mr. It. I,. BORDEN. That would be an Resistance, of course, in so far ns we manufacture in Canada articles which we also 'd'port into Canada, but in respect to Reticles which are not manufactured in this Country at all, perhaps the census returns Would not give us all the information.


William Paterson: That, I think, is when me solution will come, in the census dohartment.


Mr.   R.@: l. BORDEN. It would be of no use ut all in regard to a great many articles ;
it would be of use only in respect of articles now manufactured in Canada.


Mr PATERSON.: Precisely ; but that would be the best index you could have, a census of the various industries of the country, which would give you their raw material the number of hands employed, the total ' product, &c. Deductions could be drawn from that. I fancy, that this is work to which the Dominion statistician devotes himself. The census return would perhaps be the nearest approach you could hope to get to full information. In that way you could obtain information as to the value of the industries in the country ; you would get to know whether a certain number of men employed in a certain industry were enhancing the value of certain materials to a certain degree, and whether that enhancement in value would more than compensate for the increased labour. You could draw your deductions in that way.


Robert Laird Borden: You might get assistance from the Department of Trade and Commerce. Then there are I suppose permanent officers in connection with the census.


Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.: My hon. friend's suggestion seems to me a very good one to have carried out. I would submit to him that it could be better done by establishing a certain branch in connection with the census department.


Robert Laird Borden: Curiously enough,
I was about to make the same suggestion. .


Richard John Cartwright: It is well worthy of consideration.


Vol.   I.@: I was going to make exactly the suggestion the Minister of Trade and Commerce has made. You have to organize the census staff every ten years. At present you have it in apparently a very unorganized condition, although of course our views may be prejudiced. You have not had it very well organized during the past three years, but I shall pass over that as I do not wish to make this matter controversial. If you had a department of this kind which would be continually investigating these subjects from year to year you would be much more likely to have an efficient staff when the time comes round, at the end of the next ten years, to take the census. Because, these will be trained men, accustomed to work of this kind and they might be made heads of different branches of the census staff when the time comes for < 1 o i i i - - the work at the end of ten years. And the work in the meantime would be of the greatest service to the country, if we intend to maintain a tariff which affords protection to our manufacturers. I trust the Minister oi Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) as well as the Minister of Customs (ME Paterson) will give this serious con-slderation.


Richard John Cartwright: Personally, I am very well disposed towards the hon. gentleman's suggestion, if it appears to our colleagues that it can be carried out for a reasonable sum. It is more especially desirable because, as the hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden) knows, we have to take the census in the Northwest Territories every five years.
Mr. SPROTJLiE. It seems to me that we have hardly all the information that ought to be given us on this item. We have not the basis of calculation on which the minister concludes that he will require $25,000 more. He tells us that the customs collections have increased and that the importations have increased, but he has not told us what relationship this additional expenditure bears to the increase in the work. I suppose that the majority of the officers are remunerated by a yearly salary. In that case the minister ought to be able to judge at which ports the increase of business makes the increase of salaries necessary. Or the minister ought to be able to tell us what class of officers are to receive increases. No doubt, a part of this increased vote would be required for contingencies which cannot be exactly foreseen, but the bulk of it must be for salaries to men of certain classes or in certain places. This information the minister ought to give us. He must have made some sort of calculation to reach the conclusion that $25,000 will be necessary, and we would like to know what he bases that calculation upon.


William Paterson: Well, for instance, in the port of Montreal, a very large port, as the hon. gentleman knows, we are meditating a change. The clerks making the entries in what is called the ' long room ' have been there a considerable time. But the salaries have not been uniform. Some of these men have been bearing the title of landing waiter or preventive officer, and so on. They have been doing work inside, but at salaries which they consider insufficient. Therefore, they asked to have a share of extra hours. The hon. gentleman knows that extra services used to be rendered by certain officers to shipping and railway companies and the officers remunerated by these companies. But last year the sanction of the committee was asked to a change under which the government would pay all that was paid to its officers. The clerks in the long room claimed that their salaries were not enough to maintain them properly, so they asked for a share of that night work or overtime. But we have not thought it desirable that they should do other work. Their work is important-receiving the entries of the merchants. Despatch is needed and correctness also ; and in this work the revenue is directly involved. We have concluded that, if a clerk puts in his time from 0 a.m. to 4 p.m., as a rule, his mental energies will have been taxed enough for that day. It is proposed Mr. R.-L. BORDEN.
now to increase the salaries in this department, so as to pay $900 as a minimum, and to require these officers not to work extra hours or share in the extra pay.


Mr. SPROUBE.: How much will be required for that in the port of Montreal ?


William Paterson: 
Mr. McCREARY.: 
William Paterson: What the hon. gentleman says is quite correct. I think three at [DOT]east of our officers at Winnipeg if not more have left during the year.


William Forsythe McCreary: Others are going to
leave.


William Paterson: One was getting $950 a year, and he wrote saying that he was going to leave. He was a valuable officer, and we asked him if he would remain it iw would give him $1,100. He said, no, that he was offered considerably more than that, and he left. At least two others left th the same way, if not more.


Mr. INGRAM.: What was his name ?


Mr. PATERSON R. D.@: Waugh.


William Forsythe McCreary: He is getting $3,000 a year now.


Mr PATERSON.: I think it is very probable that before the termination of the time in which this money is to be expended we may have to increase the staff-I cannot say by how much. While I have no desire whatever to withhold any information from the committee, the difficulty is that when we happen, to mention in parliament a port where wre propose to increase the number of employees, we are immediately deluged with applications for the positions, accompanied wth notices of reports and proceedings of parliament stating that there were to be extra /officers employed. xVll this necessitates a great deal of correspondence on our part.


Mr. BLAIN.: I think the minister was to bring down a statement of the number of temporary and permanent officers in his department. Has that statement been prepared ?


William Paterson: The accountant informs me that when I took charge of the department there -were thirty permanents and seven extras. The hon. gentleman will remember that my statement referred to a question we had up the other night on a civil service estimate. The hon. gentleman will see, if he turns to that item, the number of permanents that is mentioned ; on page 17 he will see the details with reference to wKat is now proposed. There were thirty-four last year-the present year-and six extras. But as I explained at the time, we propose that these six extras that were paid out of contingencies shall cease to be extras and become permanents. With them added, during the year 1904-5, with the addition of three junior seconds and two thirds, the permanent staff will be forty-five with no extras.


Richard Blain: An increase of twenty-five.


William Paterson: No, there were thirty permanents and seven extras thirty-seven when I took charge ,and now there are lorty-five altogether, an increase of eight.


Andrew B. Ingram: I understood the hon. gentleman was to bring down a statement of the permanent and temporary employees in the outside service as well as the inside.


William Paterson: That was not asked for.


Andrew B. Ingram: I would ask for that
now.


Richard Blain: The minister has given the committee some reasons for the enormous increase in his department during the last year The explanation seems to cover only the larger cities of Canada, Montreal, Toronto, and Winnipeg. It is a reasonable explanation of the increase in those cities. But 1 would like the minister to direct his attention for a moment or two to the towns in the province of Ontario and explain the increase of expenditure in some of them, lake

for instance, the town of Berlin. The minister will notice by the return that the increase in the revenue collected has doubled in the last five or six years : perhaps he will state how much the cost of the service and the number of employees have increased in that town. Then take the town of Chatham for another instance, and the town of Co-bourg. Perhaps the minister could tell us how it comes there is such an enormous increase in the expenditure as compared with the increased revenue in the cities, and practically nothing in the towns while the same condition of things prevail.


William Paterson: At Berlin, if I remember right, an extra officer has been put on. I think an extra officer has been put on at Chatham since the department has come under my charge. If I am not mistaken. I think the department is asking for another officer now. There has been some increase in the towns which show larger revenues. But we have endeavoured to be as economical as we could, and not increase the salaries faster than wo found necessary. While we are trying to do justice, we have been able to meet the requirements of all. I suppose there are a great many who now point to the fact that living is more expensive, that the business has increased at their ports, and that they have a fair claim for increase of salary. As I am pointing out to the hon. gentlemen if these were all met and perhaps it 'would not be an extravagant thing if their wishes were met, it would send the expenditure up by many tens and tens of thousands of dollars beyond what wd are asking for now.


Richard Blain: Would the hon. minister give the towns in Ontario where extra officers have been appointed during the past year ?


William Paterson: Brantford and Chatham are the two towns that I can mention now. There are two at London.


Richard Blain: My question was confined to the towns of Ontario.


William Paterson: There was one at Niagara Palls. There have not been very many increases in the towns.


Richard Blain: I would like the hon. minister to give me the correct information upon that point.


William Paterson: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to take a memo, of it and I will bring down the information ?


Richard Blain: Yes, that will be all right.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: 
William Paterson: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 
William Paterson: That will be divide^ among the men who are receiving the fll.. salaries. We propose to increase thej a ies of the men who will be deprived share of this extra work so that thej be recompensed for the loss of anythiUn ,ic get in the way of extra work. I1111* not will be divided amongst others who a ,jieSe enjoying as high salaries as they are. are landing and tide waiters.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I thought that the ^gg minister proposed to provide for a ne\ of men ?	,


William Paterson: 
Thomas Simpson Sproule: 
Richard Blain: 


William Paterson: Well, I cannot give the hon. gentleman that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman has no estimate of that at all ?


William Paterson: It would be impossible for me to give the hon. gentleman the figures in regard to Winnipeg now. If I were to give him the figures and he were to hold me to them next year, I might not be able to carry out the estimate. 1 am willing to give all the information I can in reference to the growing trade of the country and the demands that are made upon us. I suppose that we have applications now from a score of places that want to be created ports. With all these applications coming in, with the trade increasing as it is within the Northwest Territories, and with towns springing up, I think it will be admitted that in asking for $25,000 to provide for all this, we are making a very moderate request. I do not think the committee is running any risk at all in placing the money at our disposal.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The question at issue is not as to the exact amount of the vote. It might require a great deal more than that to satisfy the needs created by the development of the country, but it is the business principle involved in it. When the hon minister submits to this committee an estimate of the amount which he wants for the purpose of carrying on the custom-house business all over the country, we very naturally ask upon what principle is this estimate made up. What is the basis of the calculation that enables him to reach the conclusion that he wants $25,000 more ? It surely cannot be that he is content to say: Oh, there is a development in the trade of the country and we will ask for $25,000. That would not be a very business-like way of reaching a conclusion. He might find that lie had very much too little or that he had more than he needed at the end of the year. Surely his officers have made some kind of an estimate as to what the increase will be in each province. or at each port, at the great cities of the country where the large bulk of the importations are made, as to the number of new Ports that will be required to be opened up. 1 do not know how the hon. minister can go before council and say :	We want more
money for our custom-houses. Council, I should think, would ask :	How much do
Sou want for this place, how much for that Place and how do you make up this estimate ? Surely the hon. gentleman was able to submit some estimate to council and if he vras able to submit it to council, lie should oe able to submit it to this committee.


William Paterson: It is impossible wholly to do that. I do say that we anticipate that VPe will have expenditures to meet in souie of the main ports, in the way of paying the extra officers who will be requited. tVhat those will amount to, I cannot estimate now. I believe that in order to retain
officers at some of our ports, we will have to increase their salaries. In other cases where they are presenting their applications for increases, I do not say that we will lose their services, but I think it is only just that their claims should receive consideration. When this matter was discussed with the officers of the department, it was considered that $25,000 was the least, that, from our past experience, we would be justified in asking the House to grant. From our past experience it is felt that the $25,000, increase, is the lowest we would be justified in asking. I would remind the leader of the opposition that he at one time remarked that he did not like to see thesi supplementary estimates come down time after time, and that we should include all our wants in the one estimate. I believe in that myself so far as it can be done, but I am afraid that before the session ends, it may be found that the growing business of the country will necessitate our taking another vote in the suppplementary estimates for next year.


Robert Laird Borden: A great many matters which are brought down in supplementary estimates, should be included in the main estimate, but these are matters about which ministers should be able to give the House the necessary information, and not have the committee go it blind as it were. I do not ask that the minister should bring down estimates which would necessitate his being endowed with the gift of prophecy; but he certainly should be able to give the committee some definite information about the vote whi.ch he now asks. If the minister gives us the facts, we will vote the money without one moment's hesitation.


William Paterson: I gave the facts when the hon. gentleman was out of the chamber.


Robert Laird Borden: I am glad the hon. gentleman gave some facts, because up to the time I had left, he had not given one fact, and whatever facts he did give, do not seem to have made much impression on my friends around me.


Mr. FOWLER.: Last year the minister took an increased vote over the year before. Was the whole of that increased vote expended ?


William Paterson: I am informed that the expenditure will be very close to the vote taken, but the year is not ended yet.


George William Fowler: What was the increase taken last year over the year previously ?


William Paterson: $100,000. But I should < xplain that we took over extra service which was hitherto defrayed by transportation companies, and that was estimated at $75,000. The ordinary increase this year will be about the same as the ordinary increase last year.


Mr. TAYLOR.: I understood the minister to say that the vote was $1,400,000 last year.


William Paterson: Yes.


George Taylor: The estimate only shows $1,159,865.


William Paterson: I included all the estimates last year.


Richard Blain: When the increased vote was taken last year, the minister stated that he proposed to establish a considerable number of out-ports that had been asked for. What number of additional out-ports have been established during the past year ?


William Paterson: I will get the information in a minute or two.


George William Fowler: You are asking $1'V>0<) additional under the heading of salaries and travelling expenses of inspectors of ports, and officers of the preventive service. That is about ten per cent increase for this particular service, and if your whole increase is $25,000, that particular item seems to be out of proportion.


George Taylor: Under this item the Minister of Customs did not ask for $1,400,000 last year at all; he only asked for $1,159,' 865. " Surely the minister should give us a detailed explanation of what he intends doing with this $25,000 extra. Is he going to appoint new officers and has he the authority of his deputy minister and of the government for doing so? I see a new name here in the Auditor General's report ; a Mr. McNeill, at Gananoque, who was put in the place of Mr. David Hodge. Why do you displace Mr. Hodge, a good faithful officer, and put McNeill in his place ? Is that what you want the $25,000 for-I made a mistake in saying that Mr. Hodge was at Gananoque, he was at Pools Resort.


William Paterson: I am informed that he was just an extra officer getting $100 a year.


George Taylor: And so is Mr. McNeill a temporary officer. Why did you displace Mr. Hodge and put in Mr. McNeill?


William Paterson: I really cannot say.


George Taylor: Well, can you say what you are taking this $25,000 extra for ?


William Paterson: I may say that Mr. McNeill replaced Mr. Hodge in 1898. So the accountant tells me.


George Taylor: He is quite wrong. Was there any complaint against Mr. Hodge ?


William Paterson: I could not tell.


George Taylor: Then, will the hon. gentleman tell us what he is going to do with this $25,000 ? Is any part of it going to pay persons to write pointers 4, 5 and 6 ?


William Paterson: No.


William Paterson: 


George Taylor: Then, will the bon. gentleman tell us what he is going to do with in detail ?


William Paterson: I have told the bon. gentleman that I cannot give it in detai.


George Taylor: Then let it stand until you can.	.,


William Paterson: I cannot do it at ai [DOT]


George Taylor: Then, what is the mimstei asking it for.
Mr.'PATERSON. I am asking it because we believe it will be required to cairL.hat the service efficiently during the will elapse from the 1st of July next. . ^ the expansion of trade and commerce * we anticipate, we shall require m j. places some extra officers, and we ext that some officers will deserve a slight crease in their salaries. I am asking $25,000 in anticipation of these two eve [DOT]


George William Fowler: It seems to me that the minister is quite right as to the firstA" ' w lie gives. There may be a necessity i . officers which he cannot anticipate but he can certainly settle beforehan ^ question of an increase of salary ^on. official now in the service. Does tn ft gentleman have these officials perforin -work ?


William Paterson: No.	f


George William Fowler: 
William Paterson: If	the	hon.	tell
insists on that being done, I will s ^ Rje him it cannot be done. I have a	and
increases which were granted last y the t am perfectly willing to submit committee.	.	t0 da


Mr. COCHRANE.: What has tha with this item ?	witjj


William Paterson: It has this Jo do w.lS
it, that if the money granted last r of tlie
expended improperly,	in	the	Jadg	tQ critieommittee, there is an opportunity
vote. I necessar

cise It ; and next year, when I shall be able to give similar details about this item, I can be called to account if the money has not ; been expended properly.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That will be locking the stable door after the horse is stolen.


William Paterson: Hon. gentleman will then have the information on which they can condemn the administration if they do not approve of the way in which the money has been expended.


George William Fowler: That is not what is done in the other departments. When the money is being voted, the minister give the names of the clerks and the amounts of the proposed increases.
' Mr. PATERSON. That is in civil government. It does not apply to the outside service.


George William Fowler: Why should it not apply ? Where is the difference ? Why could you not tell whether a man, by his past record, is worthy of an increase ? It is absurd to suppose that we are to go it blind, and leave this matter in the hands of the minister without any information. How do we know but there may be another case like that of Assistant Commissioner Bain ? How do we know that a part of this money will not be spent in getting written pointers 4, 5 and 6, just as in the case of pointers 1, 2 and 3 .- which, by the way, are not very creditable literary productions, whoever wrote them. I say the reason the hon. gentleman has given for this vote is not a valid or business reason ; and his conduct the other _ night, when he was brought face to face with the fact that this Assistant Commissioner Bain, while paid .$2,800 out of the public revenues of this-country, was employing his time in Writing campaign literature for the Liberal party, was not such as to justify us in voting the money blindly, because the natural inference would be that a portion of it would be used to enhance the salaries of some civil servants who would be willing I was going to say prostitute themselves to engage themselves as political hacks for the purpose of writing campaign literature for the Liberal party. The hon gentleman should give us in detail the names or the officers of his department whom he intends to promote, what salaries he intends to pay them, and what portion of this $25,000 he requires for that purpose.


William Paterson: What does the hon. gentleman mean by a reference to political hacks ?


George William Fowler: Just exactly what I said.


William Paterson: What you said ?


George William Fowler: Yes ; I made it very plain, I thought.


William Paterson: Yes, he makes it very Plain as he thinks sometimes. The hon. gen-genian had better be sure of his facts. Nothing discreditable has been done by Mr. Bain, and if the hon. gentleman knows of anything discreditable he had better make the statement.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


George William Fowler: I would be very sorry indeed to have the hon. minister, or the gentlemen behind him who cry ' hear, hear,' be the judges of political morality in so far as I am concerned. ' Nothing discreditable,' the hon. minister says, ' in Mr. Bain acting as he has done in respect to this matter ; nothing discreditable,' says the hon. minister !


William Paterson: "What has he done ?


George William Fowler: He dares to justify it. I made the charge the other night that the minister, having directed Mr. Bain to do this work, and having knowledge that this work was being done by a man in his department, whom he had promoted over the heads of other men of longer standing in the department and at least as worthy of promotion, and that this man was taking his salary of $2,800 from the public revenue and employing his time writing campaign literature for the Liberal party, but yet the hor. gentleman says there was nothing discreditable about that. His party have had com mission after commission going through the length and breadth of this country trying to tind cause to dismiss Conservatives who were holding office when hon. gentlemen opposite came into power. And why did they dismiss them ? Because they had voted as their consciences had dictated, although they were men who had never taken any part in politics. Expensive commissions were appointed to try these men, who were put to tremendous expense to defend themselves. In one case in my own county, officials had to spend $500 or $600 to, defend themselves from a charge of partisanship. They had done nothing but vote as their consciences dictated. And here we have a man, a minister of the same party, attempting to justify and saying there is nothing discreditable in the conduct of a man in receipt of $2,800 of the public revenue of this country in doing what I have charged. The hon. gentleman admitted it, because he could not deny it and dare not deny it, because he knew that the man was sitting within the sound of his own voice, who knew that be knew that that work is being done and yet he says there is nothing discreditable or wrong in it. I was surprised although I thought the time had passed when one could be surprised at any statement that might come from hon. gentlemen opposite, but there is still room for surprise-when I heard the hon. gentleman (Mr. Paterson), from whom we might naturally expect better things, make a statement of this kind. Coming from some of the colleagues of the hon. gentleman it would not cause as much surprise as it did coming from him, because from him we expected better things. Yet he says there is nothing wrong about it,

and want to know wliat I mean by speaking of this partisan as a political hack. I meant exactly what I said, and what I say now;
1	thought I put it as plainly as it could be put in the English at my command. It is wrong, it is discreditable. Judged by the standards the hon. gentlemen laid down, it is very discreditable on the part of any civil servant, employed and paid out of the public treasury, to devote his time to writing political campaign literature for any political party, whether Liberal or Conservative.


William Paterson: The hon. gentleman has not told us what Mr. Bain did.


George William Fowler: He wrote pointers Nos. 1,
2	and 3.


William Paterson: He wrote pointers Nos. 1, 2 and 3 1 Does the hon. gentleman know that ? Does he say he did 1


George William Fowler: I


William Paterson: Sit down, if you please, till I am through.


George William Fowler: You asked me to answer.


William Paterson: And you cannot play the political bully with me ; understand that. I am ready for this discussion. Hon. gentlemen brought it up very suddenly the other night, and wanted to press me for an answer right off, without giving me permission to speak to the gentleman who was assailed in order to ascertain whether it was so or not. I asked them : What are your charges ? Finally, the hon. member for Hal-ton (Mr. Henderson) mentioned, for instance, so and so. Very well, said I, I will speak with Mr. Bain. I have done it. I have spoken with him, and I am ready to meet the hon. gentlemen. But let me point out, first of all, that these gentlemen, unable to prove their statements, or not daring to make their statements-because they did not dare to make them-moved that Mr. Bain be discharged. They admit that we sent deputations and commissions through the country to investigate cases of political partisanship, and that some of those charged were dismissed, but here there was to be no investigation, no word from Mr. Bain ; cut his head off right here 1 Thirteen of them stood up to vote for it, and that gentleman stood up among them.


George William Fowler: Yes.


William Paterson: 
Mr. CLANCY.: Yes.


William Paterson: 
James Clancy: I speak for myself, asd^J say that I have never had one lettei figure or hint from any person in his partment since I have been here.


William Paterson: Perhaps the members opposite will rise one after the ot.b^rrhastate that they have never received int01 tion from public servants.


Andrew B. Ingram: Here is one.


William Paterson: 
George William Fowler: There is a historic question that has been for many years, I might almost say for centuries, awaiting an answer. That question is, ' Who struck Billy Paterson ? ' . Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not think that that question awaits an answer any longer ; it has been answered this afternoon, if we are to judge by the huge volumes of sound from the hon. gentleman to whom I might refer as the ministerial megaphone, and the rage and fury he exhibited during the remarks he made before recess. I do not know what was said to call forth such an exhibition of temper on the part of the hon. gentleman. I am at a loss to discover why he should work himself Into such a passion. But it was simulated rage ; it was feigned passion ; for certainly nothing was said to justify it. The hon. gentleman was placed in a very difficult Position. Allegations had been made affecting an officer who was under the hon. gentleman's peculiar care and who was the subject of the hon. gentleman's peculiar regard. Statements had been made reflecting upon that officer, who had been brought into the department by the minister, who ^vas at one time private secretary to the minister and for whom that minister had shown his love and regard by promoting him-wrongfully promoting him-over the heads of officers in the department who wei e Quite as efficient and far better qualified than was that person for the position to b'hicli he was promoted. And, so the lion. Gentleman had no real answer to the charge. He could not even deny it. Was it that he would not deny it if he could ? Not at all. But he knew that the truth ot tile allegation was known to too many persons within sound of his own voice for him to dare to deny it. And so, he tries to draw the proverbial red herring across the trail by working himself up into a rage and seeking in that way to arouse the enthusiasm of his followers who, in contradistinction to thinking men, are always carried away by noise. The hon. gentleman said that it "was a proper thing for a private secretary to perform certain services for his minister. Has anybody attempted to dispute that assertion ? Not at all. But the officer who fills the position of assistant commissioner of customs is not the private secretary of the Minister of Customs. He is the assistant commissioner. The hon. minister attempted to define that officer's duties, but he was not able to say that he had done much except, perhaps in getting out pointers, 1, 2 and 3, But, as a matter of fact, during the whole of last year, instead of this gentleman acting as private secretary or being appointed as private secretary to the minister, two young ladies performed that duty.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: Much more congenial.


George William Fowler: -As the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Sam. Hughes) points out, no doubt it was much more congenial to the hon. minister. I can understand that an hon. gentleman of the chivalrous nature of the Minister of Customs would prefer to have the services of beautiful young ladies rather than those of one of his own sex.


Mr. BUREAU.: Good for him.


George William Fowler: The hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) says ' Good for him.' This strikes a responsive chord in the heart of that hon. gentleman. I congratulate the hon. member for Three Rivers upon having such feelings with regard to the sex ; I believe it is characteristic of the race to which the hon. gentleman has the honour to belong.


Jacques Bureau: Thank you for the compliment.


George William Fowler: There is<no reason why [ should not pay it. The hon. minister (Mr. Paterson) did not deny the charge that was made, but lie insinuated that this officer had the right to perform these services because he was the minister's private see

etary. But on Friday afternoon when this subject was under discussion the hon. gentleman himself, admitted that this young man was not now bis private sect eta 1.5 , ir.d that of the $600, that had been paid he year before for the purpose of providing the 'minister with a private secretary he lad only expended $250. which he had ljvided between two young ladies who had preformed that service for him. When the ion. gentleman was speaking before 6 ,'clock, he asked me two or three questions ind I rose to answer him, supposing that he


William Paterson: The history of the country do not bear out 1 Comparing the last seven years of Conservative administration with the first seven under the Liberals, we find a tremendous increase under the Liberal policy. Here are the details:
Total foreign trade for seven years
from 1897 to 1903, inclusive	$2,542,701,333
Total foreign trade for seven years from 1890 to 1896, inclusive	 1,630,446,121
Increase last seven years under
Liberal policy	$ 912,255,212
I ask again, are the figures true,'are the figures correct and if they are, should not every hon. gentleman in whose breast patriotic emotions swell rejoice that these facts are made patent, they are known ?
Some people prefer to judge our material progress by our exports ; that is to say, the goodc we produce in Canada and sell abroad for gold or exchange.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Does the hon. gentleman say that these figures are correct that he has just mentioned ?


William Paterson: I believe them to be correct.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Does the hon. gentleman know whether they are correct or not ?


William Paterson: I believe them to be correct.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: ' The hon. gentleman does not know whether they are correct or not.


William Paterson: 
Hon. CLIFFORD SIFTON  .@Minister the Interior: I did not need any prompting.	'


William Paterson: He does not say no one did prompt him.


James Clancy: I say no one did prompt me.


William Paterson: The hon. gentleman has alluded to the fact that I passed over the heads of men who had been longer in the service-1 do not know whether he said more worthy or not; hut I think that was his inference. I deny that. According to my judgment, I did not do so. None of the other officers in the department have spoken to me or intimated to me that they thought an injustice had been done to them by the promotion of Mr. Bain. If there are any such-and perhaps the hon. gentleman knows whether or not any such have made complaint to him-


Samuel Hughes: That is a cowardly insinuation.


William Paterson: I say if he makes that statement-perhaps he does-and if he shows me that injustice has been done to any one, I will endeavour to rectify it. But I do not believe that an injustice has been done to any one. Mr. Bain was promoted on his merits. He is there now earning his money. Do not think any of the public money went into the publication of this pamphlet. Mr. Bain has given hours and hours more than his official hours to the discharge of his strictly official duties.' I challenge any one to say that there has been any negligence on his part in attending to the duties of his office. Now, I have stated openly and squarely what has been my course. I was not prepared to see gentlemen rise and make insinuations, or bold statements that did not charge anything, without having' an opportunity to ask Mr. Bain what the particulars were, allowing him to make an explanation for himself which I could give to the House. Hon. gentlemen opposite admitted that commissioners had been appointed by this government to inquire into the cases of some officers who had been relieved from the public service; but they were not willing to wait even till the minister could ask Mr. Bain for his explanation, or to say whether what was alleged here was true or not; but they demanded that he be summarily dismissed and that his salary be cut down by $1,800, which was as far as they could go. The hon. gentleman lays stress upon the fact that Mr. Bain is assistant commissioner. What has that to do with the question ? He was appointed private secretary, was for a time a second-class clerk, then a first-class clerk, and then promoted, all the time continuing to be my private secretary. In the case of every minister, a salary of $600 is provided for a private secretary; but do hon. gentlemen presume to say that under the late government or under any government the private secretary of a minister has re-


William Paterson: 
Thomas Simpson Sproule: 
William Paterson: That is leading 0 another branch of the question.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it a strict compliance with the law ?


William Paterson: 
William Paterson: nected with matters political and matters financial that engage the attention of the minister. That fact lat so apparent that it must be realized by every one.
Coming to the statements he has prepared for me which I have used in the House and which have been used by the compiler and publisher of this document which has been alluded to, if they are wrong, if there are falsifications of the public accounts, if there are errors even in them, I should be glad to have the errors pointed out, but if not, I am unable to see that he has done anything which deserves censure much less the punishment proposed by hon. gentlemen opposite, that because of what he has done, his salary should be summarily cut off, that in fact he should at once be dismissed from the public service. Let me tell the hon. gentleman opposite who speaks of him as a public hack, that if they should both go into the world to-day and seek positions at what they are worth, 1 venture to say that man will command a higher remuneration than the hon. gentleman. I may be wrong-


George William Fowler: You are.


William Paterson: But that is my estimate of the two men. I know one intimately, and I have formed an estimate of the abilities of the other gentleman by the efforts lie has made in this House. I can tell him more; my belief is that Mr. Bain could leave the public service and in a very short time could command a larger remuneration as a reward for his labours than he gets in the civil service at the present time, and it was not so long ago that I was somewhat afraid I was going to lose his services.


An hon. MEMBER.: Do not fear.


William Paterson: They are not accustomed to having men like that in days gone by, but I tell them that it is a fact, and that his services are known and appreciated by me-and! I think I am some judge, and have some reason to be a judge of the hierits of the men who are engaged in the Public service. If I was a little warm, if 1 did speak a little loudly, all I can say is that sometimes I feel a little touched when ^flections are cast upon a gentleman who, I think, does not deserve them. To hear a Plan who is as faithful a public servant as Jtr. Bain, a man who, like many others in the public service, gives good return for the Salary he receives, described as a political hack, and the inference sought to be drawn that all he does-for that seems to me to be the impression that hon. gentlemen opposite hesire to leave-is to write partisan literature for distribution, makes me feel that hon. gentlemen are doing a monstrous injustice. I know that to lie a fact and when
ivas done I got a little warm and spoke
I felt. Do not consider this as an apology hy any means ; it is only an explanation of
61}
my use of a tone s little louder than my ordinary complaisant tone of speech.


George William Fowler: The hon. minister (Mr. Paterson) says that he felt a little touched. It seems to me that the treasury is the thing that has been touched. The minister has done me the honour to compare my abilities with those of the officer under discussion, and he says that if we were turned out 'into the world together I would not be able to achieve one half as good a position as would that gentleman, nor would I be worthy of filling so good a position. Hie hon. gentleman I suppose sizes up the advantage of the position by the amount of salary connected with it. I think it would be perhaps as well if the hon. gentleman had compared himself with that officer. My judgment of that would be as follows. I do not know what position, outside of the cabi-^ net, the hon. gentleman could fill, in which he would get anything like the salary he gets to-day. There is one position I believe which the hon. gentleman could fill with a very great deal of ability-just one position. While he was speaking I was thinking over all the various walks of life open to men of this country and trying to fit the hon. gentleman into some position for which he would be eminently qualified. Then I remembered that on occasions I had attended the 'circus and I had heard persons outside the circus tent where the curiosities were, describing the wonders to be found therein.
It struck me that the hon. minister would be eminently qualified to fill such a position. I do not know what the salary ought to be, but .1 should judge it would not be so large as that he pays his assistant commissioner whom he lauds so highly in this House. I have not made it a practice in this House since I entered it to refer to hon. gentlemen opposite as I have to the Minister of Customs. But I want to let that hon. gentleman know, and to let every supporter of his know, that when I am attacked in this House, when insulting references, gratuitously insulting references, are made to me, I shall protect myself ; I shall take very good care to treat hon. gentlemen opposite just as they treat me. I do not know that it tends to improve the tone of debate to have the minister indulge in this sort of banter, or badinage, or repartee across the floor. However, that is a matter for the hon. minister to settle with his own conscience. He is assuming to set up as a moral censor. He says his moral principles are wonderfully good, and assumes to reproach me for having moral principles not so good as his own. Well, I am not here to belaud myself, but I am prepared to leave it to those who know us both to say which is the more entitled to credit on this ground.
Now, to come to the question. The hon. gentleman set out, as I supposed, to repel a certain allegation made against an official, in his department. And how has he at-

tempted to do this ? By reading to this committee certain figures that were compiled by that official, thereby admitting that this officer had done the very things we charged him with doing. And the hon. minister tells us that we cannot dispute the truth of these figures. I have not had an opportunity to look over the book that the hon. gentleman read from, and so I am not in a position to say whether the statements in it are true or false. But I have had some experience with Grit literature in times past, and, if the statements in pointers 1, 2 and 3 are no more true and honest than the statements contained in the Grit literature that I have previously had the opportunity to examine, they are false indeed. But, whether these statements are true or false has nothing to do with the question. The minister tells us that he has no private secretary, but that the work is done by two young ladies. And he attempted to take credit for saving $350 by employing no private secretary. But now the hon. gentleman sees the hole he is in, and so he tells us that this man is acting private secretary.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Charles Marcil, Bonaventure).: Hon. gentlemen will please keep order.


Samuel Hughes: There is too much noise with desks.


George William Fowler: Let them make all the noise they like.


Samuel Hughes: No, they must keep order.


George William Fowler: 
Andrew B. Ingram: 
William Paterson: 
James Clancy: We have rarely witnessed such any exhibition as we have had here to-night. The Minister of Customs has acted many parts in this House, and has always over-acted every one of them. I think the committee to-night will conclude that the hon. gentleman has excelled himself in that respect. I know of nothing that is more disgusting than a martyr with no prosecutors. The hon. gentleman has been acting the part of injured innocenc5 here to-night. I desire to say to the hon. gentleman that so far as I am concerned, I have not a word to say against Mr. Bain. The guilty party seems to be the minister himself from start to finish, and I want to show to the hon. gentleman that from the first day Mr. Bain came into the department, he has treated Mr. Bain in a way he did not deserve, and he has treated the civil servants in his department in a most shameless manner. I say that without having had any communication with any of them in any shape or form. I say the hon. gentleman has scandalously treated the civil servants in his own department, and he has elevated Mr. Bain, a gentleman who came into the service without even an examination, and I will prove my statements. Now let us look into the history of Mr. Bain. I say the hon. gentleman has done more, he, as a minister, has connived unfairly to put Mr. Bain forward beyond all experience in his own department in the past, and I fancy even beyond the experience of any other department in the service. Now how did Mr. Bain get into the service ? He came in as an extra clerk in June, 1896 Mr. Bristol, who was acting up to that time as priate secretary and second-class clerk, was put aside. I am not going to argue for a moment that the hon. gentleman should take the private secretary of the

former minister, but I say that he should have been well treated at least. Mr. Bain had an allowance in addition to his salary of private secretary, he had $600 for the balance of that year. The next year he came in as private secretary at $600 and was paid $600 more as an extra cle -k in contingencies. The next year he had a private secretary's salary of $400, and an additional salary for 1897-8 of $300. In the same year 1898-9 he was elevated to the position of second-class clerk at $1,100, making in all $1,800. The hon. gentleman was careful to go back to pay Mr. Bain a sum of $300, hidden by some means, I cannot imagine in what service it was, but he increased his salary in 1897-8 by $300 in order ip give Mr. Bain a salary to which he was not entitled. Then in 1900 Mr. Bain got the salary of a private secretary, $610, and he got $1,150, including no doubt his statutory increase. In 1901, he was made a first-class clerk and put over the heads of other clerks in the hon. gentleman's department. He got his salary of $1,400 along with $400 as private secretary. In 1902, he got the salary of a first-class clerk and he got the statutory increase. He did not have to wait one year, he got the statutory increase of $50, and the secretary's salary of $400, which made $1,850. In 1903, he got the salary of a first-class clerk, $1,500, and his statutory increase of course and $400, making $1,900. the accounts for 1904 are not down yet, but the sum for the last year is, $2,800 for Mr. Bain, then assistant commissioner, not as private secretary to the hon. gentleman, and the hon. gentleman comes down with the same item this year. Now let us see how Mr. Bristol was treated, the gentleman who occupied the position of second-class clerk and private secretary to the former Minister of Customs or rather the Controller of Customs for some years. For some years after the hon. gentleman came in Mr. Bristol got $1,100. He was entitled to his statutory increases, but I want the hon. gentleman to attend to what I am saying now, the hon. gentleman deliberately, unfairly, and I say cowardly, on the part of a minister, refused to Mr. Bristol even his statutory allowance. He refused Mr. Bristol even his statutory allowance and Mr. Bristol did not get his statutory increase until 1901. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman, if I could get the hon. gentleman's attention-of course, the hon. gentleman says that he does not want to listen, but I want to tell him the country is listening-I want to ask the hon. gentleman why Mr. Bristol, who occupied a position with the former minister similar to that occupied by Mr. Bain, with the present minister, was deprived of his statutory increase from 1896 to 1901. The hon. gentleman refuses to answer.	The hon. gentleman
knows there is no explanation of it except that he wilfully deprived a civil servant, who was under his control and who had no ' Mr. CLANCY.
option but to leave the service or submit to what the hon. gentleman was disposed to impose upon him.


William Paterson: I cannot answer the hon. gentleman right off, but it strikes ni from what he says that it would look as i Mr. Bristol had gone five years without any statutory increase. I think it will be foun if that be so that it was because he ha been at the maximum of his salary just it happens this year. I am asking for 1 ' creases for all that I have in my 'hi- . ment except two, and if these two were u at the maximum of their class, I would a ^ for them also. I am not asking for increas for them because they are at the maximi of their class. I do not know that this the fact in regard to Mr. Bristol, but I tm that it is the explanation. The, accountai tells me that there was one year that C did not get his increase, but nothing m five years. Now, Mr. Bristol is being P1 moted from $1,300 to $1,500, and I want m say that Mr. Bristol is a very good offlcei-


James Clancy: 
William Paterson: I am sure the hon. gentleman is wrong.


James Clancy: gentleman is guilty of having introduced into the service for the first time the defence of a man holding a high position and drawing a large salary, on the plea that he was a good officer, and that what he had said was true. The present Commissioner of Customs (Mr McDougal), could just as consistently go out on the stump to-morrow and advocate the principles of the Liberal party, if they had any, and he would be no more censurable than Mr. Bain. But the hon. gentleman has shown to the country that the service is permeated with corruption. I do not know of a more corrupt thing than to take the people's money and prostitute the service as the hon. gentleman has prostituted it. He did not do it unwittingly, and he unblushingly defends it now. We have never witnessed a spectacle like this since we have been privileged to have a parliament in Canada, and I hope we will never witness . it again. What is the paltry, miserable excuse that the hon. gentleman gives ? It is that this gentleman has done good service. A collector of customs who is a good officer might as well go on the stump and say what he likes, or write campaign literature and then come back and render the excuse which the hon. gentleman has given by saying that he was a good officer. That has nothing to do with it. The hon. minister has not done himself justice and he certainly has not done his department justice. The hon. gentleman did elevate himself somewhat the other evening when he refused to get up and make a point blank denial of what he knew to be a fact. The hon. gentleman chose on that occasion to be silent. But, the hon. gentleman has not improved with the lapse or time. He comes back with the defence that the officer is a good one, and the literature he prepared is true. We might just as well take one of the hon. gentleman's officers tomorrow and allow him to go out on the stump, telling the people that the hon. Minister of Customs in the House of Commons had defended that course of conduct, that lie was perfectly at liberty to pursue that course and that the minister would justify him. There is no single officer in his department who could not to-morrow' go on stump after what the hon. gentleman has said, discuss politics and take any active part in politics he chose. He could say . Have I not done my part well in my department ? Is all I have said and written perfectly true 1 Is that not a perfect lustih-cation ? I would like the hon. gentleman just to see how it would appear in his eyes if any hon. gentleman on this side or the House should take the position he has taken to-night. No one would more readily ie-buke a course of conduct like that than the hon. gentleman himself. I want to say that the hon. Minister of Customs has laid down the most vicious rule that was everlaiddown in this House. He has told the people plainly that you may spend public money for any purpose you like, that you may employ
political hacks, and employ them with the public money, although, I say that the man who has been writing this literature is not the hack. If you were to ask who the hack was I would be forced to name the hon. o-ent'leman who defends this conduct in this House to-night. I do not believe that in the whole history of the parliament of Canada, a minister has ever made such an exhibition as that which the hon. gentleman has made here to-night. I do not know one who has ever laid down so vicious a principle. I do not know one who has ever so unblushingly defended it.


George Taylor: vatives the assistance of these interests consisted chiefly in advances for the purchase of butter for export, end for winter dairying, and in providing for the administrative staff, the members of which went about the country lecturing. The present Minister of Agriculture-practical farmer as he is

Is that statement correct ? Is it correct to say that the Minister of Agriculture is a practical farmer ? Why, there is not a farmer in the country who will not say that that statement is untrue.
The present Minister of Agriculture-practical farmer as he is-has gone farther than his predecessors, and has instituted many new and improved methods to aid the agricultural community. For instance he established a live stock branch, with a capable commissioner to promote live stock interests' of the country. A poultry division was provided to spread education as to the best methods of fattening and preparing poultry for export.
Did the Minister of Customs authorize the Assistant Commissioner of Customs to write such trash as that ? The Minister of Customs has admitted that the assistant commissioner prepared ' Political Pointers No. 1,' but he says it was before he was assistant commissioner. However, here is ' Political Pointers No. 3,' written by the same man, 20 cases of which have been brought to the House of Commons to-day to be franked through the mails. The opposition were abused last year for sending out a little literature through- the mails, but here we have Liberal political pointers franked through the mails in car loads, and prepared by a civil servant who is drawing $2,800 a year of the people's money, to get this trash printed and published in order to try to delude the farmers of this country. This civil servant shows by his figures that the farmers of this country are paying $19,000,000 a year more in revenue than they were paying in 1895, and yet he has the cheek to try to make out that the farmers are not paying any more taxes now than they were then.


James Sutherland: I did not intend to take part in this debate, but I think every member in this House must have a feeling in his breast, that he should be fair and honest to his fellow being. It is only fair to say that Mr. Bain is in no way responsible, and has not had anything to do with the items which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) has been reading. It is a very unfair, and a very improper charge to make against Mr. Bain.


George Taylor: I stated that if I am granted a commission, I will endeavour to prove it.


James Sutherland: The hon. gentleman can have all the commissions he wants, but he cannot prove It. I state here on my responsibility as a member of this House, that Mr. Bain is not responsible for writing the sentences that the hon. member Mr. TAYLOR.
(Mr. Taylor) has read. The Minister of Customs has stated that Mr. Bain did furnish him with certain statistics, just the same as other deputy ministers or officials in various other departments furnish departmental statistics to Conservatives ana Liberals alike.


George Taylor: The Minister of Customs did not deny it.


James Sutherland: I am not speaking for the Minister of Customs, I am speaking for myself.


George Taylor: The Minister of Customs should know better than the hon. gejitleinai (Mr. Sutherland).


James Sutherland: That may be your way of debating, but it is not mine. r have made the statement on my responsibility as a minister, and I say that Mr. Bam had nothing to do .with the publication oi that pamphlet. I appeal to my hon. friena, as I do to other members of the House to D fair and honest ; let them blame a man i he should be blamed, but let them give creel where credit is due. It is unfair and im proper for a member of this House to aceus, a man improperly, either by direct charge o by insinuation. I rose for the purpose making the statement that Mr. Bain is in n way responsible ; that he did not write tn literature that the hon gentleman has be quoting, and that he is not responsible r it in any way.


George Taylor: Then we have one minister contradicting the other ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


James Sutherland: 
George Taylor: I understood the Minister of Customs to say that before Mr. Bain _ appointed assistant commissioner he 1 pared ' Political Pointers No. 1,' whici Minister of Customs read from.
Some hQn. MEMBERS. No.


George Taylor: The Minister of CustoffJ read many passages from that, to try f make out they were correct. The M '	,
of Customs admitted that the assistan

missioner wrote ' Political Pointers No. 1,' but be said it was before Mr. Bain was assistant commissioner ; and I say that 1 Political Pointers No. 3 ' was prepared by the same gentleman since he was appointed assistant commissioner.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


George Taylor: The Minister of Customs will not get up and deny it himself, because he has the reputation of telling the truth, although he may equivocate a little and get around the corners, but when it comes down to the straight point, he will not deny it. If he gives me a commission of three honest men, I will prove that Mr. Bain prepared that document.


William Paterson: My statement was, that When I asked Mr. Bain : is there any of your work in that ; he said : there are figures in that which I prepared for your use, and Which you have used ; it was my duty, as your private secrtary, to prepare them for you and what I did prepare for you has found a place in these political pointers. I never said that Mr. Bain said that he was the publisher or the author of these political Pointers.


George Taylor: You did hot say that; but after quoting the tables, you read a lot of statements and said they were correct information to go to the people of this country ; and that document was prepared by this gentleman before he was appointed assistant commissioner.


William Paterson: Not for this purpose.


James Clancy: I want a word with the hon. Minister of Public Works, who contradicts the Minister of Customs.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


James Clancy: 
Mr. HEYD.: I have listened to this debate with a great deal of interest, and it is onlv just now that I am beginning to understand what it is all about. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs is charged with having compiled 1, 2 and 3 of what are known as Political Pointers ; and I have been trying to find' out whether Mr. Bain compiled this book or not. If he compiled it, I should think he did wrong. If he did not compile it, I do not see wherein he is guilty. If the compiler of this book used figures which were prepared by Mr. Bain for Mr, Paterson's use, he is not guilty of a crime. Mir. Coulson, of the bank, the Postmaster General's Reports, and dozens of outsiders are quoted in this book, and are equally guilty with Mr. Bain, because they supplied the information as well as he. They did not compile the book, neither did Mr. Bain. I had the pleasure of seeing this book, or a great deal of it, before it ever appeared in its present shape, when it was in manuscript form ; and it was not in Mr. Bain's writing, but in the writing of another man. I have no doubt that in the compilation of this book information was got which Mr. Bain supplied. Anybody could get that information. Our hon. friends opposite take credit that they did not go and get information from that source. That is why they are always wrong. If, instead of relying upon their own judgment and resources, they would do. exactly what the gentleman did who wrote this book-go to the fountain head for information-they would not so often go astray ; because, when they rely upon their own 'judgment, they are invariably wrong. I have had occasion frequently in this House to notice that when our friends are left to their own resources, like sheep, they go astray. They accuse Mr. Bain of issuing a book. Mr. Bain had nothing to do with the book. If he were here to defend himself, be could tell our friends that this book is made up of extracts from speeches made by Mr. Paterson and other extracts prepared

for other members of the House. I do not think it is a crime for any of the officials of the government, if I ask them to do so for my own information, to prepare a table which I want to use in the interest of this country ; and when I quote figures here, probably sometimes too many for some people, I rely upon their correctness, because I get them from official sources. All this talk, in an attempt to fasten on Mr. Bain the charge of having compiled this book, has been so much time wasted, because it is a false charge. Mr. Bain is not guilty of compiling this book or issuing campaign circulars 1, 2 and 3. If our hon. friends would quietly go to work and show where there is in this book one single misstatement, that would be of more importance to the country. So far as I can judge, and I have read it with great care, and have compared it with figures which I have myself used, its statements are absolutely true. But when hon. gentlemen accuse Mr. Bain of having compiled this book, I can say that on his own testimony that he is not guilty, and this is an attempt to fasten a false charge upon an innocent man. The whole thing is politics. They do not care whether Mr. Bain compiles political literature or not. It only depends on which side he compiles it for. We would not have heard one whimper if it had been got up in the interest of the Conservative party. But this document being true, and giving the legislative history of the Conservative party for eighteen years, and a correct statement of the progress of the country during the last seven years, is what hurts hon. gentlemen opposite ; and they think that if they can discredit Mr. Bain they discredit this document, which has been- issued by an entirely different person, and therefore weaken the political effect it might produce. I hope that every citizen of Canada will read Campaign Literature, Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and then they will find that the statements that have been made by our friends on the opposite side during tlie past six or seven years are absolute bosh.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The evidence which this House is asked to accept to satisfy them that Mr. Bain did not write this book reminds one very much of what is said to have taken place in a court where the Crown prosecutor said that he was prepared to put two witnesses in the box to swear that they saw a man commit a crime. The reply from the other side was that they could put in a dozen witnesses who could swear that they did not see him commit the crime, and the evidence of the twelve should be accepted against that of the two.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Do you say Mr. Bain wrote the book ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not making statements.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Do you say so ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not, like the hon. gentleman opposite, making positive statements about something I do not kno When the hon. gentleman (Mr. Heyd) s that Mr. Bain did not write that book, n did he know ?


Charles Bernhard Heyd: He told me so.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 
Charles Bernhard Heyd: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Yes.


An hon. MEMBER.: I saw him.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 
Charles Bernhard Heyd: How could he deny out making inquiries ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 
William Paterson: You say that - [DOT] was there ?	ntie-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not know the man.


William Paterson: You said he was-


Charles Bernhard Heyd: 


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I did not, I beg your pardon.


William Paterson: Yes.
Mi\ SPROULE. I said it was alleged from this side of the House that he was there ; I did not say he was there because I do not know him from Adam.


William Paterson: The bon. gentleman says he was there. Mr. Bain I think you will find, had been there, but at the time when this subject came up he was not here.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: He got out at a very convenient time.


William Paterson: The hon. gentleman says he was there.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I say I did not ; I deny it. I said it was alleged from this side of the House that he was there, but I was very careful in the language I used, because I do not know him. I do not want the minister to put anything down my throat. He tried to justify the compilation of this book and said that the figures were correct. It is not the figures that we dispute, it is the argument in the compilation of this work. Will any one pretend to say that the argument there is correct 1 There is not a reasonable man in Canada who will go through that argument and say it is correct. What we object to is this : A young man goes into the public service, his duties are laid down by order in council, he is expected to do these duties and nothing outside of these duties. A young man is paid a certain salary for working for the country and when he goes into the service he takes an oath to do his duty faithfully. He swears :
I (A.B.), solemnly and sincerely swear that I Will faithfuily and honestly fulfil the duties which devolved upon me as	and that
1 will not ask, or receive any sum of money, services, recompense or matter or thing whatsoever, directly or indirectly, in return for what I have done or may do in the discharge of any of the duties of my said office, except my salary or what may be allowed me by law or by an order of the Governor in Council.
And the order in council states his salary. 1 want to direct attention to two things in this . The minister has stated that this young-man was his private secretary, and he justifies what he had done on the ground of economy, because lie said the secretarial "Work was not done by his private secretary hut by two young girls In bis department. The minister claimed that in this way he s,lved $300 to the country which otherwise "'onid have been given to the secretary. But he distributed the work to other employees "'ho were not appointed as his private secretary and therefore according to that oath he was making them, if they took the oath all, deliberately perjure themselves.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 
Mr. WADE.: The statement is not correct. '


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the Minister of Customs set them to work for him, and paid them a salary for it, he made them perjure themselves. They took money outside of their salaries. What does the Act say with regard to this ?
No extra salary or additional remuneration of any kind whatever shall he paid to any deputy head, officer, or employee in the civil service of Canada or to any person permanently employed in the public service.
None except a private secretary for whom the provision is made for the payment of $600. This money was not for a private secretary who was appointed. This money was given to them in addition to their salaries as clerks. They got the salary stipulated in the Act and also got this in addition. The hon. gentleman is demoralizing bis own service. Does he propose to justify that ? When he thinks over it he will not be prepared to justify it. How are these people appointed ? They must be appointed by order in council. Were they appointed by order in council ? It seems to me the way that hon. gentlemen do everything here is in a haphazard way ; they do not adopt the usual procedure of parliament, or keep within the bounds laid down by law. They seem to be a law unto themselves. They do things merely at haphazard, and when they find that they have acted illegally and improperly they have no excuse to give. That is what we have to complain of. These officers are appointed by order in council, and if they are paid higher salaries than the law provides for the offices to which they are appointed, they are given what they are not entitled to, and the minister is spending money which he has no right to spend. But there is another question involved in this, it seems to me, a question requiring a little attention. The question is not whether these figures compiled by the private secretary are right or wrong. In bringing forward that point the minister is merely begging the question, or he is trying to draw a red herring across the trail. The correctness of these figures has not been challenged. Nor is it denied that it is not the duty of a private secretary to compile the figures for the minister when instructed to do so. But what we say is that it was wrong for him to compile a campaign document


Charles Bernhard Heyd: But he did not do so.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Who says so ?


Charles Bernhard Heyd: I say so.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I cannot take the hon.' gentleman's (Mr. Heyd's) word for it. lhe man who ought to know the facts has not denied It.

- Mr. HEYD. Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) say that Mr. Bain compiled this pamphlet ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not here to be cross-questioned by the hon. member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd). If that hon. gentleman has anything to say, let him get up and say it like a man. I cannot take the denial of a man who does not know, when the man who does know not only does not deny it, but practically admits it-that is, he defends it, and in defending it admits it by implication at least. The question, as I say, is not whether the private secretary ought to compile these figures ; the question is whether a man employed as private secretary, or .assistant commissioner, or first-class clerk, has the right to take the money of the country to pay his salary during the time which he employs in writing campaign literature for a political party. We say that no civil servant lias the right to do this, and many of those employed before 1896 were put out of office for doing much less. If it was right for this government to put a man out of office for exercising his right to vote, surely a civil servant who receives the money of the country for writing political pointers ought to be more severely dealt with. The hon. minister, in speaking of it the other night defended it on other grounds which I thought of dealing with, but which I will leave out of consideration for the present. I have only this to say in regard to this matter ;-let the same principles be applied to all ; do not apply one rule to Conservatives and another to Reformers. Many Conservatives, for doing much less than this gentleman has done, were dealt with very harshly by the present government. I do not blame the present Minister of Customs at present on that ground, because I have not in mind any such cases in his department. But I say that his friends and colleagues dealt very harshly with Conservative office holders for doing much less. But there was one statement of the Minister of Customs which I thought was entirely infra dig, coming from him. He went on to say that he had no doubt that many civil servants were giving information to'members on this side of the House.


William Paterson: I did not say that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That statement was denied on this side, and I understood that it was denied because the Minister of Customs had made it. The hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Ingram) denied it so did other hon. gentleman. And I understand that the hon. minister went on to say that if giving of information to this side was to continue the government had better commence with old offenders. In other words, the government had better commence with putting out Conservatives. Is not that rather an unworthy utterance ? Is it intended to hold up -this side of the House, to prevent us Mr. SPROULE.
speaking for fear that some of our frien * in the service will be turned out for so supposed information ? I want to say one member of this House that I n ,j either applied for or received from a c: servant of this government a word oi _ figure. I would not apply to such a so [DOT] But if I were to do so, I should do no w than hon. gentlemen opposite did when were on this side. But I say this was -unworthy utterance if it was in tended close the mouths of the opposition in House for fear that some condign Pul' . ment would be visited upon their frienus the service for imaginary wrong-doing tneir part. If the hon. minister thinks -is going to stop us from the argumen that means, he is entirely mistaken. -j doing of political work by men in the service, is wrong, and the country will c demn it. When a man goes into the puD service, he undertakes to do work foi' ' the people and not for one party alone, has no right to take the money of the Pe P for time devoted to preparing campaign rature to be distributed throughout ^ country. We were justified in moving reduce this item to the extent of this sail and I am mistaken if we do not mov this House to have it reduced, and re minister does not hear more about it be he is through with it.


Andrew B. Ingram: 
Charles Bernhard Heyd: 
Andrew B. Ingram: I am surprised that it is found necessary for the hon. member for South Brant (Mr. Heyd) to speak, when the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) sits as his desk mate at this moment. Has it come to this, that the Minister of Customs is not able to defend himself in this House ? Is it necessary to bring in a man from the county of Brant who says that Mr. Bain told him so and so, and as a consequence Mr. Bain is not guilty ? Imagine it being -said in a court of law that the prisoner had said that he was not guilty and that this must be taken as conclusive evidence. If my hon. friend from South Brant has no more idea of defending Mr. Bain than by making a statement of that kind, he knows very little about taking evidence in a court of law. Now I wish to quote from page 27 of this pamphlet, pointer No. 3 :
The Public Accounts Committee is a medium for investigating, but as the Liberal Finance Minister showed in a speech delivered towards the close of last session the meetings of that committee during the session resolved themselves into a farce.
And let me say right here that no person contributed more to make them a farce than the Minister of Finance did.
The Conservative members of it could not be got to attend with any degree of regularity and they accomplished absolutely nothing. They, however, recognized the fairness and impartiai-itv shown by the Liberal chairman of the committee, and passed him a vote of acknowledgment together with their thanks.
Now I would like to point out to the Minister of Finance that if this gentleman is guilty towards contributing to the preparation of this pamphlet that is circulated through this country, then he is contributing his quota as a civil servant to this charge against the Public Accounts Committee. I want to go further and state that the usual custom In the Public Accounts Committee is for ministers of the Crown to attend that committee, and whenever a witness is called to give evidence, which they fear, they are the first to say to the witness: It is not necessary for you to answer that question. I say the Minister of Finance has been guilty time and time again of requesting witnesses not to answer questions put to them by members of that committee. Luring the present session we have repeatedly seen questions put by the leader of the opposition to the leader of the government asking when the Public Accounts Committee was going to meet, and although Parliament has now been in session from the 12th of March to the 24th of April, not one meeting of that committee has yet been held.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Would the hon. gentleman allow me a word? I am chairman of the
Public Accounts Committee. I have been prepared to call the committee at any time since its first meeting for organization, but to-day for the first time, some hon. gentlemen opposite intimated to me their desire that the committee should he called, and it will he called on Thursday.


Andrew B. Ingram: Then the hon. gentleman was not in the House when he heard the leader of the opposition put these questions to the Prime Minister. Now, Sir, what makes the Public Accounts Committee a tarce in the House, is the fact that whence en a witness is called for the purpose of giving testimony, and whenever it is thought, by the government that his testimony is liable to involve some department of the government to their detriment, then ministers are there telling him that lie mav not answer, and defending him in his refusal. I want to tell the Minister of Finance and others who attend that committee, that the people of this country do not expect that their expenditures are to be controlled in that way. The people want to get at the honest facts in connection with the public accounts, and they expect that when witnesses are called to give their evidence, they will be allowed to do so whether the result may be detrimental to the government or not. That is the proper method of conducting the Committee of Public Accounts, and if that method is pursued we will not see any more campaign literature going forth declaring that the meetings of the Public Accounts Committee of this House are a farce.


Mr. ALEX. JOHNSTON.: that I am here to say in the most positive manner. I desire to say, whether hon. gentlemen opposite take my word for it or not, that the charge that has been so repeatedly made that Mr. Bain is the author of this document in not a fair or correct charge. I say, moreover, that when a statement has been denied over and over again, civ this side of the House, it is rather unfair for hon. gentlemen opposite to persist in it, especially when the gentleman against whom the charge is levelled is not here to defend himself.


Mr. FIELDING.: Not as to the main question concerning Mr. Bain, but as to two other matters that have recently been referred to, I would ask the House to bear with me for a moment. The hon. member far Elgin (Mr. Ingram) has made the statement that in the Public Accounts Committee, during all these years, whenever a witness was called to give evidence that was likely to be embarrassing, ministers of the Grown were there to warn the witnesses not to answer. I think I have substantially stated what my hon. friend said, though I do not pretend to repeat his exact words. Now, after looking back at the meetings of the Public Accounts Committee with an experience of seven or eight years, I can recall only one case where any instance occurred Upon which the hon. gentleman could base such a statement. There may be others, but I cannot recall them. There was one case that I can recall, one case in which I think I myself was concerned. Now it is not an uncommon thing in any tribunal to And a witness asked questions which he is not obliged to answer. It is not an uncommon thing to have judges tell a witness that he is not obliged to answer, it is not an uncommon thing to have legal gentlemen engaged in the case to tell the witness that he is not obliged to answer; and it would not be_a surprising thing if members of the committee, most of them laymen like myself, sometimes ask questions which are open to objection. In that particular case hon. gentlemen opposite were trying to press a charge against an hon. member on this side of the House. I need not go into the merits of the case on that occasion. I thought the question put was unreasonable, and I told the witness he was free to answer if he wished, but he was not bound to answer, because it related to his private affairs. The only comment I have to make upon that now, is that the minister against wnom they were trying to press that charge of corruption is now their bosom friend. The other point to which I wish to refer was an observation made by the hon. member for Grey (Mr. Sproule) with regard to tile private secretaries. My hon. friend argued that this sum must be paid to a particular private secretary, and any attempt to distribute it among other officials in the office he Mr. ALEX. JOHNSTON.
thought was irregular and improper. 1 want to say to my hon. frienu that I think he is mistaken. I will not discuss the legality of the matter with him, but I can tell him that it has been the practice i or many years to divide the private secretary's allowance among several officials. I know it was done in the times of my Pre" decessors, and it is done now, and I confess I can see no wrong in it. It is being done in my own time at this moment. I know R was done under the late government, and J-myself can see no harm in it. At all events, it is a practice that has the authority or precedent.


William Paterson: Just on this point the hon. member for Grey (Mr. Sproule) spok \ ery strongly. He said that a person woun perjure himself if he asserted that itb&Q neen the custom for years for the Audito-ueneral to pass these accounts. Now le1 him look at the Auditor General's Report or 1S90, at the details of what was done between 1895 and 1896.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood the Civil Service Act was binding in that case.


William Paterson: 
Robert Laird Borden: i
Then, there is an oath, a part of which material to this question is as follows :-
I will not ask or receive any sum of money, services, recompense or matter or thing whatsoever, directly or indirectly in return for what I have done or may do in the discharge of any of the duties of my said office, except my salary or what may be allowed me by law or by an order of the Governor in Council.
I do not understand that these allowances have been made under an Order in Council.


William Stevens Fielding: I think so ; they are in my case, I know.


Robert Laird Borden: Are they in the case of the hon. Minister of Customs ? I do not so understand it.


William Paterson: The commissioner assures me that they are. I cannot state from my own memory, but the commissioner says they are.
Mr. SPItOULE. I understood the hon. gentleman to say the other night that they 'were not.


William Paterson: I do not think I said so* I was trying to say nothing that I did not know to be perfectly correct, and I would not be positive of it. However, the commissioner tells nie now that these payments are made under Order in Council.


Robert Laird Borden: That disposes of the matter as far as the oath is concerned, because there is a direct refei'ence to an Order in Council. But, I do not know how you deal with section 51. The position of the hon. Minister of Customs is somewhat peculiar because he has an officer who is called the assistant commissioner of customs, and who, he says, is not his private secretary.


William Paterson: No.


Robert Laird Borden: lie is his private secretary ?


William Paterson: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Well then he is entitled under the law to this allowance and the hon. gentleman has no right to give it to any one else. There is a sum of money voted by parliament for the private secretary of the minister, and if this gentleman is bis private secretary, he is entitled to it and no one else is entitled to it. That follows logically and conclusively. But I understood him in one portion of his remarks to say that he was not private secretary, but sometimes performed the duties of private secretary. Then he said there Were two ladies in the office who were on salary, and that he had distributed a portion of the salary of his private secretary to these ladies. I understood him to say that he had not done that by order in council, but that it was merely a departmental proceeding. I consider that an irregular proceeding and I do not know
how you can get over the provisions of section 51. We vote the salaries for all these officers, and if the statute says that you shall not give them any extra allowance,
I suppose it means what it says, and that the o-overnment is hound to carry out the terms of the statute. Then, in regard to the other point which has been dealt with very fully to-night, I have only to say a very few words. I certainly gathered as distinctly as could be from what the hon. Minister of Customs said that Mr. Bain hud practically written the whole pamphlet known as ' Political Pointers No. I. ' If the hon. minister did not mean that he certainly did not express himself with the clearness which usually characterizes his utterances. Indeed, I understood him not only to admit it but to quote from the pamphlet then in his .hands and to justify the work of this gentleman because he said you could not find any fault with the accuracy of the statements made. He said that it was a good thing that this gentleman had been employed to do this work, because it was right that the people should know the facts set forth in this pamphlet. He said further that he was perfectly justified in doing it because that was naturally the work of a private secretary. He said that a private secretary might prepare figures of that kind for- a minister, and having prepared figures of that kind it necessarily followed that it was' no harm for him to prepare them for a campaign sheet such as that which the hon. minister quoted. Well, I think that opens up a pretty wide question regarding the operations of any department in this country. What would it lead to ? It would lead to this that the minister could take $600 voted by parliament for his private secretary, and divide it amongst six or twelve men in his department calling them private secretaries, then set every one of them at work to prepare campaign literature for the political party of which he is a member, and distribute that through the country and no one would be entitled to find one item of fault with such a proceeding, provided the statements contained in that literature were true. In other words words, the only qualification necessary to the employment of a civil servant in the preparation of campaign literature is that he must not insert any falsehoods in any document that he may prepare. That is the argument of the hon. gentleman. You can take a dozen men, give them $50 each out of the salary of the private secretary, call every one of them a private secie-tar'v' and set every one of them at work preparing campaign literature for the Liberal party Does not the hon. member think it would be fairer after all to nut his hand in Ids pocket and for other members of the government to put their hands in their pockets for the purpose of paying men to do this work just as we have to do on this side of the House ? Is it the fair or proper

thing in tliis country that the public money to the extent of $2,800 and an additional sum of $600 should he utilized in order that the time of this gentleman-a very worthy gentleman he may be, I have no doubt-may be employed in the preparation of campaign literature? I suppose that there are not a great many mistatements of fact in the campaign literature of either side ; we certainly hope that there are no intentional misstatements of fact, but does that make it anv the less campaign literature and does that make it any the less partisan for a gentleman in the employ of a department to do the work ? Looking over the document to which my hon. friend referred, if that document is the work of Mr. Bain-I do not know whether it is or not-then it is the work of a man who is not acting as a civil servant, but who is acting as a strorig poli

tical partisan in putting before the people of this country, views which are not views of a civil servant, but the views of a partisan employed to write partisan literature for party purposes.


Alexander Johnston: I would like to ask my hon. friend whether he will not accept the assurance in this House that the comments that are made upon the figures presented in these campaign sheets are not the work of Mr. .John Bain. It happens that I know something about it.	.
Mr. R- L- BORDEN. I am perfectly willing to accept the word of my hon. friend from Cape Breton (Mr. Johnston), although sometimes I have not had a courtesy of that kind extended to me from that side of the House. I will accept the word of my hon. friend so far as his knowledge goes, but I have something more than the word of my hon. friend. According to the usage and courtesy of this House, I have also to accept the word of the Minister of Customs. I trust that my hon. friend from Cape Breton (Mr. Johnston) will not regard me as casting any aspersions upon his absolute truthfulness when I suggest that I tfiust also pay some regard to the statement of the Minister of Customs who is an older man in public life, who holds cabinet rank, and whose word must carry at least as much weight as the word of my hon. friend (Mr. Johnston).


William Paterson: Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that I said anything contradictory to what my friend from Cape I Breton said ? Did the leader of the opposition mean to give this House and the country the understanding, that Mr. Bain was drawing $2,800 a year for the purpose of writing campaign literature ?


Robert Laird Borden: I did not understand the Minister of Customs to say that Mr. Bain was paid $2,800 for writing campaign literature, but I did understand the Minister of Customs to say, that while Mr. Bain was receiving that emolument he had Mr. R. L. BORDEaV.
been engaged in preparing a portion, or the whole, of this document called ' Political Pointers, No. 1 and I understood the Minister of Customs to justify that by saying that the statements in the document wer[DOT] accurate, and that Mr. Bain being a privat secretary could properly be engaged i work of that kind. I say in all sincerity and perfect good faith, that that was t conclusion I drew from the statement the Minister of Customs this afternoon, an also from his statement on Friday wl1, e have had the pleasure of reading. I da tried to draw a fair conclusion from m remarks and my conclusion is corroborat by that which other men have drawn, t not think that an official ought to be gaged in work of that kind, and I do think it alters the case if it be as stare * that Mr. Bain prepared only a portion this document, and that other portions i latiug to other departments were prepare by other gentlemen in the public service-That only makes it worse. None of the gentlemen ought to be engaged in this wo ' it should be done by some one outside, a it should not be directly or indirectly P foi* by the money of this country. I tn I drew a fair conclusion from the rema of the Minister of Customs, and if 1 wrong I will be glad to be corrected.


William Paterson: 
Robert Laird Borden: I certainly un gay stood the Minister of Customs to-day )jafl ^before six o'clock :	That. Mr. APRIL 25, 1904
handed out for the purpose of this pamphlet, certain statements which were of the same character as statements which he had prepared for the Minister of Customs. I followed the Minister of Customs very carefully and he certainly said that before six o'clock when in his excitement he was somewhat endangering the venerable head of the Minister of Trade and Commerce who sat in front of him. That statement is not consistent with the statement which the Minister of Customs is making to the House now.


William Paterson: So far as I am aware,
I said nothing inconsistent with what I am saying now. I said that Mr. Bain said, that he had been requested by parties for information on these points; he had given them statements which had been prepared tor me and which I had used. We were not in many campaigns together, but I think 1 used some of these figures in the campaign in North Ontario.	.


Samuel Hughes: Did you use them in South Lambton.


William Stevens Fielding: He must have forgotten them there.


William Paterson: Well, I don't know what happened there.


Robert Laird Borden: The people of East Lambton had a correct view' of the situation.	.


William Stevens Fielding: They struck oil.


Mr R L BORDEN.: Will the Minister of Customs say, that Mr. Bain's onij' connection with this pamphlet, was the banding out of statements which had been alieady prepared by him for his ministei 1


William Paterson: I am not in a position to state more than I have stated. 1 he lion, gentleman who has prepared this literatuie has stated all about it.	,


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman who prepared this literature knows something about it, but I am inclined to think that the Minister of Customs knows more. I do not think that the Minister of Customs will deny that after all, a portion of that pamphlet is the work of his private secretary.


Fletcher Bath Wade: Will some one charge Mi. Bain ?


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor) has distinctly said, that be was prepared to prove that Mi. did write these statements. I do not kno that you want very much more of a charge than that, even to suit the fastidious taste of my hon. friend from Annapolis (Mr. Wade) That was distinctly stated in t e House two or three times this evening.
' Mr. IIBYD. He will take that back now.


George Taylor: No, I won't.


Robert Laird Borden: As my hon. friend the Minister of Customs has made some statements in the House regarding this matter he really should go a little further ' He has had an interview with Mr Bain, and he knows about it ; I suppose he knew a good deal about it before he had that interview; and he is not prepared to state that Mr. Bain did not prepare statements which were inserted in that pamphlet, and which were prepared for the rmrnose of being inserted m it. My non. friJriri cannot say that, and therefore I pre-sume\hat is a polite and easy way ot imorm-inf this side of the House that he knows hit Mr Bain did prepare these [DOT]statements After all when we come to that, have w? not reached the stage when my hon. friend the Minister of Customs admitted that Mr. Bain did prepare at least a Portibn of that campaign literature? I do not wish to press this point unduly, but will the hoi. gentleman deny that that is the condition of
affairs ?	, . .


William Paterson: He admitted that he had prepared for my use at different times some of the statements which were mcorpoi-ated by whomsoever published these documents ; but he refused to be held responsible for all that was in these^ pamphlets. He assumed the responsibility for what lm had prepared himself.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand it perfectly, I think. A portion of this pamphlet relates to matters with which the Department of Customs is concerned, and this gentleman prepared that portion.


Charles Bernhard Heyd: Oh, no.


Robert Laird Borden: I am trying to state, as fairly as I can, what I gather. Another gentleman has come to the aid of the Minister of Customs. Might I suggest to both of these hon. gentlemen that the Minister of Customs is an old parliamentary hand, and, with all deference to them, he knows bow to manage this case a great deal better than either of them does. Let me say to the Minister of Customs that if that is the case, it does not alter the condition of affairs. This gentleman has prepared that portion of the pamphlet which relates to the Department of Customs ; there cannot be any doubt of that, in view of what my bon friend has said. But there is one tiring-more that we ought to know about, in justice to Mr. Bain himself. We ought to know whether he did that by the direction of the Minister of Customs and with bis knowledge In order to clear Mr. Bain, my hon. friend should make himself perfectly deal upon that question. I do not think this is a matter which concerns Mr. Bain so much as it does the administration of the government, especially my hon. friend's department. I am not inclined to criticise Mr. Bain very much about it, because he is under the direction of his minister ; but I am inclined to criticise the principle of procuring tins



work to be done by public servants and practically at the expense of the country. I am not going to become violent about it, but I am endeavouring to get at the facts, and to criticise, in a moderate way, what I think is wrong. Will the Minister of Customs deny that the view I have taken of the situation is correct ?


William Paterson: I do not intend to prolong this discussion. I think I have made myself perfectly plain. What I have said is on record, and there is no use of going over it again. The leader of the opposition now absolves Mr. Bain and says I am to blame. Then why did the hon. member for East Elgin move to strike out the salary of $2,800 for Mr. Bain instead of moving that my salary be reduced ?


Mr.   R.@: 'L. BORDEN. It is perfectly plain, and I thought it would occur to the hon. gentleman at once. My hon. friend from East Elgin simply desired to transfer the liability from the country to the Minister of Customs. I would not suppose that Mr. Bain would lose his salary, but the Minister of Customs would see that it was paid from the source to which Mr. Bain should have looked in the first instance.


William Paterson: I am sorry to find that an hon. gentleman who leads one of the great parties of this country does not understand parliamentary government better than to know that when an officer's salary is struck out of the estimates he does not get it.


Andrew B. Ingram: I would like to say that the reason I moved the motion was this, that if the Liberal party have a civil servant who is preparing campaign literature for them, the least they can do is to pay for it themselves. I am here to represent a portion of the Conservative party, and I know that they decline to pay any civil servant for issuing campaign literature in the interest of the Liberal party.


James Clancy: It is worthy of note how much the compilers of this literature, if it was not Mr. Bain, are indebted to him for. There are some thirty pages of this literature, of which less than one page is devoted to the hon. gentleman's department, and what is that ? First, the total expenditure for 1903. Did they have to go to Mr. Bain for that, or did the hon. gentleman use it in his speech ? There was not a word of it in his speech. Then there is stated the total expenditure for 1895-did they need to go to Mr. Bain for that ?


William Paterson: I do not know that they did.


James Clancy: But the gentlemen who are making the apologies to-night said they did go to Mr. Bain for the information. The hon. member for Cape Breton said so.


Alexander Johnston: I did not say that the gentlemen who compiled tins literature Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
went to Mr. Bain. What I did say was that the committee having it in charge OT11" themselves of some material prepared vy Mr. Bain and to be found in the minister, speech.


James Clancy: This is not found in the minister's speech at all ; I defy the ho [DOT] gentleman to find it in any speech or 1 minister available to members of this	'
The hon. gentleman says they availed the selves of material prepared by Mr. B ' Did Mr. Bain prepare the figures relating the public debt or the surpluses ?	"p
not in his department. Did he prepare, material in regard to how the money . . spent, or the Yukon matter, or the mi colonial Railway matter ?


Alexander Johnston: No.


James Clancy: 
Alexander Johnston: No.


James Clancy: Then what did they S that came from Mr. Bain ? Because ' rt-other statements belong to other * ion ments. How did they come in poss ,pese of Mr. Bain's figures in regard t0 , py other matters if they were not prepa Tit-Mr. Bain ? The hon. gentleman lias tingly become a good witness.	. ter of
I expected my hon. friend the Mm . ge]f Customs (Mr. Paterson) to extricate pjg from this position because he lias 1 pe-power to do so. I was sorry to have oVJ. lieve that the hon. gentleman had a - at ledge of Mr. Bain having been empmy tJiat work of that kind, and did so becaus hig hon. gentleman left that impressio oJ) silence and his refusal to answer.	jf
gentleman was asked a straight <iy 01-he had any personal_knowledge^d~ pnSfLged
ae nau any personal	- *nea
indirectly, that Mr. Bain had bee ^{puli preparing literature for use oi "ntie-ion by the Liberal party, dhe hon- S be nan has not said up to this monie	jle
md absolutely no knowledge	tables
admits that Mr. Bain prepared .y, a9 'or him but that is not an answer,^ ^ very
01 1111X1 Out llld.L	M.1-*	. n
lue deference to the minister that t pe equivocal defence. He should sa any ms no knowledge that Mr. Bain * tpe sense connected with it. We ha t that lamphlet and we have the sta	nrnisbed
lie compilers used the materia	tha*
>v Mr. Bain and this pamphlet sno^ tbe lir. Bain has been providing

departments. Out of 30 pages less than one is devoted to this department.


William Paterson: What number is that ?


James Clancy: This is pointer No. 3.


William Paterson: Oh, number 3.


James Clancy: Is the hon. gentleman acquitting Mr. Bain of the others and not of No. 3.


William Paterson: I quoted from No. 1, I think.


James Clancy: Then the hon. gentleman does not deny that Mr. Bain prepared No. 3 ? The hon. gentleman by his refusal to answer made it perfectly clear that he had knowledge of the facts and he cannot blame any one if an impression goes to the country which he could prevent going to the country by a point blank denial that Mr. Bain is connected with this pamphlet. He says that Mr. Bain is connected with the tables. I defy the hon. gentleman to give one table in connection with his own department in political pointer No. 3 that has ever been used by him in a speech in this House. If the hon. gentleman cannot do that he stands in the position of admitting that Mr. Bain prepared this pamphlet and of defending Mr. Bain's conduct.


William Paterson: I do not intend to continue the discussion. If I am to blame, I have said all I shall say and will have to accept the hon. gentleman's blame. I merely wish to state that when Mr. Clancy said no increase had been granted to Mr. Bristol for five years I thought it was only one year. I have had the accountant look it up and find there were three years Mr. Bristol did not get the increase. I asked the reason and found that in one year none of the officers got it, and in two other years the officers who were receiving lower salaries than Mr. Bristol had received their shares. This the hon. gentleman is correct in reference to three years. I am glad to say however, that through changes that have taken place in the department, unfortunately some of them by death, Mr. Bristol, whom I before said I consider a good officer-can now be raised from $1,300 to $1,500 this year.


James Clancy: And in the meantime for these three years the hon. gentleman deprived him of those $500.


William Paterson: 
James Clancy: The trouble was that Mr. Bain was given a statutory increase at the
02i
very moment it was withheld from Mr. Bristol. I should like to know why when a statutory increase was given to Mr. Bain it was not also given to Mr. Bristol.


William Paterson: The hon. gentleman evidently has not the highest appreciation of my doing what is right and fair in my department. I shall have to remain under his censure ; it will be rather grievous to bear but I shall have to suffer under it.


James Clancy: It would be much more pleasant if the hon. gentleman would candidly admit he had done wrong. He has not given us as dignified an answer as one would expect. I think the couutry would expect a better defence than that. Two courses are open-and I am not going to lecture the hon. gentleman on political ethics or morality-but there are just two things which he could do, either give a defence that is worthy or to make a confession that is equally worthy. The hon. gentleman I am sorry to say, has done neither. He has given an equivocal answer. It is unfortunate that the hon. gentleman can be placed in the category neither of very honest men, politically speaking,-nor on the other hand of those who will brave out a matter that has no defence. The hon. gentleman has chosen a middle course and is I fear in a very awkward position. I hope this discussion, as far as it has gone, will bear some fruit. The hon. gentleman in his cooler moments will see that the doctrine he laid down here this evening is a wholesale doctrine of abuse and one that can be applied throughout his department, so that by merely calling a gentleman in the department a private secretary he can be engaged in wriing campaign literature or what would be no worse going out and canvassing for the hon. gentleman in his own riding. I would like the hon. gentleman (Mr. Paterson) to compare this with a case that came under my notice in which a collector of customs receiving $400 a year was found riding with a man putting up bills. A conspiracy was formed against him. He was given no trial, and no opportunity to deny the charge against him or to prove that he was not guilty. He was given no opportunity for that, blit wAs dragged to the block, the political axe was brought down and that gentleman was dismissed. I challenge the hon. gentleman to deny the statement I now make. . If he denies it, I will give him the case and I will undertake to say that the gentleman was dismissed for no better reason than that he was found driving in a rig with a man who was putting up bills. Yet the hon. gentleman sees no impropriety now in allowing one of his chief officers to engage in writing political literature for his party.


George Taylor: I hope the hon. minister has brought the information we asked for before six o'clock, and is ready to tell us

what he proposes to do with this extra
525,000	that he is asking1 for.


William Paterson: I explained that once or twice. I intend to use part of it in strengthening the force at some of the ports ; part to provide for the contingency of other ports that need to be opened before this money is all expended ; and part of it in augmenting the salaries of officers in those cases in which that increase seems warranted.


George Taylor: I submit that this is no answer to the question. When the minister made up these estimates he must have made it up on the basis of certain items-so much for opening this new port, and so much for salaries in the other, and so on. We should have this in detail so that when the record of expenditure is given we may see whether the minister's estimate is verified or not. The hon. gentleman takes great credit to himself for running this department economically. I find that, in 1904-5, he is asking, for the first item of salaries and contingent expenses, 51,159,865. In 1895, the same service was rendered for $886,631, so there is an increase of that item of $348,000. In the next item, salaries and travelling expenses of inspectors, he is asking for $139,200. In 1895, this service cost only $70,506-an increase of $68,694. So, altogether he is asking for $1,430,565, whereas in 1895 these services were carried on as efficiently as they are to-day for $921,530.. There has been an increase of $515,035. Where has all this money been expended ? And the hon. minister asks $25,000 more this year than last. Yet he refuses to give a single detail as to where he intends to spend even $100 of it. He gives only a general statement that he wants it to use at his discretion. I have never seen money voted in that way for any department. The practice is, when a minister asks for an increase, he tells us in detail what he intends to do with it. That is all we want, and we must have some detail of how he intends to spend this extra $25,000 on the first item and $10,000 on the second.
Mr. BfLAIN. Would the hon. minister give a statement of the number of ports and outports opened last year ?


William Paterson: Six new officers were employed in Ontario since 1st June 1903 Mr. Richardson, Chatham ; Mr. Deacon, Fort William ; Mr. George E. Buckley, Niagara Falls ; A. E. Guerard, Port Arthur ;
J.	B. Watson, Sarnia; Thos. Fournier, Sturgeon Falls.


Richard Blain: What was the number of outports ?


William Paterson: Four. There was one in Ontario, one in Quebec, one in Nova Scotia, and one in the Northwest Territories.


Richard Blain: At what towns ?


William Paterson: Sturgeon Falls, Ontario; Marieville, Quebec ; Oxford, Nova Scotia, and Saskatoon, Northwest Territory.


James Clancy: Has the hon. minister in mind at this moment any officers to whom he intends to give increases for the year for that which this money is voted ?


William Paterson: 
George Taylor: Jones, or any one else, bon. gentlemen opposite would not know the merits of these men. But it is possible they might have personal knowledge of cases that were not receiving proper remuneration and that were entitled to an increase. They would express their views, and I would be glad to avail myself of the information they might give me with reference to the duties performed within their own knowledge, and these cases would be taken into consideration, as I trust will be found to be the case with many of the officers whom they have brought to my attention. But hon. gentlemen must understand that it is impossible for me to mention every man whose salary we propose to increase. There may be some men whose salary we could not increase because they are stationed at ports where the amount of revenue is decreasing, as is the case in one or two of the western ports. Of course hon. gentlemen will not ask me to mention the names of those ports where, from changing conditions, the revenue is falling, it would not be in the public interest that I should do so, and hon. gentlemen would not wish the world to know that the revenue was diminishing at those ports.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman has mentioned the city of Montreal as one instance where the increased expenditure is necessary. If my memory serves rue right, I think Montreal showed a diminished revenue during the last month as compared with the previous year.


William Paterson: That is only for one month.


James Clancy: However, I am not urging that. No doubt the hon. gentleman has some information as to the necessity of the increased expenditure in Montreal.


William Paterson: The expenditure there Would be between $3,000 'and $4,000.


James Clancy: Then in the city of Toronto the hon. gentleman contemplates the Possibility of some change that might reQuire one or two men extra. No doubt lie lias also information with regard to the dumber of new outports that will be opened during the present year. Surely lie could say about how much he intends to devote to cases of that kind without giving the hames of every officer he intends to appoint. He is asking us for $25,000 to apply in salaries, and he has only told us of me * Where he expects to apply $3,000 or $4,000. The balance he has left a complete blank.


Mr. PATER  SDN@: The department have dot vet arrived at a determination. I have Pointed out that by the time this money '"'ill be available we will be in a position to know what the business of the current year has been. The department desire to get along with ns few new ports as possible. Wo have a great many new ports in Canada.
we are trying to give all the facilities we can to trade and commerce. People are often asking us for the establishment of a new port, pointing out that at present they have to go too far to make their entries. Many such cases are made out that we cannot hope to fulfil at present. The hon. gentleman has broug-ht to my attention the necessity for an outport in his own riding. If we do not see our way to meeting his views at present that is not saying that it may not be necessary, or that it may not be done in the future. But there are many other ports situated just as disadvantageous^.


James Clancy: Can the hon. gentleman hold out any hope now that justice will he done to the locality I mentioned, the town of Dresden ? It is a very" deserving town. Can he told out any hope that any portion of this large sum will be devoted to the purpose of an outport there ?


William Paterson: It is on the list and will be considered with others but I cannot promise further. I know it will be considered on its merits.


James Clancy: I want to remind the hon. gentleman that it has been on the list for a long time. .
' Mr. PATERSON. There are a lot more.


James Clancy: Although it is on the list there is no attention paid to it. The hon. gentleman asked $10,000 last year for this same purpose. He is asking an increase of $15,000 this year over last. I am not going to quarrel with the hon. gentleman as to where he spent the money. I am not prepared even to say that the hon. gentleman has wasted any money in opening any new ports, because I think the public ought to be served, but the hon. gentleman will not conclude that because that is the case the committee has no right to know where the money is going. The hon. minister, with the money that was voted in bulk last year has made a distribution of it which some lion, members of this House don't believe to he fair. I will take the case of the subcollector at Walpole Island. His home is at Port Lambton. He resides there during the winter months and during the summer months he resides on the island. The subcollector at Port Lambton gets $400. The collector at Walpole Island gets $50 more than the collector at Port Lambton. I desire to ask the hon. minister what the revenue from Walpole Island amounted to during the past year and why an extra $50 has been given in that case. I refer to this because the increase has been taken out of a fund somewhat similar to that which the hon. gentleman is asking for now.


William Paterson: The officer at Port Lambton, I am told, gets $450 and theie is $50 allowed for house rent while the officer at Walpole Island gets $500 and no house

rent. The revenue at Walpole Island is only $121. The salary is more than the revenue received but as the hon. gentleman knows it is a preventive service that is maintained there. There is an Indian settlement and parties were in the habit of smuggling liquor which was demoralizing to the people using it. It was reported to us that it was desirable in the interests of the Indian population that an officer should be stationed there so that naturally we could more effectively counteract the illicit trade that was going on.


James Clancy: The officer does not reside there during the winter months. I was unaware that the officer at Port Lambton received $450. That must have been paid during the present year, 1903-4.


William Paterson: Yes, the accountant says that he was given an increase, perhaps on representations made by the hon. gentleman, of $50 on the 1st of January, 1903.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman is quite mistaken. I am afraid that any interference on my part will not be very much welcomed. It was not on my recommendation at all.


William Paterson: Well, I do not know. I do not affirm that.


James Clancy: These gentlemen live in their own houses. Has there been an increase at Sombra, which is another out port ?	[DOT]


William Paterson: Yes, the sub-collector there was amongst the increases granted last! year. He gets $50 more.


James Clancy: Now, we have pretty good evidence of how the hon. gentleman will make use of this $25,000. Here are three cases where there is no additional work, and where I doubt if there is any increase of revenue ; yet, the hon. gentleman gets us to vote him a bulk sum which he hands out in this manner. I am not going to offer any criticism as to whether these officers are too well paid or not. I have nothing to say in regard to that, but I do say that the hon. gentleman should give the members of this House who reside in the localities where these increases are granted an opportunity of expressing an opinion as to whether they are meritorious or not. I do not know anything that will more fairly illustrate the position that the hon. gentleman is taking now than the three cases that I have mentioned. Does the hon. gentleman say that there has been any increase in the duties performed by these officers because that is the only explanation he can offer for having increased their salaries ?


William Paterson: Yes, there has been an increase but it has been slight. A salary of $400 is a very small salary for a collector of customs. The receipts are not large but Mr. PATERSON.
still all these ports are important where there has to be prevention of the illicit introduction of goods into the country. We have ports where the revenue is not very large in which we have to maintain officers although the receipts would not seem to justify their maintenance. Rut if they devote their whole time to the duties of the office four or five hundred dollars is not a very large sum. If that gentleman wants to know what was done, instead of giving in advance what we anticipate doing, I can give him a statement of what we did yvitn the money last year so that he will be in a position to judge whether or not it properly expended, and so that he may b able to censure those who are responsible i he thinks that any mistake on the part 0 the department has been made. I have th list which is long and I am a little tired but I have no objection to going through it ana giving the hon. gentleman the information as to how this money was expended laS year. Next year after this money is vote if the hon. gentleman asks for an explan tion I can give him the information althoug he may say that it is locking the door alt the money is stolen. But, I cannot give hi all the information now. I think it is u reasonable for him to ask it. I have gif him all the information that I could fair be expected to furnish at the present Considering the growing trade of the co try and the importance of the work that t ^ Department of Customs is performing' , think that the head of the department <* the officers of the department can be trus to exercise their judgment in regard to expenditure of an increase of $25,000.


James Clancy: often, considering the increased cost of living and other things, officers serving at these small ports where the collection is light, but where they may render preventive service, are deserving to have their salaries increased.


William Paterson: I cannot give the hon. gentleman the decision that will be arrived at, but I can say that while it is difficult to increase salaries in case of a falling or insufficient revenue, we do recognize the fact that preventive work is necessary, and in such cases we would not hesitate to increase the salaries of these officers, if we considered them deserving.


James Clancy: Why, when the minister gives an increase to an officer, does he call it house rent ? If an officer, is entitled to it, give him an increase of salary on his merits, and do not delude the public by calling it house rent.


William Paterson: If I said a house rent, I made a mistake ; I should have said office rent.


James Clancy: There is no excuse necessary for giving a man a decent salary, and whether you call it Bouse rent or office rent, is just as deceptive. You should increase his salary and give him the increase under its proper name if the case is meritorious. I am inclined to give the Minister of Customs a good deal of credit, but I do not think it is fair to the committee for him to treat it in this way.


William Paterson: I do not desire to treat the committee with any discoutesy, and I have tried in good faith to give all the information I possibly could. I would point out, that it is getting late, and that we have not passed an item. I do not say that in any fault finding spirit, nor do I wish to curtail any remarks which hon. gentlemen have to make. The hon. gentleman from Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) has impressed me with the fact that he has not the fullest confidence in me as Minister of Customs ; and that I do not carry on that department as he thinks it should be carried on. I regret that I have to suffer under that condemnation, but he having expressed that view, and in consideration of the depressing influence it will have on me, and the beneficial influence Which I trust may flow from it; I do hope that we may be allowed to pass an item oi two.


James Clancy: I have more confidence in the Minister of Customs than he seems to think. My confidence in him has been somewhat shaken by what has occurred within the last week, but if be promises^ repent, and if he acts belter than he has spoken, the confidence I formerly had in him may be restored. My confidence in him has been shaken but I have not abandoned hope. I want to say to the hon. Minister of
Customs, and I state it here publicly, that I think the hon. gentleman has administered his department fairly well. The little incident which has occurred here, I regard as a mistake on his part, but nevertheless I think mv confidence in him may be revived. It is however not fair for him to say when I ask for information, that I ask it as a want of confidence. It is a want of knowledge and information as to which the House is entitled Should the legislation which the hon gentleman has passed fail to have its effect and should I be permitted to come back to this House again, I hope we shall have the minister in a better mood, and able to give us some of the details which he is not able to give us at this moment.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I want to refer to the hon gentleman's method of doling out information to the House. He practically admits that he is unable to give us any information beyond the fact that there is a great increase in the work, and that there must necessarily be a great increase in the number of hands in some of the cities like Montreal, Toronto and Winnipeg. That is about all he has given us to account for the increase of $25,000. He thinks wa ought to be willing to grant this money if he tells us what he did with the money voted last year. We are not dealing with the'money voted last year. He is making a request -for money for the coming year, and it seems to us that he ought to be able to tell us what he proposes to do with it. If he is keeping pace with the development of population and the increase of exports and imports, he ought to be able to give us some idea of the number of new offices he intends to open, the number of additional collectors he requires, and the number of employees who are likely to receive increases in their salary. We do not want the names, but we think he should give us this information approximately to justify the House in voting the money. Suppose the Minister of Public Works came to the House for an increased vote of money, and said : The country is increasing rapidly in population, and it will naturally require more public works. Would the House be satisfied with that ? Would they not ask him where he proposes to spend the money, and what new works he proposes to under- -take in the coming year ? Take the Post Office Department. Suppose the Postmaster General said : We have to open out new post offices, we require to extend our mail service in various directions, and I ask for a bulk sum for these purposes. Would the House be satisfied ? I think not. We would require more detailed information. So with the Militia Department. The minister tells us that so much more is required for the staff, so much for the pay of the men, so much for clothing, and so on, giving us the various items to show the needs of the department for the coming

year. If he did not do that, I am afraid the House would be very reluctant to give him the money he asked. Take the Department of Railways and Canals. Suppose the minister of that department used the same reasoning as the hon. Minister of Customs, saying : We spent the money wisely last year, and I think you should trust me for the next year with so much more money. These are parallel cases, and I mention them only to show the absurdity of the position the Minister of Customs takes in asking us to vote this lump sum without giving us detailed information. He asks us to take him on trust. That is not businesslike, and it leads to the impression that he, has not a very intelligent knowledge of his own department. We do not want to be unreasonable with the hon. gentleman ; but the very way he started created a bad impression on our minds. The very fact that some of the money voted last year was used in getting campaign pamphlets written made us feel that, although he desires to do what is right, he is_ not handling his department in a businesslike way. Nor is he giving the people's representatives the detailed information which they are entitled to have before they grant him $25,000 more for the service next year than he had last year.


Richard Blain: How much was expended last year for postage ?


William Paterson: The accountant tells me we have it for each port, but not the totals. Does the hon. .gentleman want it totalled up.


Richard Blain: The total amount yes. My reason is that last year the hon. gentleman asked an increased item of $0,000 for postage.


William Paterson: That was accounted" for. There was a change in the postal arrangement by which the amount of postage or the great number of manifests and documents that we have sent out was enhanced, but we have now gone back to the rule that previously prevailed.


Richard Blain: The hon. minister seems to be unable to give the items on which he pro-j poses to spend the money next year. Was the $6,000 additional voted for postage last year used for that purpose, and if not what portion of it was expended ?


William Paterson: I cannot give the information! in detail. It has been spent in the general expenditure, but I cannot give the exact amount spent in postage alone.


Richard Blain: Could not the minister give some little explanation? He said last year:-
There is also an increase in postage of some $8,000, owing to increased business.
It seems to me to be rather a reasonable request to ask the minister if the $6,000 was expended for postage last year and if not, I what became of the balance of the money ? ' : Mr. SPROULE.
1	Ml? PATERSON. That estimate was
2	based on our expenditure for six months, - and whether it worked out just exactly to s the amount we asked, I am unable to say.
i	,
' Mr. BLAIN. If the hon. minister cannot f give us this information, it is rather difficult , for the committee to tell what becomes of the money which we vote.
1 Mr. PATERSON. The postage was in-| eluded in the general vote for contingent ' expenses ; it was not confined to postage 1 but in making up the estimates, it was esti-! mated that $6,000 was required for postage-If it was not all used for that, the balance of the $6,000 may have been expended in other ' contingencies.


Richard Blain: Was any of the $6,000 spent in postage ?
, Mr. PATERSON. The accountant states that $3,000 was expended in six months, whether the whole $6,000 was expended in the 12 months he is not able to say.


Richard Blain: How long was the changed postal regulation in operation ?


William Paterson: I think about six months.


Richard Blain: The minister then states that in the six months $3,000 was expended. in he tell us what the other $3,000 was expended for ?


William Paterson: It would be in general contingencies.


Richard Blain: Is that the policy of the hon-gentleman ?


William Paterson: That is the way it was always done.
* Mr. BLAIN. The hon. gentleman stated last year that he was asking the commute for $6,000 for increased expenditure for pos ' age. Then he says that only $3,000 was expended for postage and the rest was oi* tributed around in other departments.


William Paterson: The $3,000 was expended in six months.


Richard Blain: He says the postage regulation was only in operation six mom and the balance was expended in S01U other way ? In what other way ?


William Paterson: 
Andrew B. Ingram: Are we to understand that the balance of this unexpended money be expended for anything else ?


William Paterson: It was a vote for Sen' eral contingencies.


Richard Blain: It was a specific amount-Mr. PATERSON. No, no.	_


Richard Blain: I have quoted his words, it was a specific amount for increased 1

age, and now the minister says that only $3,000 was expended in postage and the balance in some other way.


William Paterson: I did not say that.


Richard Blain: I misunderstood the hon. gentleman. Does he say the $3,000 was expended or not expended ?


William Paterson: $3,000 was expended under this appropriation on postage during six months.


George Taylor: But the other six months have not expired yet.	,
. Mr. PATERSON. No, the other six months have not expired yet. This was a general contingencies item, and the statement to which my hon. friend (Mr. Blain) has referred would be given in the course of _ a rough statement of how the contingencies estimate was made up. And it was estimated that $0,000 would be required for postage. It is voted as one item for contingencies, which is perfectly right. We could not expect to estimate to a cent the postage account for the whole Dominion government. The actual expenditure for six months was $3,000, and you naturally assume, unless conditions change, unless there is a larger business or some thing of that kind, tin the yearly postage for a year will cost $0,000.


Mr TAYLOR.: The trouble is that wo have not the details of money expended. The details that we have are for money spent up to 1st July, 1903. Last yeaL the ben. minister asked us to vote $l,159,8bo. That was an increase over the preceding year. He was asked what he was going tc 'do with the money and he instanced this iicm of $0,000 postage. But now we ask what is he going to do with $25,000 more than last year that he asks for. He tells us that he wants something for Montreal. Something for Toronto, and something for Winnipeg, and something for new ports that he may open, and tells us that w i must trust him for all (his. We have no. the details of the latest expenditures, but we have the plain fact staring us in the face that, since he became Minister of Customs, the expenditure has increased by about half a million. Of course the hon. gentleman has collected more money. But, in many ports that I could name the same cflkers as before, and paid no higher salaries, have collected much larger sums than before. But, simply because he gets more money the hon. gentleman says he is justi-fled in asking an increase. He does not give the explanations that the committee are entitled to. Before he arrived at these estimates, he must have had some details of what he intended to do with this $25,000, anu he should give us details as the Minister of Public Works or any other min-later is accustomed to do.


Mr CLANCY.: I understood the Minister of Customs to state that he had under his band a list showing the increases in salaries last year. The list is a long one, I believe, and the hon. gentleman did not care to read it unless the committee insisted upon it. Perhaps the hon. gentleman (Mr. Paterson) would have no objection to handing it to the ' Hansard ' reporter, and we could agree to take it as read. That course would save the hon. gentleman trouble and we should all be able to. have a copy.


Mr PATERSON.: The bon. gentleman will see there have not been very extravagant advances In many cases. I think some 400 officers bad their salaries augmented. If they were augmented by only $50 each, that would make a considerable total. In the port of Toronto, I think all the men were brought up to a minimum of $oo0, ana those who had been receiving $550 were put up to $000.


Richard Blain: All?


Mr PATERSON.: 
James Clancy: I mentioned this because the hon. gentleman said that he had a statement of the changes that had been made. Hon. gentlemen on tffis side, 1 an sure, are not disposed to Insist on Hie mi it,ter reading that statement. I would sug t est that in order that we may all have The information, we should consider the statement read and the hon. gentleman should hand it to ' Hansard.' Perhaps the 1 c i gen email will assent to that, especially as lie said he was prepared to read j- if the committee insisted upon it.


Mr PATERSON.: It will he the proper way, 'i suppose, If hon. gentlemen want the Information, for me to read


James Clancy: Will the hon. gentleman pardon me ? I have not insisted that he should read it, but have been disposed to spare him the trouble, especially as I understood him to say that he was somewhat fatigued. If there is anything of a private or confidential nature in the statement he has under his hand, let him have a statement of the changes prepared, which can be given another time. I simply took the hon. gentleman at his word about his willingness to give the information; and ''f he does not object, we do not object, to consider it read.	.


William Paterson: There is a large number of names, and it is not quite regular to put in ' Hansard ' anything of this kind that has not been read. Perhaps I could, w itk the consent of the committee, lay it on the table


Andrew B. Ingram: If the consent of the House is obtained, this document can be put in * Hansard ' without reading. There ia only one copy laid on the Table, but if it is published in the ' Hansard ' we can all have a copy.


William Paterson: I have no objections to putting it into the ' Hansard ' if the Chairman is willing. With the permission of the committee I will hand it to the reporter to be taken as read.
Place.
Ontario.
Amherstburg.
Belleville... .
Berlin	
Bridgeburg...
Brantford
Chatham....
Collingwood Deseronto. . Galt	
Name.
ID.	R. Luekbam. jWm. C. Coulson
. [ Jas. A. Daly..
. [John Dunn...
. IF. T. Pattison F. T. Pattison jl'.L.Newbigging iThos. Foster.
IE.	L. Heath. Jno. Ryan ..
*T. A. Eddy..
J. A. Eddy.. Wm. Grant..
A. li. Pilkey.
W. E. Hall. Henry Foreman A. 8. Valleau Thos. Peck ..
S. P. Shoutz..
Goderich	Jno. Wiseman
F. G. Neelin
H. Davis....


Geo.   E.@: Smith


Hamilton .... H.: Gayfer ..
Wm. Peebles I). R. Gibson Wm. T. Scott A. Ferguson. Alex. O'Dell.


William Paterson: Increased
From	To
1	$
550	600
450	500
500	550
700	750
650	700
700	" 1,000
700	750
1,500	1,600
800	850
700	750
600	650
650	700
700	750
700	800
300	500
500	GOO
800	850
1,000	1,100
350	400
600	700
500	550
600	700
400	(HX)
1,200	1,300
700	750
700	750
500	550
450	500
550	600
Parry Sound


Pieton ....: Prescott....
St. Catharines St. Thomas.
Sarma	
Sault Ste. Marie.


Simcoe ..: Stratford
Toronto.
P. .J. Malone__
J. W. Fitzgerald W. Cleminson .. R. M. Keeler... J no. F. Hill .... D. Ferguson.. .
J. B. Ogilvie__
A. A. Almas....
*J. M. Lott....


Neil Currie.   .. . M.@: Laughton....
Nat. Porter....
R. Hutchinson.. R. Hutchinson.. H. E. Wilson...
[Oct. Giroux....
John MacKay.. James Greer.... Joint Thompson. W. P. Woods... H. H. Ardah.... James Beale .... W. E. Meredith. W-K.S. Tinning. Fred Colwell.... D. Fraser. ..
W. H. Dickson.. Geo. E. Byron..
Philip Smith___


Hy. Byers ...: J. H. Ellard....
M. E. Cook


Mr.  R. L.@: Gray ..
John Head	
J. C. Allen....
! James Ryan....
850
600
1,200
600
400
800
800
550
800
700
650
750
600
600
550
550
800
1,200
Place.		Increased	
		From	To
Ontario.-Con.	$	$Hamilton	Thos. McCallum	650	700Andrew Martin.	540	550Ed. Murphy....	500	550Andrew Martin.	550	600London 	Geo. Burns	2,250	2,400I). Wiley	600	700P. C. Lewis	600	650Geo. Tyler, asst, appraiser	600	700Midland	H. H. Ross....	500	600W. J. Parkhill..	800	900Niagara, Falls ...	C. J. Mckenzie..	750	900J. J. Bampfield.	700	900J. J. Flynn	600	700Oshawa	
.	G. F. Blarney ..	800	900Ottawa	Robt. A. Clarke, surveyor 	1,000	1,200A. H. Tavlor ...	1,300	1,400S. H. Waggoner	900	950A. M. Routhier.	800	850F. Lapointe ...	700	750F. Kehoe	(iOO	700H. J. Gould ..	600	700 .F. Donald	500	600Wm. McKenzie.	400	500P. E. Ryan	800	850T. Hood	800	850W. C. Pollock..	500	600A. C. Whittier..	1.75 p.d.	600lieo. Tormey ...	700	750Owen Scmnd	Tas. Caton	000	800
yoo
800
1.300 550 800 500 500 SOO yoo 800
1,000 800 600 850 850 800 750 900 700 750 800 750 650 85 0 650 550 600 700 600 650
1,000
1.300

Place.
Ontario-Con. Toronto-Con..
Wallaceburg . Windsor_____
Quebec.


Abercorn ....: Coaticook.. . Manuonville. Montreal.
Name.
Increased
From To
Thos. Mitchell, asst, appraiser Hugh McCaw... R. A. Lynch, Orillia	 John McKenzie
Orillia	
J. L a n g a n, Georgetown..
J. Gilchrist, Orangeville. .. J. J. Manning,
Brampton

And. Yule, Aurora, Newmarket [DOT]James Sinclair..
C.	E. Leatch....
R.	M. Persse. ..
J.	Jackman	
T. J. Davis....
D.	A. McCuaig.
K.	H. Boss	
O.	S. Clewlo .. Jas. R. Heakes.
J. V. Horne____
Jno. Slean	
And. Scott	
H. McWhirter.. Robt. Wright...
Win. Reid	
J. S. Gillespie.. Thos. Williams. W. J. Dunlop..
S.	A. Rut1 and..
R. Custaloe....
E.	L. Davley...
Geo. Forrest

J. B. Brooks .. [DOT] Jno. Kidd	
P.	J. Slattery. . David Brown.. G. A. Cressman. M. F. Megan...
T.	R. Glover....
J. M. Anderson. Wm. Hennegan. A. Mickle	
A. A. Meyers... L. N. Castanier. Jas. Crompton '
Jno. Dunn	
A.	Putney	
W. Lynch	
J. Z. Corbeil,
asst, appr...
M. Charland.... E. H. Mercier..
E.	I. Wilkes....
B.	Heroux	
A. E. Giroux- .J. M. Bessette..
Jno. Davis	
Nap. Prevost...
F.	L. Chevrier..



[Stage Direction]
650 900 GOO 600 600 450 600 950 600 600 900 550 [DOT] 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 550 600 550 550 550 550 650 650 700 700 500 450 450 700 900
300
1,300
1,000
1,000
950
900
1,050
900
Place.
Quebec-Con. Montreal-Con..
Name.
Increased
Jno. McCluskey P. McGovern.
H. McCamley T. F. Slattery B. T. Holdbroo J. A. Chicoine.
A. Bourret
[Stage Direction]
T. Butler	
S. B. Lytle....
R.	Fontaine ...
J. S. Loyer. ..
E. Bernard____
Ed. O'Shea - Jno. Drysdale M. Neher. ..
J. A. A. Larin
D.	Manson
Jas.   C@: J. A. Robert.. Jno. Murray..
M.	MeGurn ..
P. Martin . -
S.	St. Jean___
T.	J. Dawson. Jno. Hough ..
P. J. O'Neil..
J. C. O'Briere J. S. Sorley...
L. Basinett
Joliet t.e.
Geo. Smith...
J. E. Lamere.
T. M. Jones.
A. L. Barlow.
L. D. Perham W. J. McKenna R. Fontaine ..
N.	P. Martin. H. N. Isaacson J. II. Corbeil. W. S. Boyd...
T. McCracken
L.	Girard.,. .
J. B. Birlcs.
P. J. Harrigan
E.	Perry	
D.	J. Lemieux
W. Roach

M.	Scanlan. ..
F.	Carbon nea R. B. Webstei
E.	Coote , .
A. Laurier, jr
F.	L. Chevrier
O.	C. Anthony L. A. Beaulac Joseph Bouret A. Dansreau
A. Demers... T. Fitzgerald J. Hamilton. R.aurin .. .
*T. Lanthier.
T. Major..
From	To
$	$
750	800
750	800
500	550
550	600
600	700
600	650
700	750
600	650
550	600
500	550'
600	650
550	600
800	900
550	600
600	650
500	550
550	600
500	550
550	600
550	600
500	550
600	650
600	650
1,300	1,400
600	650
650	700
600	650
950	1,000
700	800
1,000	1,200
950	1,000
750	850
700	800
900	1,000
1,100	1,200
550	600
700	800
950	1,000
400	500
550	600
500	600
500	550
500	550
550	600
500	550
1.000	1,200
550	600
500	550
500	550
500	550
600	700
650	700
900	1,000
l.SOp.d	500
do	500
do	500
17.50 pei	
month	20 p.m.
1.50 p.d	500
25 p.m.	30 p.m.
1.50 p.d	500
12.50,pe	
month	In p.m.
15 p.m.	17.50 per
1.50 p.d	1.75 p.d
1 do	500-

Place.
Quebec - Con. Montreal-Con..
Quebec___
vV. H. Mearil..
O.	Meunier. ...
C.	Pegnetn ....
E.	F Redmond
K.	Sauve	
J. H. Therrien.
L.	Ste. Marie..
G.	H. Gauthier. A. Bedard ...
T. Blanchard.... L. Blanchette .
J. Carlin	
T. Cartier	
J. P. Chambers.
T. Corcoran


GOO 00 500 00
[Stage Direction]
8 cts. do
1,300 1.50 p.d
do
20 p.m.
1.50	p.d do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do
600 75
1.50	p.d.
1.50	p.d. 500 00
1.50	p.d, 550 00
1,150 00 600 00 1,200 00 800 00 300 00 600 00 COO 00
1.50	p.d.
1.50	p.d 360 00 330 00 600 00 500 00
1.50	p.d. 400 00 500 00 COO 00
1.50	p.d. 550 00
1.50	p.d.
1.50	p.d.
1.50	p.d.
1.50	p.d.
1.50	p.d. 800 00 850 00 700 00
To
$ cts.
500 1,400 500 500 22.50 per month. 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 650 75 500 00 500 00 550 00 500 00 600 00 1,200 00 700 00 1,600 00 1,000 00 400 00 800 00 750 00 500 00 550 00 450 00 400 00 650 00 550 00 550 00 500 00 600 00 650 00 500 00 600 00 500 00 500 00 500 00 500 03 500 00 850 00 950 00 750 00
700 00 700 00
Place.
Quebec.
Quebec-Con .
Name.
Rimouski	
St. Hyacinthe.
St. Johns....
Sherbrooke ...: Stanstead.. . Three Rivers Campbelton.. Dalhousie.... Moncton . ..
St. John.,
St. Stephen....
Woodstock .
Nova Scotia. Amherst	
Arichat. Halifax.
W. E. Edge ....
P. E. Guay	
A. S. Sinclair...
W. G. Wilson..
L. Dionne	
G.	B. A. St. A-
mand	
Jos. Gauvreau.. A. Lancelot ....
L.	E. Regnier...
M.	T. Stenson..
O.	L. Deseve. ..
H.	A. O'Dell.... J a s. Pender,
Windsor Mills
C.	H. McClintock Isaie Dufresne.. A. McKenzie... Thos. Hayes... T. J. Coffey .... A. M. Leger.... Chas. T. Tilley.. Jas. H. Hamilton Robt. Me Adoo..
Jno. Lowry	
Henry Turner... Thos. Finlay...
J. W. Manson.. David Dearness. [DOT]T. E. Whittaker. Jno. Jenkins ... Win. Morrissey. Robt. Clerke	
P.	O'Brien ..
E. W. Morrissey. J. P. Bixbv....
T. R. MeGeky,
o. c	:.
T. A. Carpenter.
D.	H. Armstrong,
F. 3. Heffernan Rupert Lesley. Wm Brymer....
O. Pryor	
S. Crawford ....
J.	C. Davis....
W. F. Mevnell
O.	F. Hubley... M. E. Keating..
P.	J. Power....
P. A. Cook....
T. B. Naylor... . P. W. Heffernan
K.	J. Hiseler. . Robt Carlton... Alfred Briand.. E. J. Hiseler... E. J. Hiseler. .. D. J. Curren. .. [DOT]I. H. Binkley... Thos Lynch .... J. A. Massey... C. H. McNellan
Increased.
From
950 00 700 00 25 00 p. m. 15 00 p. m. 50 00
540 00 400 00 400 00 400 1,600 800 1,000
1,100
500
550
700
1,000
650
900

1,200
500
500
600
400
500 400 150 900 750 650 500 600 600 500 500 500 500 550 550 500 600 650 ,50 p.d-
To
1,000 00 750 00 35 00 p. in. 25, 00 p. m. 100 75


COO 00 500 00 500 00 500 1,700 900 1,100 1,200 800 600 750 1,100 700 1,000 1,000 1,300 550 550 650 500 600 200 1,000 700 650 550 550 600 550 750 500
[Stage Direction]
650﻿1977

		Increased	
Place.	Name.		
		From	To
Nova Scotia- Con.	8	$Halifax-Con. ..	N. A. Conrad...	800	90CN. Matheson. .	500	550F. J. Logan....	60	100D. .T. Curran...	1.50 p.d.	5000. G. Brander..	II	500C. J. Malcakey.	"	500S. Ritcey. ... L. P. Schaffner.	100	200Middleton	500	550
Hon. CLIFFORD SIFTON  .@Minister the Interior: 
Charlottetown ..: W. B. Robertson	1,500	1,600Jas. F. Curtis...	600	650E. de B. Peake..	600	650J. McCormick, Cardigan	150	300Summerside	H. M. Baker....	$1 p.day	400N. W. Territories.	Alex. Alien	1,500	1,600E. J. R. Walton, Medicine Hat.	400	600E. J. R. Walton	600	700F. J. Boswell...	360	600Lethbridge 	John Kenny	1,100	1,200Win. Gardiner, Macleod 	500	700Regina	S. B. Jameson..	700	1,000A. C. Paterson, North Portal .	800	850William Young, North Portal .	700	750Jno. Crawford..	450	600Jno. Crawford..	300	450'Yukon Territory.	Dawson	E. S. Busby	2,000	3,000W hitehorse	L.E. Simmons..	600	1,200Board of Customs	R. VV. Breadner	1,600	1,800Wyatt I. Wood.	1,600	1,800Jesse Stunden..	700	900E. C. Dalton	600	700Chas. G. Ross ..	1,100	1,200O. H. Cogswell..	800	850.J. F. Slater	650	900J. D. Parrnelee..	1,200	1,300Thos. Westwick.	750	800W.H. Robertson	850	950Wm.T.Hrquhart	1,200	1,400K. C. Allan	900	1,100Jean M. Cram..	400	450J. C. Boughner..	1,200	1,500E. R. Douglas..	700	800E. R. Douglas..	800	850C. Schofield	650	700Board of Customs	Prev. Ser	D. J. O'Grady..	750	850J. C. Bourinot..	700	900Board of Customs	Statistics	James Johnston.	300	750J. F. Berton	800	850J.A.P.Daveling.	800	850R. H. Evans	800	900W. H. Robertson	750	850H. M. Goodspeed	950	1,000R. M. Heintz...	1,100	1,150G. G. Jones ....	800	850J. I'. Launigan.	750	800Jos. Messier....	800	850Duncan McNeil.	850	900R, S. McPherson	800	850H.W. Patterson.	800	850E. Payne	800	850J. F. Richards..	1,000	1,050Alex. Ross	800	850W. 1). Selby....	850	900F. M. Shannon.	750	800Wm. G. Teaffe..	800	850
Name.	Increased	
1 laiCci [DOT]	From	'ToiBoard of Customs	8	$Statistics	H. L. Wood....	800	850R. C. Smith...	750	800J. J. McGill ...	700	750Chas. P. Roche..	900	950E. Finnigan ...	800	850W. J. McCaffrey	1,100	1,150C. C. McNeil...	800	850E. Westover	750	800W.G. Livingston F. A. Campbell.	750	800750	800W. H. Carleton.	800	850J. G. Connolly..	950	1,000Robt. McConnel	950	1,000J. M. Leaker...	800	900R. Raymond....	800	850Jas. A. Johnston.	750	850A. L. Anderson.	800	850P. Duggan ....	800	850G. B. Fothering-liam	800	850J. Hanlon	800	850P. Macdonald ..	800	850J. McVey .. r .	800	850H. H. Pigeon...	800	850F. S. Ward. ...	800	850Jonathan White	850	900H. J. Smith....	850	900H. J. Cooper....	750	800C. E. Slides ....	800	850C. P. Flynn ., .	800	850W. S. Wood	750	800A. M. McMillan	750	800B. R. Douglas (transferred from Mine Centre to Statistical Branch on Aug. 1, '03)	700	800A. V. Wade (Per. Oct.)	800	850
Salaries and travelling expenses of inspectors of ports and of other officers on inspection and preventive service, including salaries and expenditure in connection with the Board of Customs and for the compiling of statistical returns of imports and exports, $139,200.


William Paterson: There is an increase of 510,000 here. There are fifty-three officers in the statistical department, the most of whom I presume will receive the advance of 550 they are entitled to. Then we want to make provision for strengthening the inspectors' force, that is, we want more men engaged in ascertaining values in neighbouring countries than we have now, and we want provision for their travelling expenses. Our intention is to have men in the leading centres of business in the United States to keep us thoroughly posted as to home values. We had Mr. Atkinson for some time, we have lately engaged Mr. Milne, one of the appraisers at Toronto.


William Paterson: 


Richard Blain: What are the duties of inspector ?


William Paterson: These gentlemen I am speaking of now will visit the various centres of trade in the United States and thoroughly post themselves on the home values of goods shipped into Canada, so that we may be able to collect duties on the home values as the law requires in respect to all goods exported to this country. We require them to state on the invoice now the home price, and the duties collected on that are stated on the invoice. But we want to have our own officers in a position to know in all cases that the law is carried out.


Andrew B. Ingram: Will the hon. gentleman so give us some explanation about the Board of Customs and their duties ?


William Paterson: The board as constituted under the law consists of a commissioner, an assistant commissioner and three Dominion appraisers. At the present time there are four Dominion appraisers. Then duties are laid down in the Act. They mee at intervals to decide questions that arts-as to the interpretation of tariffs and as t what rates of duty certain articles shorn come in.


Andrew B. Ingram: Do they perform all these duties at Ottawa ?


William Paterson: They meet here only-They only deal with rates.


Andrew B. Ingram: 
William Paterson: No, the appraiser deajs with that at the port of entry and then have our Icheck department here. T Breadner is at the head of the check dep meut and it is between the appraiser at port and the check department here.


Andrew B. Ingram: [DOT] So that the importer bas nothing to do with the board under the eumstances which the hon. gentleman 1 stated ?	^


William Paterson: The commissioner
course is the deputy head of the dep ment and he is also commissioner o ,g board. By virtue of being deputy head ncessarily over the check department.


Andrew B. Ingram: I do not mean in that at all because he would not be acti b chairman of the board in doing that.


William Paterson: No, he would be acting as deputy head.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many inspect^ have you now and how many will y quire for next year ?


William Paterson: We have twelve inspectors in the Dominion and one assistant inspector.	*


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many additional do you want for next year ?


William Paterson: This is to strengthen the staff in the United States which is composed of officers who are not called inspectors but investigating officers.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then you do not require any more inspectors ?


William Paterson: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many additional do you require for the staff that you employ to ascertain values ?


William Paterson: We have now got down to one and we have taken one of the appraisers who was at Toronto formerly. I think that probably he will be continued in the work. I would like to have two or three more.


George Taylor: What is the salary ?


William Paterson: Well, we have to pay them pretty liberal salaries. We want capable men for this work. AVe want men wlio know how to approach the manufacturer courteously and one who will understand the business with which he is dealing.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What salary are you paying at the present time ?


William Paterson: Mr. Miller as appraiser was getting $1,800. He was not appointed to this position. The expenses run about $2,000 beyond the salary.


George Taylor: Who are the inspectors now ?


William Paterson: Mr. Atkinson and Mr. Miller.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You want some of this money for completing- statistical returns ! Is the work to be done in a branch that you are going to add to the department or in a branch that is already in existence ?


William Paterson: This is just to increase the salaries. There are no new men.


George Taylor: I see that Mr. Atkinson gets $1,100 salary..


William Paterson: Yes.


Andrew B. Ingram: On Friday night last we were discussing an item of $57,167 on page 10, and I find that a portion of this item that we are now considering is also to he devoted to the collection of statistics. lhe lion, gentleman explained that the item o $57,000 was to provide for additional clerks whose duties were to be the collection of statistics in order that the monthly returns should be brought down promptly.


William Paterson: This is to provide for [DOT]three men who were employed in the statistical work and who have been brought into the inside service, as I explained then, but their salaries were voted in the outside service and they were paid out of that vote. They will, after the 1st of July, be paid out of the inside vote. Their places have been filled by three others at not quite the same salaries that these gentlemen were getting. There is an extra expense but it is clearly shown in the estimate here.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many statistical officers have you in your employ ?


William Paterson: Fifty-three.


Mr SPROULE.: I thought the statistics were managed in the Department of Trade and Commerce.
Mr. PATERSON'. I am not acquainted with the working of the other departments. We collect the statistics that you find in the trade and navigation returns. We get out these monthly returns and also the yearly returns.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do not the monthly returns come from the Department of Trade and Commerce ?


William Paterson: No, we issue our own returns.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this work duplicated
in the two departments ?


William Paterson: Our work is entirely original.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I cannot understand why you should require a double set of officers to get out these returns in the two departments.


William Paterson: There are very few officers in the Department of Trade and Commerce.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But they get out the
same figures do they not ?


William Paterson: Yes, but they compile them in a somewhat different form. They have reports from agents abroad but they have no statistical branch properly so-called.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We vote money for a statistical staff over there.


William Paterson: They have a very small staff.


Richard Blain: When was the first officer appointed in the United States 1


William Paterson: Many years ago, before I came into the department at all.


Richard Blain: Under what item do we find that gentleman ?


William Paterson: His salary is paid out of this vote ' Board of Customs.'


Richard Blain: Is lie called an inspector ?


William Paterson: No, a special officer ; first appointed April, 1895 ; permanently appointed in 1899.


Richard Blain: Is the explanation of this increase, that a large quantity of goods are coming in from the United States undervaluation ?


William Paterson: There has been complaint of under-valuation.


Richard Blain: The minister would not admit that last year.


William Paterson: I think the discussion last year was with reference to goods coming in under the preference. We have unfortunately found cases of under valuation of goods coming from the United States. *


Richard Blain: What line of goods ?


William Paterson: Almost all lines, except perhaps groceries.


Richard Blain: And you want two extra officers on that account ?


William Paterson: We want to get fuller information.


Richard Blain: Do these inspectors in the United States report to the department directly ?


William Paterson: Yes.


Richard Blain: Monthly reports ?


William Paterson: Almost daily, and if there is any case under adjudication they may have to make a special mission.


Richard Blain: How much of this item is for the twelve inspectors and their expenses ?


William Paterson: Salaries, $26,350; expenses, $8,500.


James Clancy: Were the salaries of any of these increased last year ?


William Paterson: I think not. There is one new assistant inspector, but the Department of Customs will be recouped for his services by the Department of Trade and Commerce. He was specially charged to look after importation of machinery coming to the Sydney works, some of which were dutiable and some free. He became well posted in the work, and when the payment of the bounty was transferred from Customs to Trade, and Commerce, the minister was anxious to. have an able officer and one conversant with the work, and it was thought that perhaps Mr. Russell would be the best fitted of any one in the public service to do that work. We, therefore, lent him to the Department of Trade and Commerce, and we will be recouped for his salary.


Andrew B. Ingram: How much money will be spent for the Board of Customs and the collection of statistics, as distinct from the other services included in the vote ?


William Paterson: About $40,000 for the Board of Customs and $45,500 for statistics.1


Richard Blain: 


Andrew B. Ingram: I cannot understand why these accounts are kept separately. At F

3-Auditor General's Report, you will And Board of Customs and statistical office, $59. 510.49, and at P-34 you will find Board or Customs and statistical office, $74,715, or a total of $134,259.15. What is the object or keeping these accounts apart ?


William Paterson: That is the Auditor General's Report.


Andrew B. Ingram: I know it is ; but why should they not appear page after page consecutively, instead of having them distributed all over the Auditor General's Report m this way ?	[DOT]


William Paterson: The accountant says our accounts go to the Auditor Genera separately from those of the Board of Customs.


Andrew B. Ingram: Why should they not go together, so that they will be entered consecutively in the Auditor General's Report As they appear, it is very difficult for us i gather from them what is done.


William Paterson: That is the auditor's way of entering them. Many of the whose salaries are entered under the be< of Board of Customs are not living _ Ottawa, but in Toronto, and it may be tn that is the reason they are entered sep< ately from those of the department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many preventive
officers have you ?


William Paterson: AVe have fifteen this year, an increase of three over last yeai-


Richard Blain: For the Board of Customs, the salaries and expenses this year aino to $30,500. The hon. minister is asking * $40,000 for next year. AAffiy the increas *


William Paterson: The vote includes the salaries of the Dominion appraisers _ Ottawa and those of the men on Mr. Alichael's staff at Toronto, though not -
rd we
AIcMichael himself.


Richard Blain: On page 3949 of Hausarc find :
Customs, 27 officers salaries, $23,500 , ses, $7,000.
Which makes a total of $30,500 voted >a*_ year, but the figures the minister g ^ \ night is $40,000 an increase of $9>oLT' ' am asking why the increase takes P c '


William Paterson: The
explanation
is
the officers
that last year that covered only ^ Aggers in Ottawa and did not include tne ^ere at Toronto. The salaries and expens for are about $10,000 but the amounts item are about the same this year a


Andrew B. Ingram: Some new names been added to the Toronto list-


William Paterson: Yes, three have been added, Mr. W. G. Livingston, Mr. Capreol and Mr. J. M. Sullivan. Carried.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Carried if the committee will rise now.


William Paterson: You do not want to give me the other items ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It would only be detaining the House because there will be a great deal of discussion on the other items.


William Paterson: There are four or five items just the same as last year.


George Taylor: The next item is miscellaneous, which includes :
Printing and stationery, subscriptions to commercial papers, flags, dating stamps, locks, instruments, &c., for various ports of entry, legal expenses and uniforms for customs officers.
In the Auditor's Report I find salaries of men in Washington and St. Paul at $3 a day, for 365 days in the year, men who have been hidden away about whom we know nothing.


William Paterson: The explanation is that all of that is paid back to us. The people of *Canada do not pay it. They are Canadian officers who are placed there for the Convenience of the American roads and the American roads have to pay their salaries. The people of Canada do not pay them.


George Taylor: I will read one other item. We have here this entry :
Woodyatt, T. Brantford : services arranging for and conducting investigations of charges against customs officials, 18 days at $10 ; board and lodgings, $17.50 ; fares $28.70 ; telegrams and postage, $1.60-$227.80.
What did he do for that money ?


William Paterson: I think that was back in 1896, and he did not render his bill for a long time.


George Taylor: We want to know what lie did during those eighteen days.


Andrew B. Ingram: I still insist that it is a reasonable hour to adjourn. If the minister has not his estimates passed I do not hold myself responsible for that. The Minister of Customs, I understand is consulting the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) about it. That hon. gentleman takes no part in this discussion. But if he had to watch these matters as closely as some of us on this side do, he would find it pretty hard work. I think I am within my rights in objecting to going on any longer.


William Paterson: I think I have given the explanation the hon. gentleman wanted.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This item will require some discussion and it is now one o'clock. The minister complains that the items are not passed, but I think we have greater

right to complain that the information that we ask for is not given. I think we have done a good long day's work.


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: I am sure that there is no disposition to press the passage of items unduly. At the same time I think there should be some regard for time on the part of hon. gentlemen on the other side. What has taken place to-day ? We began the discussion of these items about five o'clock and we'have been actually at work six hours on these few items. And I am sure that if hon. gentlemen will read ' Hansard ' to-morrow, they will find that this discussion could have been greatly condensed. If hon. gentlemen will, unintentionally perhaps, waste time they must not complain if the government wish to proceed with the public business and make substantial progress. We could have accomplished the useful part of this discussion in one-third of the time occupied and could have disposed of a much larger volume of business than has been done. If the op-position#kill time they must not complain if the government ask them to go on and do a legitimate day's work.


George Taylor: Go on, then.


William Mulock: Very well. *


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I object to the statement that the opposition are wasting time, I say the government are wasting time.


William Mulock: Who is wasting time at .this monent ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The government. If the Minister of Customs had given the information asked for, we could have done three times as much as we have done. The Postmaster General complains that we have done little. We have voted over a million and a quarter of dollars to be spent in salaries all over the country, and we have done it, I must say, on the most meagre information I ever heard given by a department. And because we occupy time in trying to pry the information out of the minister, we are accused of wasting time.


George Taylor: The Postmaster General lectures the members of the opposition. He was not in the House at half past five, when the Minister of Customs took the floor and talked until five minutes past six. Aud when we came back at eight o'clock he talked till five minutes to nine. The members of the opposition cau hardly be expected to listen quietly to a charge that they have wasted time, when ' Hansard ' will show that three-quarters of the time was taken up by the Minister of Customs making a campaign speech. The Postmaster General was not here to hear the lecture that the Minister of Customs rend us. We are not going to take such lecturing without resenting it.


Andrew B. Ingram: So far as I am concerned,
I had no idea of killing time. Every ques-



tion I asked was pertinent to the subject under discussion. We have voted $1,324,000 since five o'clock. Many of us have to be at a committee meeting at ten o'clock and when we have attended to our correspond-dence and then sat here until a late hour to-morrow, we shall have done pretty well.


William Mulock: Better finish this resolution.


Andrew B. Ingram: As I understand it, $139,200 has just been voted. The items remaining in this section are $37,500, $30,000, $5,000 and $40,000. The amounts are not large, but each cover a number of items upon which an explanation will be required. When the Postmaster General was in opposition he was one of those who insisted most strongly upon all information being given.


William Mulock: I was very reasonable.


Andrew B. Ingram: Not always. I have been here long enough to remember the hon. gentleman for some years in opposition.


William Paterson: I would like to'give an explanation of this item of $37,500 for miscellaneous. But before doing so, I desire to say that I do not think that fuller explanations were ever given than have been given to-night. If hon. gentlemen will go over ' Hansard'of former years, I think they will find that never has information been insisted upon in such detail as on these estimates. I have endeavoured to meet the demand for information so far as possible, and I think hon. gentlemen themselves must be convinced that the explanations were intended to be. full and were fairly reasonable. Now, after this item the hon. member for Leeds brought forward the names of the men in the United States. But, if he will look at the bottom of the page, he will find deductions as follows :
Grand Trunk Railway, services at Portland, Maine, $1,095 ; Grand Trunk Railway, services at Chicago, 111., $1,080 ; Great Northern Railway services at Seattle, Washington, $1,157 ; Great Northern Railway, services at Tacoma, Washington, $1,095 ; Northern Pacific Railway, services at Duluth, Maine, $1,288.50 ; Minnesota Transfer Company., services at St. Paul, Minn., $1,095 ; Wabash Railway, services at Chicago, 111., $1,095 ; amounts received from various officers for premium on guarantee bonds, $4,768.50-total, $12,674.
This is the amount which we are recouped by these roads to which services have been rendered.


George Taylor: That is an explanation, but the question I asked was why is this account kept in miscellaneous ? Because in the estimates we are told what miscellaneous means and here we have a number of items that do not come in here. For instance this account paid to Mr. Woodyatt, Brandon, $227. What Is this V


William Paterson: It was an investigation that was held.


Andrew B. Ingram: 


George Taylor: What is the $37,000 wanted for ?


William Paterson: We estimate that it will be wanted for different purposes under this heading. If it is not required it will not be expended.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much do you want for printing ?


William Paterson: Last year the expense for printing and stationery was $17,500, of which the stationery alone was about $10,000.


Richard Blain: Would the minister give us a detailed statement of the larger items of expenditure last year ?


William Paterson: The details are to be found in the Auditor General's Report, F-36, 37 and 38.
Mi-. BLAIN. I would like the minister to tell us something about that book that was published last year for the instruction of the customs officers, and how much it cost.


William Paterson: That is the book the commissioner is working on. It is not completed yet.	.


Richard Blain: Perhaps the minister would state how much it is going to cost.


William Paterson: It will cost nothing but the printing. The commissioner is not receiving anything extra for his work.


Richard Blain: The hon. gentleman, as I understand, is preparing a book for the better information of the different customs officers in Canada in order that each one may understand his own duty. Will the hon. gentleman state how much he expects to expend in publishing that book so that it wifi be ready for distribution amongst the officers ?


William Paterson: It would depend on the number of copies. The officials estimated the amount required at $2,500. The expenditure would be in connection with the printing and stationery only. When it is finished l will be a very useful book. There hav been no instructions issued for the guidanc of customs officers since 1870.


Richard Blain: The minister stated last year, as will be found on page 390-' Hansard
There is an increase of $2,500 here which 19 required to meet the cost of printing a. P now in course of preparation by the assist commissioner


William Paterson: Not the assistant commissioner. Does It say so ?


Richard Blain: The assistant commissioner.


William Paterson: That is a mistake.


Richard Blain: -contains instructions to the customs officers on their respective duties. We have 1,617 officials and I suppose each one should have a copy.
Now the minister got last year $2,500 for the purpose of preparing this hook. He says that nothing lias been expended so far for that purpose. Now will he tell us what he did with that $2,500 ?


William Paterson: We did not use it, it lapsed.
Mr. BLAIN, Is this a revote, then ?


William Paterson: Practically, yes.


Richard Blain: Am I correct then in understanding the minister to say that the $2,500 voted last year was not any of it expended?


William Paterson: It has not been expended this current year. It is not expected any part of it will be used.


George Taylor: Will the hon. gentleman give us the details of the expenditure of this $37,500 this year ?


William Paterson: The expenses are about the same each year.


Richard Blain: I do not wish to weary the minister, but I have another question. I have read what he said last year about the $2,500. I would like the minister to state emphatically, if he is able, that no part of the $2,500 was expended last year for any purpose.


William Paterson: I say emphatically it will not be.	_


Richard Blain: What was done with the $2,500 that was voted last year ?


William Paterson: Nothing done.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. gentleman has this item of $37,500 placed under seven or eight different headings under which he proposes to expend the money. Will the hon. gentleman give the figures under the different items making up the total of $37,500 ? If the hon. minister will give the explanation under each item as it is called it would facilitate the progress of business. We have been trying to get this information for hour after hour and yet these hon. gentlemen opposite tell us we are killing time. I think it is high time the hon. gentleman should give us this information. There is no reason in asking us to sit here until two o'clock in the morning, and I protest against this kind of thing. Of all the estimates that it was ever attempted to get through this House, I have never known o" there having been less effort to give an explanation than that made by the hon. minister to-night. We have to drag it out of him. When other hon. gentlemen come down with estimates, they give an explanation upon each item as it is called without being asked for it. Either the hon. gentleman is holding back the information or he is not posted on his own estimates, because if he were he could give a better explanation than that which he has given.


William Paterson: The hon. gentleman has the Auditor General's Report there in which the expenditure is given for the previous year. The estimates for the coming year are based upon the expenditures of tbe past year. The hon. gentleman can see bow these expenditures were made. We ' anticipate there will be equal expenses upon equal lines, from the same operations as those shown upon the book before the hon. gentleman. Therefore we ask for $37,500. The details of the expenditures are in the hon. gentleman's hand. He is asking for information which he has in his hand and can get. There is no desire to withhold information. There have been as complete explanations given as can be given. The hon. gentleman is insisting upon getting from me, what he has already and .he is insisting upon something that is not necessary for the proper understanding of ihe subject. The expenditures do not vary in any considerable degree. He can see that this estimate must be approximately correct, but if it varies in any respect and there is more estimated for than will be expenued the vote simply lapses and the money is not expended.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. gentleman has not enlightened us very much. What is the hon. gentleman paid for if he is not paid to come down to this House and give information ? When he goes to council and asks for a certain amount of money to carry on the affairs of the department, does he tell the other ministers to look at the Auditor General's report and see what the expenditure was last year ? If he went over to the council and asked for so much on these various items we assume that he would be in a position to tell the other ministers what the items are and how he makes up the total of $37,500. I am not here to peruse two volumes of the Auditor General's Report-


William Paterson: Yes, you are; it is printed for you.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. minister is paid for that. We have on page 75 of the estimates, an item of $37,500 for miscellaneous, consisting of printing and stationery ^subscriptions to commercial papers, flags, dating stamps, locks, instruments, &c., for various ports of entry, legal expenses and uniforms for the customs officers. I want to know how much the lion gentleman requires for each of these items. I do not want to be told that I am to come to this House and read page after page of the Auditor General's Report to see what you expended last year. I want to know what you propose to do for the coming year. You may expend twice as much

during the incoming year as you did last year or you may not. It is not for me to give the answer to that question. That is what the hon. minister is here for, it is what we want to know and it is what we will know before he gets this item through.


William Paterson: We are asking for this amount. It is based on the expenditure under a similar head last year and it runs about the same thing.
Mr. INGRAM, Why don't you tell us what the expenditure is?


William Paterson: The hon. gentleman has it in his hand. It amounts to $37,500. He seeks to know what transpires in council. I am not at liberty to tell him what transpires in council, but the fact that the amount is in the estimates will be taken as an evidence that it has received the approval of council and I do not know that the hon. gentleman would be any wiser. I may say that I consider his questions are captious, without any public benefit, that they are of no use and that no good purpose will be served. He may delay the proceedings but he is certainly not accomplishing anything more, and cannot hope to accomplish anything more.


Andrew B. Ingram: Well, is there anything unreasonable in that?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: ' Here is an item for printing and stationery, subscriptions to commercial papers, flags, dating stamps, locks, instruments, &c., for various ports of entry, legal expenses and uniforms for customs officers. Let us suppose that he took this whole vote and expended it upon two of these items. It is the duty of the minister to give explanations as to the various items, and when he tells the House how he spent the money last year, the House decides whether it is wise to vote it or not. We are asking for no more information than we have a right to ask, and the minister is giving us less information than he should give us. l cannot conceive how any minister could ask council to pass these items on such limited information as is presented to the House.


Richard Blain: What is the explanation about the legal expenses. Mr. T. Woodyatt of Brantford was paid $264 for investigating charges against officials. What was the outcome of the investigation ?


William Paterson: That was for an investigation in 1897. Mr. Woodyatt was a long time in rendering his account, but he had not been paid' before.


Andrew B. Ingram: I understand the minister to say that the expenditure is included in this report which is brought down to the 30th June last year. The hon. gentleman is asking for money to be expended from the 30th of June next until the 30th June, 1905, he wants to lead the House and the country to believe that because we have a document before us that will soon be a year old, we should be in a position to judge from that what he is going to expend next year. The hon. gentleman talks about me wanting to know what he does in council. Was the hon. gentleman joking ?


William Paterson: No, the hon. gentleman asked if I went to council and did so and so.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. gentleman must be joking when he talks like that. Nobody wants to know what the hon. gentleman does in council. I have never asked him such a question. I have been too long here to ask any such question because I know better. I would be quite satisfied to get from the hon. gentleman an explanation of his estimates in this House, without endeavouring to ascertain what he does in council. If he is as particular in withholding information from council as he is in this House the hon. gentleman will never divulge what took place in council. I am perfectly reasonable in the question I am asking.


William Paterson: The hon. gentleman wants to know how much I am going to expend on padlocks this year ?


Andrew B. Ingram: 


Richard Blain: Did the department not ask for the account ?


William Paterson: He was asked repeatedly for it.


Richard Blain: What was the trouble ?


William Paterson: There was no trouble. He was asked time and again for his aC" count, but he did not send it in. I grant you it looks strange, but it is a fact.


Richard Blain: Perhaps the minister would bring down the correspondence.	-


William Paterson: I do not know that there is any, except that there may be letters asking him to send in his account.


Richard Blain: What was the outcome of the investigation ?


William Paterson: 
Richard Blain: It would.save time if t!lC minister would give a full explanation-


William Paterson: I cannot be expecte to remember the details of an investig ^ that took place several years ago. . Woodyatt is the police magistrate of t j, ford, who occupies a very good judicial I_ tion, and I think it will be generally y ted that whatever his findings were. were correct. It looks strange that jg not send in his account before, but

the bald fact. He is not like other lawyers in that respect.


Richard Blain: Are there any more outstanding accounts ?


William Paterson: None of that nature.
Mr. FOWLER- What is the case of Ross vs. King, at page F-36 ?
Mr. PATERSON, That was a suit with reference to duty on steel rails, in connection with an account which arose under the late government in 1895. The parties were made to pay duty on steel rails for a street railway. It was explained that they should be free, but the Customs Department of that day ruled them dutiable. The parties sued for recovery, and carried the case to the Privy Council and succeeded against the Crown in the principal sum. This suit arose out of a claim for interest on the money. In that case, which also went to the Privy Council, the Crown succeeded.
purpose. I suppose that this item has been oassin<r through in the shape in which it is for the last thirty years for anything that I know and I do not know that any further information has been given about it than I have given to-night.


Mr TAYLOR.: We have asked the hon. gentleman to give details of his estimated expenditure, and he tells us that his estimate is based upon the expenditure of last vear as shown in the Auditor General s Report Well, we turn to the Auditor General's Report to see how he spent his money last year If we take up the item of advertising w find that the St. John ' Globe received $4.80 and the St. John ' Telegraph $4.80 foi notices re conscience money-a total of $9.bO for this service. Does he expect to spend $9.00 next year ?


Hon. CLIFFORD SIFTON  .@Minister the Interior: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) expect me to answer such questions as that ?


George William Fowler: I notice several items relating to guarantee bonds. What is the principle that guides you in that matter ? Do you pay the premium ?


William Paterson: Yes. The officers of the Customs Department who handle funds aie insured in the four Canadian guarantee companies, one of which takes the maritime provinces, another Quebec, another Ontario, and the other all west of Ontario. We have arranged for a special rate of $3.60 per year per $1,000. The department pays the companies and deducts the amount from the salaries of the officers. By this arrangement, which operates very well, we avoid the trouble incident to private bondsmen. Last year we expended on the guarantee fund $4,347 and received $4,315.65. There were no losses.


James Clancy: I want to ask whether the money we are now voting is accounted for on page F-5 and page F-36 to 38, inclusive ?	,


William Paterson: F-5 comes under the first item, which is passed.


George Taylor: I have a number of questions which I wish to put to the hon. minister, and I am going to get on my feet every time, and I expect the hon. gentleman to do the same. The hon. minister informed the member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram) that he would obtain information on these votes in the Auditor General's Report. I see here there is an item of $27 for legal expenses, Bickerdike & Trahee. Is the same item in the present estimates for these legal gentlemen ?


William Paterson: The total expenses under that head were $264, which was divided among different firms, and it does not necessarily" follow that these same men will have the same amounts, but it is assumed th there will be that much required for tnar


George Taylor: Yes. The hon. gentleman has referred it to the Auditor General's Report and I want to see what he expects to do with this money next year. Had he based his estimate on this estimate of $9 for advertising ?


William Paterson: Does the hon. gentle-an want to stand in the position of asking hether accounts that have been paid are to >
paid again ? Surely he must understand, hat I think any man of ordinary intelli-mce would understand, that we estimate iat if printing and stationery cost a cer-in amount this year, the probability is iat it will cost about the same next year, ut certainly we shall not pay again a rants that have already been paid. ir
le hon. gentleman cannot understand that think I am not bound to answei any tu ler.


Mr TAYLOR.: I understand this point as 'elf as the hon. minister does. I have as iuch intelligence as the hon. gentleman, and now as much of bookkeeping. But the on" opposition have asked three or tour
mes


William Paterson: Forty times.


Mr TAYLOR.: 
William Paterson: No, he is settled with.


Mr TAYLOR.: Then, it would appear athis is an item which was not used as he basis of the estimate, and so we are Int far from finding out what the minister /HI do with $37,500. Before lie gets this brough he will have to give us an approxi-

mate estimate of what he intends to spend this $37,500 for. According to the Auditor General's Report, he only required $33,458. He has told us that he does not expect to repeat this expenditure to Mr. Woodyatt. Does he expect to spend $9.60 for advertising in the St. John ' Globe ' and the St. John ' Telegraph ' ?


William Mulock: I have had some little experience in this House, and I think I am right in saying that this is the first time since I came to parliament that the examination of any minister has taken place on the lines pursued to-night. There is nothing to guide the minister in his estimate of expenditure but the experience of the past. My hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) is a householder. He has a fair idea of how much he spent last year for the maintenance of himself and his family. He knows what he pays, in bulk to his butcher and baker and candlestick maker-how much it cost him to maintain his house last year. He probably figures on spending a similar amount next year. But if he were asked if he intended to spend the same amounts on the same people he would say: No, I may change my butcher or my baker ; I may change my bill of fare ; I may wear different garments and have different personal expenditure ; but I shall probably spend in the current year about as much as last year. Nobody can tell exactly what items will be incurred gs contingencies in the public service. This sum is voted to cover a miscellaneous collection of expenditure which cannot be foreseen in detail. And if my hon. friend, having had full explanation from the Minister of Customs, threatens this House with obstructive tactics unless he gets certain statements made to him, I think this committee should respect themselves enough not to tolerate the success of such tactics. This is not an unusual thing with the hon. gentleman. In fact, it is part of his programme to declare that nothing shall be done unless his particular demands are complied with.
There is an effort made on the part of the government to be reasonable at all times, it is our desire to do so on all occasions. But when an hon. gentleman persists in asking a question that has never been asked, as far as I remember, during my experience of 23 sessions, I think the committee is warranted in concluding that no public good is going to come from the prosecution of any such inquiry. Now we are told by the hon. member for Leeds that he will not let this item pass until he gets information that cannot be given. He has asked a lot of absurd questions. He has asked the Minister of Customs to state how much he is going to pay for this and for that item, how much he is going to pay this man and that man in the future because similar services were paid in the past-a question I think on re-


George Taylor: flection he will be ready to acknowledge was not reasonable. He has asked the Minister of Customs to do the impossible, to tell this committee how this item is going to be made up in the various contingencies. Since the hon. gentleman has told us that he will not allow this committee to proceed until that information is furnished, we have come to a deadlock. The hon. gentleman has threatened to obstruct because the minister will not answer a question impossible to be answered.


Andrew B. Ingram: When the hon. gentleman talks about the Auditor General's report showing us the expenditure up to the 30th of June last, it was my duty as a member of this House to go through these items and investigate them. If there is anything vie do not understand we come to this commit' tee when these items are under discussion, and ask the minister to explain them to us. Now here is an item of $37,500 the details of which the minister says have not been asked for before. Is that a good reason why the minister should not answer?


Hon. CLIFFORD SIFTON  .@Minister the Interior: 
Andrew B. Ingram: If the hon. minister had said in the first place that he had not a

itemized statement, that would have ended it, because he could not have given it, but the hon. gentleman led us to believe that he had these diffterent items piarticdlarizted, and if he had given the statement then that would have been an end to any discussion as far as the $37,500 item is concerned, As far as these estimates are concerned, 1 think we made very good headway untii we struck this item of $37,500. When we had passed a million and some odd dollars I think it was time to adjourn. The hon. Postmaster General and the hon. Minister of Customs were both active members of the opposition, and I think I am not saying too much when I say that when it came to aa unreasonable hour and they asked for an adjournment and our friends did not grant an adjournment there was only one method left for them to pursue, and that was to act stubbornly and say : We will not allow any items to pass. Knowing this, these hon. gentlemen ought to have some respect for the opposition now. If we had adjourned at 10.30 or 11 o'clock, I think we would have accomplished just as much as we are doing now.


Mr SPROULE.: I submit to the hon. Postmaster General that the information given us is not the information we are accustomed to have in this House. He will remember that when Sir Mackenzie Bowell occupied the position of Minister of Customs he cape down to this House with a book containing all the details, and as soon as an item was called he read from his book the explanation of how much he wanted for this and how much for that. We have passed the item providing for the ordinary expenditure on civil government salaries. What does it say in the Auditor General's Report ? I asked the hon. Minister of Customs how much he wanted for salaries in the different provinces. He could give no information Whatever. The Auditor General's Report shows that for salaries and contingencies there was an expenditure in Ontario of $324,329. Surely the hon. gentleman had that information. Then I find that there was an expenditure of $261,905 for Quebec, and there is a separate item for each of the other provinces. Yet the hon. minister could give us no information a bop t this item of $1,184,865 under this head. Is it fair to ask an opposition, which is doing its proper duty, to allow items of this kind and size to pass on such meagre information ? It is not an answer to say you have it in the Auditor General's Report. My hon. friena from I.eeds (Mr. Taylor) gave an illustration of the absurdity of presenting this as an argument and of saying we should be satisfied with that. There was no more unreasonable man in this House than the hon. Postmaster General when lie and his friends were in opposition. There was no more unreasonable man in this House than he was. We are doing our duty as we ^ con ceive it, and we shall exercise our own juc gment as to what we conceive to be our duty. The hon. Minister of Customs stands up without any information and says : I want $1 184 865 for salaries and contingencies, and vo'u can find the explanation of it in the Auditor General's Report. I say that we will not be doing our duty by allowing these Rems to pass. No opposition can faithfully discharge its duty without more information qa to what the money is required for than that which the hon. Minister of Customs has given to-night. We are amply justified in the demand that we shall get the information which has been so unreasonably denied
Sir WILLIAM MU-LOCK. I pledge my word that never since the hon. gentleman was in this House was the information he asked for denied or asked for. I say that never since this House has sat, and never since Canada had a parliament, were such details demanded or furinshed to parliament. My hon. friend says that I myself made these demands, and that I was very unreasonable in having done so. Then, why follow such an unreasonable precedent ?


George Taylor: We have not begun to follow it yet. The hon. Postmaster General lectured me a few moments ago, saying that he had been so long in public life and that he never saw such tactics pursued as those which he witnessed to-night. I have been in this House as long as the hon. gentleman, and I would remind him that the hon. Postmaster General and the hon. Minister of Customs and their friends kept us here from Wednesday until Saturday night at twelve o'clock. I never left the House till Saturday night at twelve o'clock, because these lion, gentlemen talked and talked from Wednesday until Saturday. A strong appeal was made by my hon. friends from Grey and Elgin to adjourn at 1 o'clock this morning, after we had voted nearly $2,000,000, but it was refused. We have been trying ever since to get information. As the minister in charge is not present, I will wait until he returns.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman can not detain the House unless he is addressing it.


Andrew B. Ingram: In order to save time, I will point out that in the ' Hansard ' for 1895, Mr. Muloclc now Sir William Mulock, and then in opposition, strongly insisted on getting information about certain items, and tlie report in the ' Hansard shows that Mr. Foster then Minister of Finance gave full explanations to Mr. Mulock. We, the members of the opposition, are constantly met in our campaigns with statements by siinnorters of the government, that these ftems are passed year after year without criticism, and they even go so tar as to say that we do not record a single vote against them When reasonable questions are asked by gentlemen of the opposition, the least the

minister should do is to answer them. If he has not the information in his possession he can promise to bring it down, at a later date, and so far as I am concerned it will satisfy me.


William Mulock: There is nothing to warrant the conclusion that we on this side of the House have accorded anything but the most courteous treatment to gentlemen opposite. The Minister of Customs has told the committee that there is uncertainty as to this expenditure, which can only be cleared up with time and experience as the business of the department proceeds. He has also told us that the only guide as to future expenditure is the experience furnished by the past, and hon. gentlemen have got in their hands the record of past expenditure. That is the only guide we have. Under these circumstances, nothing can be gained in persisting in this contention. I may point out that long before a single item was passed an adjournment was asked for, and most of the time this evening has been spent in asking for an adjournment.


Richard Blain: How much of this was spent last year for uniforms ?


William Stevens Fielding: 


Richard Blain: And how much will be spent this year for the same ?


William Stevens Fielding: It is estimated that the expenditure will be about the same.


Richard Blain: Are they purchased by tender ?


William Stevens Fielding: An allowance of $8 is given each officer and they purchase for themselves.


Richard Blain: What officers wear these uniforms ?


William Stevens Fielding: Landing waiters attending on the arrival of vessels and officers examining baggage at the principal stations.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Postmaster General has stated that no such questions were ever before asked in this House, and no such answers given as we desire. I beg to refer the Postmaster General to the ' Hansard ' ot 1884, when Sir Mackenzie Bo well was Minister of Customs, and there it will be found that in reply to Sir Richard Cartwright, Sir Mackenzie Bowell went into the most minute details as to the services for which a vote of $35,430 would be expended. He gave full explanations as to the additional number of employees and their classes, where they were to be employed, and all other particulars. And yet the Postmaster General says he never heard of such information being asked for in this House before. If * went through the various items I could show him that the same principle has been invariably carried out.


William Mulock: By the analysis of the expenditure which I have had made for the last fiscal year I find that there was expended some $46,000 under the following heads : transfer officers, $7,927.50 ; legal expenses, $264 ; advertising, $9.60 * guarantee bonds, $4,786.65; stationery, $9,889.02; printing, $17,500; uniforms, $2,355.06; newspaper subscriptions, $367.05 ; general account, $2,' 983.25. The railways contributed, $12,000 odd towards that expenditure, leaving the sum of $34,000 odd of disbursements out ot the Dominion treasury.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Postmaster General has given the very information we have been trying to get for two hours.


William Mulock: It is all in the Auditor General's Report.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is not our duty to hunt up these items. The ministers should he ready to give us the information.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 2.55 a.m., Tuesday.

I^sTDEX


FOURTH SESSION-NINTH PARLIAMENT, 1904.
Vol.   I.@: Employes on Eastern Division, Salaries
&c., (M. for ret.) 223 (i).

Surveys, &c., (M. for ret.) 223 (i).
A
Barker, Sami.-Con.
I. C. R., Earnings and Expenditure for 19034 (Ques.) 1139 (i).

 Eight months, Feb. 28, 1904 (Ques.)
1665, (i).
National Transcontinental Ry.: See " G. T.
Pacific."
Supply:
Civil Govt.-Customs (salaries) 1830. Transcontinental Ry.: See ' G.T.R. Pacific.'
Bell, A. C., Pictou.
Copper Crown Mining Co., Ry. Siding at Pictou, Cost, &c. (Ques.) 989 (i).
G. T. Pacific Ry. Co.'s B. 72 (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) on prop. Res., 1648 (i).
Militia Dress Regulations, Reimbursement to Officers (Ques.) 1665 (i).
Passes issued by Can. Govt, on Rys. and Steamers for 1903-4 (M. for ret.*) 1882 (i). Pugwash, N.S., Postmaster, Name, &c. (Ques.) 1667 (i).
Suction Dredges, Mar. Provs., Contract re, &c. (Ques.) 1665 (i).
Bennett, W. H., East Simcoe.
Address, on the, 130 (i).
Finnigan Site for Oshawa P. O. (remarks) in Com. of Sup., 612 (i).
Gaynor & Green, Ref. to in Debate on Address, 145 (i).
u