1908-05-20

[Stage Direction]
Mr. HONORE GERYAIS (St. James, Montreal) presented the fourth report of the committee appointed to supervise the official debates of the House, as follows :-
The select standing committee appointed to supervise the official report of the debates of this House, during the present session, beg leave to present the following as their fourth report. Your committee recommend that E. Charlier, who has been employed in the capacity of proofreader on the staff of translators of debates, be appointed as translator at a salary of $2,000 per annum, and that Rodolphe Girard be appointed to replace the former as proofreader at a salary of $1,500 per annum.
Mr. GERYAIS moved that the report be concurred in.
Mr. FIELDING.: Is that the one my hon. friend called my attention to to-day ?
Mr. GEItVAIS. No.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 171) respecting the government guaranteed bonds of the Grand Trunk Pacific. He said : The first purpose of this Bill is to authorize the Grand Trunk Pacific to pledge the bonds guaranteed by the government as security for the raising of money. The earliest legislation undoubtedly contemplated that the company should have the power to pledge the bonds as well as sell them. It would seem, however, that the machinery provided is inadequate and it is necessary to specifically give the com-Mr. NORTHRUP.
pany the power to pledge the bonds. If the market were deemed unfavoui'able to press the sale of the bonds, the company might raise money by pledging the bonds as collateral security. The second purpose of the Bill is due to certain judicial decisions given in England to the effect that when a bond is pledged in the way contemplated by this Bill, it is deemed to have been issued and the power of the company to sell it ceases. Consequently w'hen the bonds given as collateral security are restored to the possession of the company the company would not have the legal right to sell them. To remove all possible doubt, we propose to declare that the pledging of the bonds will not interfere with the right of the company to sell them at a later stage. The same difficulty will probably come up in connection with other companies and it may be necessary to pass general legislation upon. the subject. In the meantime, ns we are dealing with this particular case, we ask that the company be given the power to pledge the bonds as security in order to raise money and that this shall not interfere with their right to sell the same bonds when the company again obtain possession of them. The third purpose of the Bill is intended to facilitate the operations of the company in the construction of the railway. To avoid delays which, it has been found by experience, sometimes happen, and enable the company to make prompt payment for work done, it is proposed that we give them a letter of credit, practically as we do now in connection with our own departments, authorizing the company to expend a limited sum, not exceeding at any time the sum of one million dollars. That letter of credit is to be dealt with in the same way as a letter of credit under our ordinary financial operations. The expenditure must of necessity be used for the purpose authorized by the Transcontinental Railway Act. At regular intervals, say at the end of each month, the chief engineer must examine these expenditures and if they all fall under the Act and are such as he can certify to, he will certify accordingly. If it be found that, under this letter of credit, the company have used the proceeds thus obtained, or any part thereof, for any purposes not entirely within the meaning of the Act, then the sum so used must instantly be made good by a deposit in the bank to the credit of the same fund from which they were withdrawn. Before any letter of credit shall be issued, the Grand Trunk Railway Company, which is the parent company, must enter into an agreement to make good any money which may be expended in the unauthorized way to which I have referred. These are the three purposes of the Bill.


Mr. SPROULE.: I would like to ask the Finance Minister if he does not think this

is one of the Bills which should be introduced by way of resolution.


William Stevens Fielding: At one time I was inclined to think as does my hon. friend, but I took advice on that point. It is not the money of the Consolidated Fund of Canada but money which belongs to the Grand Trunk Pacific, but inasmuch as it is raised on the credit of the government of Canada it is placed in a special account to the credit of the Minister of Finance and Receiver General and can only be drawn upon on certificates of the government engineer. The government therefore supervise the money very properly, but it is not a part of the consolidated fund. However, even if it were a part of the consolidated fund, this Bill does not create any new obligation in any way ; it simply gives directions as to the manner in which the fund already created shall be distributed. It does not create a new obligation or add to any former obligation of the government.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does it not give power to raise money ?


William Stevens Fielding: No, it does not give power to raise money in the sense in which the word is used by my hon. friend ; the power to raise money has already been given by the granting of power to issue the bonds. This is a power to take the bonds to the bank, and to say : We do not find it expedient owing to circumstances to sell these bonds at present but we will leave them here as collateral. That is a power which all railways have under the General Railway Act, but for the special reasons in this ease it is necessary to introduce this Bill. There is nothing unusual in the Bill, I have had it looked into and I do not think it is necessary to adopt the suggestion that has been made.


Mr. FOSTER.: I understand the credit is based on money already in the funds.


William Stevens Fielding: Quite so, and only on the money derived from these bonds. It is not a letter of credit on the consolidated fund at all.


George Eulas Foster: It is not an advance.


William Stevens Fielding: Oh, no.


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


Mr. FOSTER asked :: 1.	What amount per day is being paid to Messrs. Watson and Perron, as counsel for the prosecution of the inquiry before Judge
Cassels?
2.	Are they now at work, and will their work be continued during the time the court is adjourned?


Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice) :: 1.	Mr. Watson is to be paid a retaining fee dependant upon the extent of the inquiry and $100 a day with necessary out of pocket expenses.
No arrangement has yet been made with Mr. Perron as to the amount of his fees.
2.	The government is not informed whether counsel are now at work, but it is inevitable that considerable work 'will have to be done at times when the commissioner is not sitting for the actual hearing of evidence.


WHARF AT POINTE-AUX-TREMBLES.
Mr. MONK asked :: 1.	What was the date fixed, in 1904, by the Department of Public Works for the reception of tenders for the construction of a wharf at Pointe-aux-Trembles, county of Portneuf?
2.	What is the date of the contract of Dus-seault & Pageau for the construction of that wharf?
3.	In virtue of their contract what length of time was given them to construct that wharf ?
4.	As Dusseault & Pageau were not able to construct the wharf at Pointe-aux-Trembles on the date specified in the contract, what was the date fixed by the Department of Public Works for the completion of the construction of that wharf?
5.	On what date was the notice to that effect given to Dusseault & Pageau?
6.	Were there any complaints against the contractors, Dusseault & Pageau, in regard to the construction of the wharf at Pointe-aux-Trembles? If so, by whom, what was the nature of such complaints, and were they written or verbal?
7.	At what date did Dusseault & Pageau suspend their work?
8.	What are the names, Christian names and residences of the engineer and inspector who had the superintendence of the construction of the wharf at Pointe-aux-Trembles?
9.	Did the engineer make any report against the work done by Dusseault & Pageau?
,10. What is the estimated amount of the material that Dusseault & Pageau had upon the ground when they suspended work?
11.	What is the amount estimated by the engineer for the work done by Dusseault & Pageau when they suspended work?
12.	What amount was paid on account of their oontraot -to Dusseault & Pageau, and what is the date of each such payment?
13.	Was anything paid to Dusseault & Pageau, or to any other persons, in connection with the construction of the wharf at Pointe-aux-Trembles, since the suspending of the work? If so, to whom, at what dates and what amounts?
14.	Was anything done in connection with
the construction of the wharf at Pointe-aux-Trembles since Dusseault & Pageau suspended work?	,	.
15.	Before receiving the contract for - the

wharf at Pointe-aux-Trembles, had Dus-seault & Pageau performed any other contracts for the Department of Public Works? If so, what were those contracts?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works).: My bon. friend will see that this question is a very lengthy one. All I can say is that all the papers connected with it and which are necessary to enable the answer to be made are with the Public Accounts Committee upon the motion of the bon. gentleman who has placed the question on the Order Paper. If the hon. gentleman will ask the committee to return, the papers I will have much pleasure in having an answer prepared.


Mr. TAYLOR.: Stand.


Mr. SPEAKER.: The question will stand.



DREDGING AT FORT WILLIAM.

Mr. BENNETT asked :: What amount was paid to the Great Lakes Dredging Company, for work done at Fort William or Mission river for rock and other material, respectively, during last year?


William Pugsley: For rock	$ 4,094 00
For other material .. . . 257,146 29 Allowance for extra haul 48,4|65 35



$309,705 64 UNOPPOSED MOTIONS.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day being called :
George Eulas Foster: I do not know whether it is proposed to go into motions again this session, but I notice that there are some very important pieces of information called for by motions for returns. It might be possible to run through the unopposed motions at some time and get them off the paper.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I shall be happy to look at It.



SUPPLY-STANSTEAD ELECTION PAPERS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
["We will take Supply to-morrow and we will proceed with the Post Office vote generally, to be followed by the Customs vote generally, and if there is sufficient time by the Railway vote generally.\t_\nAt six o'clock, House adjourned.", 'Thursday, May 21, 190S.']
Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Before you leave the chair, I would like to bring to the attention of the House very briefly the circumstances attending the loss or destruction of the papers connected with the Stan-stead election of 1908. I thought the matter of sufficient importance to justify me in procuring a copy of the evidence which is too long to read to the House, but the facts in which I shall bring to the attention of membe'-s. In the first place it would appear that the present Clerk of the Crown in Chancery received a letter from the soli-Mr. MONK.
eitor of the petitioner on the 23rd of April, 1908, inquiring who was the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery at that date and asking that information for the purpose of serving a subpoena upon him in order that be might pioduce papers relative to the by-election in Stanstead in 1908, which was then under consideration upon the proceedings already taken in the court. It would appear that that letter was answered by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery on the 24th of April and that before answering the letter, the purport of which does not appear from the evidence, the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery made search in his office and discovered that the papers referred to, that is the papers relating to the by-election of 1908, were missing and that in the box or place where he might have expected to fiud them he found instead the papers relating to the Stanstead general election of 1904. It does not appear that the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery made any communication whetever of this very important fact to the solicitor	of	the petitioner,	and Igather from what	has been said	by	the
right hon. the Prime Minister that he was consulted upon the subject by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery immediately after the loss of the papers was discovered.
I would not have brought the matter up for the purpose of making the observation I am about to make, but I think it is pertinent to make	it	in this connection.	Itwould seem to	me	to be the duty	of	the
Clerk of the Crown in Chancery-and it would have been proper for the Prime Minister to have advised the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery of that duty-to acquaint at once the solicitor of the petitioner with the fact that public documents of this country, properly required for the purposes of a trial which would determine the right to a seat in this House, could not be found and were either destroyed or stolen or made away with in some manner. It is perfectly obvious to any bon. gentleman in this House who realizes the importance of this matter, that that should have been done. To prove the election properly under such conditions it would be necessary to have certain searches made and certain inquiries carried on in order that secondary evidence of that which would be properly proved by the best evidence, might be admitted by the judge presiding at the inquiry. If it had happened that the judge presiding at that inquiry had not granted an adjournment, very serious consequences might have followed the failure of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to adopt the course which I have suggested as a proper one for him to adopt. As a matter of fact, the counsel for the petitioner with whom I have conversed on this subject, states to me that he did not know until the witness actually went upon the stand and gave his evidence, that the papers would not be forthcoming ; and although he made

inquiries from Mr. Foley after his arrival at Sherbrooke, as to the production of the papers, he was unable to obtain any information upon that subject.
Now the facts seem to be these : in the first place, let me say at once that whatever suspicion, if there be any suspicion, may attach to the loss of these papers-and X am not suggesting any suspicion at the present moment-the late Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, Mr. Lamothe, is absolutely above any suspicion whatever, either as to his character or his ability. All who knew that gentleman realize that the proper discharge of his duties of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery was his chief consideration, and no one would for a moment suppose that he would be concerned in any way, either directly or indirectly in any act at all improper in connection with these papers or any others. His assistants and clerks I believe to be equally reliable and faithful. It appears that Mr. Lamothe fell ill in March, and that during the mouth of March he suffered more or less from the disorder which eventually carried him off. It appears further that the papers relating to the Stanstead by-election had been received on the 5th day of February by registered mail from the returning officer ; and also that a man by the name of L'Heureux came to the office of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery on the 8tli or 10th of February in order to ascertain if any papers in that office were ready to be taken away and burned. I should perhaps state in this connection that it is the practice, in the office of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery as in other departments of government, to give to this man, who has some contract or mandate for that purpose, the papers which are useless and which it is desired to get out of the way. He came on the Sth or 10th of February, but the evidence is not very plain, so far as I can understand it, whether he actually took away some papers at that time, but it is probable that he did so.


Wilfrid Laurier: Who is L'Heureux ?


Robert Laird Borden: L'Heureux is a carter or a man of that class, who is employed in the various departments of the government, and in this building I think, to come and take away the papers that are put aside as waste and useless. I understand that he takes them away and destroys them in a furnace. It appears that L'Heureux went to the office of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery about the 8th or 10th of February, and it would appear probable that he did take away some papers on that occasion. But it is to be remembered that the papers relating to the StarTstead election had been received in the office of the Clerk of the Crown in
Chancery only three days before. The papers are kept in the office of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, in pigeon holes, each one having a door which is fastened by a key, and I believe that one or two keys fit practically nearly all the locks on these pigeon holes.
Mr. Lamothe was last in his office on the 1st day of April, 1908, and he died on the 8th day of April. He was subpoenaed to attend the hearing of the preliminary objections apparently for the 6th day of April, 1908. I gather that by inference rather than by direct statement. It would appear that the hearing was adjourned in consequence of his illness to the 6th day of May. At all events he was subpoenaed on the 1st day of April, and that was the day on which he last attended in his office. Mr. Chadwick, a clerk in the office, declares in his testimony that lie saw the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery get the papers ready after receiving the subpoena on the 1st day of April. He is not sure as to the date, and he says further in his evidence that in the ordinary course Mr. Lamothe would have done this about two days after receiving the subpoena. He seems to be confident however that he saw him get the papers ready for the purpose of taking them to the hearing of the preliminary objections. If that is correct, and I think it is, Mr. Lamothe must have done that on the 1st day of April, the very day on which he received the subpoena, because he was not in his office after that date.
Mr. Foley was appointed Clerk of the Crown in Chancery on the 21st day of April. During the interim there was no person specially charged with the duties of the office, except in so far as Mr. Chadwick and the young lady stenographer who was employed in the office, might be considered as invested with any mandate to discharge such duties. Mr. Foley, the present Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, attended at the preliminary objections on the 6th day of May, when he made known for the first time the fact that the papers were missing. He says that after receiving his subpoena to attend the hearing he immediately proceeded to look for the paper's, and he then discovered the box bearing the label ' Stanstead by-election, 1908,' and he proceeded to get those papers ready to take with him in attending the court in obedience to the subpoena; and happening by accident to look into one of the envelopes, he discovered that these papers were really the papers for the general election of 1904, and not for the by-election of 1908. He discovered, however, in the box, along with the other documents, the stamp used for the purpose of the by-election of 1908, but he did not discover the stamp used for the election of 1904. The stamp of course does not accompany the copy of the deposition which I have, but an impression had been

forwarded. It is just a stamp containing the words ' Returning officer, Stanstead, 1908.' I will not weary the House with reading any portion of the evidence giving Mr. Foley's explanation of the presence of that stamp. I could not follow very clearly the explanation, and I am inclined to think that there has been some mistake on the part of the stenographer in taking down the evidence. That of course very often occurs. For example, on the top of page 4, he gives the following answer :
Did you make search yourself?-A. Yes, Sir, I made most diligent search myself and also my deputy Mr. Chadwick whom I called in at once. And we both made all possible search for the papers, but could find nothing else. Mr. Chadwick afterwards went to Mr. Lamothe's house and made search there without avail. The only evidence I could find of the 1908 election in the box, is the little stamp that I have here (witness produced a rubber stamp). I suppose that was on account of the box being placed on one end, this remained on the bottom.
It is the last sentence of the testimony which I have just read that I do not understand. It does not afford to me, at least, an adequate explanation of how it was that althougn all the other papers relating to the Stanstead election of 1908 disappeared, this rubber stamp was found in the box where these papers should also have been found. So much for the circumstances of the case.


William Humphrey Bennett: Would it not have been thrown in outside of the envelope ?


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know whether or not the evidence gives us any information in regard to that. I made some inquiry and I understand that the stamp might come back in a bag with other papers or it might come with another parcel.
I do not feel that too much importance should be attached to the fact that the stamp was found in the box. But, it is a singular circumstance that every other paper which should have been found in the box had disappeared and that the stamp of 1908 was found there while the stamp of 1904 was not found there. The matter with which I jam chiefly concerned, in bringing this subject to the attention of the House, is this : the evidence disloses that a great many persons have access to the office, persons employed in the building who require to visit the different rooms for any purpose, all these possess keys to this room. For example, the engineers and other persons requiring to do any work in the different rooms of this building possess keys. The messengers of the House possess keys. I am not making reference to these persons with the slightest idea of casting suspicion upon them, but simply in connection with another circumstances which is of the gravest possible nature and it is that a great many keys are available for this room and any Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
person who can obtain access to this room, can, by using two or three keys, of the most ordinary description, find eventually a key which will open every one of these boxes and expose to that person public documents which may affect the seats of half a dozen members of this House. I have made inquiry on the subject heretofore and I understand that the officials of the office of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery have been asking for two years that they should be provided with steel file cases which would make these papers absolutely secure. These file cases would be provided with locks which would not be susceptible to being opened by such ordinary means as those I have indicated.
We do not know what may be the result of the loss or destruction in the present case. I do not desire to miake any comment upon the Stanstead election. I did not rise for the purpose of doing it, but let us assume an election in which there were not only genuine ballots but ballots fraudulent upon their face such as we discovered upon examination of the ballots of the West Huron and Brockville elections ; does not my hon. friend the Prime Minister, does not every member of this House, realize how absolutely essential it miay be to the interests of persons concerned in such frauds that the ballot papers in that particular case should be destroyed, and should not be forthcoming when they were called for upon the preliminary inquiry or any other inquiry 1 That emphasizes the absolute necessity of providing the clerk of the Crown in Chancery with proper steel cases secured by proper locks in order that public documents of this character which may be required in the courts of the country may be preserved and in order that parliament may be properly and regularly constituted. As I have said here I understand that has been the urgent wish of the officials in that department during the past two years and such a wish has been expressed on several occasions, to the proper authorities who have, up to the present time, absolutely disregarded it. Then, there is another suggestion that I would like to make to the government, that there should be some departmental inquiry or investigation, or an investigation by the House, if necessary-the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery is attached to what department ?


Wilfrid Laurier: He is attached to the House of Commons.


Robert Laird Borden: He is not attached to any particular department ?


Wilfrid Laurier: No. When Mr. Lamothe was in office the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery was attached to the Department of the Privy Council and had been for some years, but it was suggested that he should be attached to the House of Commons to which he properly belongs

ana when we appointed a successor, Mr. Foley, we transferred him to the staff of the House of Commons.


Robert Laird Borden: I recollect that the right hon. Prime Minister announced that owing to the suggestion made by the Civil Service Commission that change had been made. It would seem very desirable that Mr. Speaker should make some investigation into this matter if it were not thought worthy of the attention of the Committee on Privileges and Elections. I would be inclined to think that an inquiry should be prosecuted at once. It is not for me to say how serious under the present circumstances may be the loss of these ballots. It is represented to me that the loss may be a very serious one in prosecuting the inquiry which it was proposed to carry on by the proceedings in the courts. I am not at the present time attaching blame to any of the officials. I have not the material upon which I could be justified in imputing blame to any official, and I should require circumstances of a very cogent nature before I would propose to cast that blame. But, there are two things which are absolutely certain. In the first place, Mr. Lamothe was not only a most conscientious officer, but he was a most careful and diligent officer in the discharge of his duties. One finds it difficult therefore to believe that on the 8th or 10th of February last, three days after he had received the papers relating to the by-election in Stanstead, he should have sent these papers away to be destroyed, making the mistake of believing that they were papers which had come to him in connection with the general election of 1904. I find it very difficult to bring myself to the conclusion that there was any such mistake as that and yet it is the only explanation which has been vouchsafed up to the present time. In the second place, I desire to call attention once more to the urgent, thorough necessity of providing the officials of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery with such steel cases, or other appliances of a like character, as will place suspicion of any wrong doing in connection with a matter of this kind absolutely be-voud question. At the present time we have this condition of affairs :	The
papers have been lost, a certain explanation has been given and that explanation depends upon the most remarkable negligence and inadvertence on the part of a very capable, reliable, diligent and conscientious officer. If we do not accept that explanation then we simply require to conjecture some other and it Is impossible to conjecture any other without at the same time casting suspicion which ought not to be cast without adequate and grave reasons. It surlev is undesirable that the office of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery should be accessible to so many persons and that it should not be provided with the means of
keeping these papers absolutely safe and secure Under these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I thought it nothing more than my duty to bring the matter to the attention of the government in the earnest hope that immediate steps will be taken so that an occurrence of this kind cannot possibly come again to the attention of the House.


Rt.   H@: My hon. friend has paid to the late Mr. Lamothe a tribute of which he was altogether worthy ; no more faithful officer ever lived. I may say also that to Mr. Chadwick, the other clerk in the office, the most unqualified commendation can be given.


Robert Laird Borden: Hear, hear.


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Chadwick is also a most honourable and painstaking officer. Mr. Foley, the present Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, is also a very excellent officer but of course he had nothing to do with this. The office of the council of the Crown in Chancery is in this building and Mr. Foley before his appointment was working in the Privy Council office in the eastern block. It is difficult to account for such an accident, but having given it consideration since it was brought to my attention I must say the conclusion I have arrived at is that the papers disappeared before the death of Mr. Lamothe. I do not care to enter into this further than to say that I believe it was the result of an accident and nothing else. I think everybody admits that. My hon. friend has stated that Mr. Lamothe and Mr. Chadwick of late years have repeatedly made applications for these steel cases. These applications would necessarily come to me first and if Mr. Lamothe did make such an application I must say that I do not remember it. If a requisition of that kind should come to me, after having discussed it with the officers I would send it immediately to the Department of Public Works. But I have no recollection of having received such an application although it is quite possible it may have been made. As to the suggestion that the office of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery is accessible to several people, I think that applies to every office in the departments, for the charwomen must go there every morning and other people must of necessity have access.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course that is absolutely necessary and I was not objecting to it. I merely mentioned it to show the necessity for providing these steel file cases so that those who go into the office could not get at the papers.


Wilfrid Laurier: The office of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery properly belongs to this House and there is no reason at all why it should be attached to

any department of the government. When the commission reported that the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery should be on the staff of the Honse of Commons it seemed to be perfectly reasonable, and when we appointed a successor to Mr. Lamothe we put him at once on the staff of this House and he is now under the jurisdiction of Mir. Speaker and not under the President of the Privy Council as wias formerly the case. The Clerk of the Crown in Chancery is the custodian of the archives connected with elections to this House and he therefore holds a very important position. I welcome the suggestion that we should have an investigation so that attention may be given to the advisability of taking extra precautions for the keeping of these records. If it be the wish of my hon. friends opposite I should be quite willing to consent to the appointment of a special committee to investigate the whole question. I may say that the matter was brought to my attention for the first time shortly after Mr. Foley assumed office. He came to my room in the House of Commons, on what date I do not remember further than it was Friday afternoon and he had been summoned to appear at the trial on the following Tuesday. I advised Mr. Foley to at once report to the Speaker of {he House and to get from the Printing Bureau a list of the electors so that If the solicitor for the petitioners wanted secondary evidence, that might facilitate the proceedings. I repeat that we are only too happy to have any further investigation as to the cause of the accident, if the cause can be found, and with a view of guarding against as far as possible any such accident taking place in future.


George Eulas Foster: This matter has been known for some time; is it true that up to the present no special investigation has been made?


Wilfrid Laurier: No special investigation has been made and I do not see what special investigation could be made. Nobody blames Mr. Lamothe and everybody must come to the conclusion that it was merely an accident. If there was any reason to suppose that there had been dishonest design in the destruction of these ballots the case would be different, but I cannot see for what purpose anybody would destroy these ballots.


George Eulas Foster: The purpose is very evident.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is not evident at all. As I understand it the controversy in the courts is simply as to a matter of form and the Clerk of the Crown In Chancery was summoned to give the usual formal evidence as to the holding of the election. These papers having been destroyed it is not difficult at all to make secondary evidence.


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. FOSTER, if the process is to eventuate in anything, the case would come to trial and then the ballots would be important, and the ballots have gone.


Wilfrid Laurier: As I have been informed, the preliminary objection has been taken in the trial that the returning officer did not initial or certify the lists which were delivered to the deputy returning officers, and if that be the point it can be determined by secondary evidence. As a fact I understand the returning officer admits he did not sign these papers.


Robert Laird Borden: The Prime Minister is quite right that secondary evidence could be produced and it would be foolish for any one to suppose that the petition would be absolutely defeated by destroying the ballots. But the importance of the ballots does not cease there, because if certain fraudulent acts have been committed at certain polls the production of the ballots would be an important feature.


Wilfrid Laurier: Undoubtedly.


Robert Laird Borden: I am informed by the counsel for the petitioner that he regards the ballots as very important evidence for his client.


Wilfrid Laurier: This is the first intimation I have of that.


George Eulas Foster: The really important point is that it is possible for ballots to be destroyed in any way. thus rendering the restitution of his rights to an aggrieved candidate practically impossible. Surely it is important that such an occurrence should be inquired into. The gravity of the whole thing, I think, is in that. Granted that Mr. Lamothe was not to blame-and in that opinion I agree heartily with the Prime Minister and my hon. friend the leader of the opposition-the ballots have disappeared. It is just as fair to suppose that Mr. Lamothe did not by accident destroy the ballots or allow them to be destroyed, as it is to suppose that he may have committed an error unwittingly and thereby the ballots have gone. It is just as easy, and I* think much more natural, to suppose that a third party has been able to intervene, and for some purpose or other to do away with the ballots. I would rather suppose that than that Mr. Lamothe, a very careful officer, who has been in that office for a long while, could have allowed the ballots to have been taken away in mistake for those of 1904 ; and it is to me a little startling that the Prime Minister seems to have thought that it was quite well enough to let the matter slip along and to make no investigation of it at all, but only now is willing to take the suggestion that has been miade.
It seems to me that such a thing ought immediately to have been put in the hands of the Dominion police. They work by
8S49

clues, and might have been able to discover whether or not some third party had intervened and had made away with the ballots. That is a supposition that is quite plain to be taken.


Wilfrid Laurier: My opinion and my information is that there was nobody to blame, but that it was an accident ; but I concur in the suggestion of my hon. friend that the matter should be investigated by a special committee of this House with the view of ascertaining the cause and what precautions may be taken to prevent similar accidents in the future.


William Stevens Fielding: As the right hon. leader of the House has explained, it is only recently that the officer has been transferred to the jurisdiction of the House of Commons. I am aware that since that transfer has been made, Mr. Speaker has communicated with Mr. Foley, now the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, and has requested him to make suggestions as to what improvements he would wish to have made for the better care of the documents, in the way of improved accommodation or otherwise. No doubt, if there has been any laxity, the necessary arrangements will be speedily made for the better care of the documents in the future. Mr. Speaker has already taken action for that purpose.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The peculiarly regrettable feature of the matter seems to be this. We have had twice in the history of Canada the destruction of ballots and papers that were supposed to be necessary and valuable for determining the result of a contest in the courts over elections, once in Toronto, and once here ; and is it not striange that the papers in both cases disappeared apparently at the very time they were most needed, and that the history of the loss appears to have been exactly the same in both cases-they were destroyed by accident ? In the West Elgin case the ballots were burned, as it was said to be the custom to burn the biallot papers after they were several years old ; and those which had come in recently got mixed with the old ones. Does it look natural or reasonable, that any business man charged with the responsibility of keeping the papers relating to an election of three or four years ago would allow them to get mixed up with the papers relating to an election of only a month ago ? It does not seem to me to be natural or probable or .reasonable. Therefore, while not desiring to say too much on this matter, I cannot refrain from the suspicion that there is fault somewhere, and that the act was the result of design rather than of accident. In both cases the papers were destroyed just when an election contest was going on in the courts, and when the destruction of the papers would serve the interests of the same
political party, once in the province and once in the Dominion. Another strange coincidence is that an important member of the cabinet was the confidential adviser of the party in Ontario at the time that this happened there, and when the fact came out the same explanation was given that is given to-day in this instance. This shows either that great minds run in the same channel or that it was really and purely a coincidence. Another feature that seems to be interesting is the fact that when the matter was brought to the attention of the government, they made no effort to ascertain the cause of it. The destruction of these papers might result in keeping a member improperly sitting in this House for the remainder of the term, or they might put him out of the House by disclosing irregularities or devices that in law would be very serious punishable offences. But the destruction of the papers destroyed all that. The very fact that these weighty consequences were involved, and that it is very desirable that all public officers should be above suspicion with regard to the faithful and careful discharge of their duties, should have led to a most searching inquiry at the earliest possible moment so as to satisfy all that it was purely and simply an accident and nothing else. If that had been done, the incident would have ended there ; but the indifference of the government with regard to it in itself creates the suspicion that they did not think it worth while to have an inquiry made until some one brought it to the attention of the House, and then they say if the House desires they will have an inquiry. If such a thing had happened with the other party, either in this House or in Ontario. I venture to think that not a moment's delay would have occurred before a most searching inquiry would have taken place to ascertain what was the real history of the destruction of these important papers.


Wilfrid Laurier: To-morrow I will move that this matter be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections, or, if hon. gentlemen prefer, to a select committee.



Mr. LORENZO ROBITAILLE (Quebec).: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair, I would like to call the attention of the Minister of Railways and the Minister of Agriculture to certain reports in the newspapers. It is stated in the ' Star ' of Monday, the 18th May, that at a meeting held at Knowl-ton on Saturday, the 16th. the Hon. Sydney Fisher, Minister of Agriculture, declared that ' provincial politics must go hand in hand with federal politics, for both are destined to work for the good of the country.' In the ' Herald ' of May 18 it is stated :

Hon. Mr. Fisher congratulated Mr. Vilas on his record at Quebec, and on the evident approval of the electors of Brorne. There was, he said, an intimate connection between the politics of the province and the politics *of the Dominion, because each was destined to conduct the country in the same paths of progress and prosperity.
The ' Free Press ' of May 15, giving a report of the meeting at the Russell House, reports the speech of the Hon. Mr. Graham thus :
He (Hon. A. G. Mackay) stood for the same Liberalism as did the federal party, and the Dominion leaders were behind him.
The 'Evening Journal' of the 15th May reports the same lion, gentleman thus :
I want to say that as a member of the federal government I believe in and support Mr. Mackay as the leader in Ontario.
I would ask the hon. gentlemen if they are reported correctly. Also, I would appreciate the courtesy if the right hon. leader of this House would say whether he approves of provincial issues being identified with federal politics ?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals).: All 1 have to say is that I am a supporter of the Hon. A. G. Mackay in the province of Ontario and am proud of it. I do not propose to go into a discussion of political issue. Mr. Mackay is well able to do that himself. If he were holding a meeting to-morrow, and if I could get away, I would be on the platform behind him or beside him.


THE QUEBEC TERCENTENARY-MOBILIZATION OF MILITIA.
Mr. A. C. MACDONELL (South Toronto).: Before you leave the chair. Mr. Speaker, I would like to be permitted to make a few remarks regarding the abandonment by this government, to a great extent, of the military demonstration at the Quebec tercentenary. The present attitude of the government is an abandonment of the intended mobilization of the militia of Canada at that celebration. The matter is one, in my opinion, of very great, if not of immediate, public importance. The people of Canada have been led to believe by the government that at least fifty per cent of the Canadian militia, besides the permanent force, would be mobilized at Quebec on the occasion of the tercentenary celebration. When the Minister of Militia was passing some of his estimates, as far back as the 27th March last, the question came up and he then said, as far as I was then able to understand, that the government had made certain arrangements with regard to this matter. On that occasion hon. gentlemen on this side who spoke supported the proposition, and the House was unanimous in its approval [DOT]of the course then outlined by the hon. min-Mr ROBITAILLE.
ister to abandon the rural camps in the summer and have only one camp or mobilization of our militia on the Plains of Abraham or thereabouts at Quebec. On that occasion the government made a contract with this House and the people and the militia of this country that that proposal would be carried out. But we are now told something entirely different. We are told, if we are told anything definite, that it is proposed to abandon the position then taken for the reason that the transportation companies are unable or unwilling to convey the militia at a time when they hiave to convey such a large concourse of people as will necessarily go to Quebec. As early as 27th March last, the Minister of Militia, who ought to have been aware of the attitude of the transportation companies, said, as appears on page 5748 of 'Hansard':
The department appreciate the importance of this matter of transportation, and the very first thing we did was to address letters to all the transportation companies to ascertain what kind of accommodation they will be able to give us. The answers are coming in now.


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: Hear, hear.


Angus Claude Macdonell: That was as far back as the 27th March last, and it was not until the 13th May that this House was startled by the announcement of the Minister of Militia of the practical abandonment of this proposition. The government appointed a commission, and the members of that commission were appointed by the right hon. gentleman himself previous to the announcement of the Minister of Militia, and into the hands of that commission was committed the programme for the celebration at Quebec. It seemed to me that that was a matter which the government should not have delegated in that way. It seems to me that the duties were such as they should have performed themselves, and that they were in a better position to deal with these matters and the transportation companies than would be the commission. Be that as it may, the government appointed this commission, composed of very able men, and this commission mapped out a programme, which they published throughout Canada and the neighbouring republic and in fact the whole world. That programme consisted of four features. One was the mobilization of our military, which was practically Canada's only contribution to the event. Then there was to be a display of the British fleet, and I believe France and the United States were also asked to send warships to participate in that naval display, and then there was to be a grand pageant during eight or nine days depicting various scenes in the early history of this country, and in the end there was to be a display of fireworks and an illumination. The commission, on the faith of the government's attitude, and no doubt carrying out their instructions,

proceeded upon the basis that there was to be a mobilization of the army of Canada. That was something to be desired and which had not heretofore taken place in our history. The people were to be treated to a display of Canada's national army, mobilized to the extent of some 20,000 or 25,000 men. It was largely on that basis that the attraction of the celebration was based. That was to be the great attraction, as far as we are concerned in Canada. The British people were to contribute their quota towards the entertainment, and there is no reason to suppose that they will not carry out their engagement. The commission, haying made these tentative arrangements, proceeded to Quebec. I am informed that they went there in company with the officials of the Militia Council. At all events these officials went to Quebec and viewed the property where it was proposed to locate the camp, and in a general way mapped out arrangements for the accommodation of these men and for the carrying out of the military features. Let me say in passing that there can be no excuse for withdrawing the military mobilization scheme because of the lack of accommodation at Quebec, because the soldiers would in no way trespass upon the accommodation of civilians.
They would be provided with accommodation by the Department of Militia, entirely independent of the civilian quarters of the city so that they would not in any way interfere with the citizens. The commission proceeded upon that basis, so I am informed, and had interviews with the transportation companies who, while not anxious to undertake this matter, were ready to transport these troops and carry out the arrangement as intended, but in view of the expected congestion of traffic on the occasion, they asked to be allowed to take the troops down two days earlier and remove them from Quebec two days earlier than was otherwise intended. Even if the transportation companies were allowed to have their way, surely that was ground on which they could have been meet. If the abandonment of this whole matter hinged upon the presence of the troops there two days earlier than the people would arrive and their withdrawal two days earlier than the people would leave, surely that is a flimsy reason for the abandonment. Whether the transportation companies were right or wrong, if this arrangement could have been made to bring the troops there as I said two days earlier, it was surely worth while meeting them in that matter. The people were informed that these troops would be present, various contributions poured into the fund for this purpose, the province of Ontario contributed, I think, $100,000 and the province of Quebec $100,000, and there were other contributions from private persons, some in England and some in Canada. It seems to me that one feature of the programme on which these contributions were based was this military display. Why has it been abandoned? What sufficient reason is there for the abandonment? The military of this country were given to understand that they could have this opportunity of meeting in a joint camp. The citizen soldiery of the province of Ontario, and especially of Toronto, have looked forward to this, many of them have made their arrangements for the summer accordingly, the regiments have filled up to complete strength, and this is due in no small measure to the opportunity they expected would be afforded them in participating in this manoeuvre and going to Quebec. Is the government going to break faith with the people and with the military of this country? Surely some way can be found by w'hicb the original arrangement can be carried out. It seems altogether a flimsy excuse to say that the transportation companies must have their way in this matter and not carry these troops. The Minister of Militia would naturally be expected to know before he announced his scheme to the country whether or not the military could be entrained and properly handled. He said in this House on a subsequent occasion that the Militia Department could mobilize and handle twice that number of troops in 48 hours at a central point like Quebec where a number of railways centre. The commission have made their arrangements, the public have made their arrangements and now we are practically told that with the exception of the permanent force there is to be no military demonstration. That I think is not an unfair meaning to take from the remarks of the Minister of Militia who has said in the House :
A considerable portion of the permanent force will be sent to Quebec. What other portions will be sent I cannot say, but as soon as it is decided I shall be prepared to make an announcement to the House.
The impression has got abroad in this country that there is an abandonment of the whole military feature, except perhaps that it will be taken part in by the permanent force. If there is to be a renewal of this arrangement let it be announced at once. The time is approaching when the celebration is to be held. 25,000 men cannot get away on an hour's notice, and it seems to me the government have not kept faith with the militia or with the people of Canada or with this House. The railways, of course, expect a large concourse of people and the number who will attend is largely due, I believe, to the expected appearance of the military. When it is found thiat the military are not to appear it seems to me that Canada is practically abandoning all the portion that she was to contribute to that display. It is my opinion that the attendance will fall off in proportion. None of us want to see this cele-

bration a fizzle, we all want to see a large number of people there, but certainly if the plans at present contemplated by the government are pursued, there will be a great reduction in the number of people who will go there. If the government do not intend to abandon it they should, at the earliest possible moment, make an announcement to the country of what they intend to do so that people would know what part the military are to play in this celebration.


Hon.  W. S.@: I wish to reassure my hon. friend at the outset that there has been no abandonment of anything. There has been a change of plans, although at the time this matter was first mentioned in the House, on the voting of certain supplies to the militia, to which my hon. friend has referred, I was very careful to say :
The plans have not yet been completed, in fact, they have scarcely been begun. It is the present idea that it would be desirable that a portion of the vote for the annual drill should be used in the transportation and mobilization of a considerable number of the militia at Quebec where they will be under canvass under the usual conditions of camp, and the duties ordinarily performed in camps of instruction will be discharged there, and of course the troops will take part in the review to be held at Quebec in connection with the celebration. I do not know how many days that will take, but whatever the cost will be it will be charged up against the vote for the annual drill and the officers of my department think that this will be a very valuable experience.
And so on. There was nothing definite and ' abandon ' is altogether too strong a term.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I thought it was announced afterwards that it was expected that 40,000 or 50,000 would be taken, or 50 per cent of the militia.


Frederick William Borden: I said that 50 per cent of the active militia, the rural militia, would be taken, which would be about 20,000. The fact is that there will be a mobilization of a certain number of the militia of Canada at Quebec on this occasion, nobody has thought of abandoning that idea. I stated in the House the other day that it had been found impossible, on account of the difficulties connected with transportation, to mobilize such a large number as was at first thought of, some thirty odd thousand, and I stated that. would have interfered with one of the chief objects we have in view, namely, the bringing together at Quebec of a very large number of people from all over this continent, who will have to be brought there by the railways. After going into the thing carefully, the Quarter-Master General, who has charge of matters of transportaion, found that it would be very difficult indeed to carry out this mobilization.
Mr. MACDONELL
It would be full of risk, because accidents might arise in transporting guns, horses and all the paraphernalia attending a large camp, which would seriously interfere with the transportation facilities by which the people who expect to go to Quebec could alone be carried there. The other day I stated in the House fully the reasons why we had reluctantly given up the idea of a large camp which would practically include nearly the whole of the militia of Canada, but I said at the same time that there would be a force mobilized at Quebec. I do not suppose, Mr. Speaker, that there is any special advantage in making a military demonstration of great power and force at Quebec on that occasion. It does not seem to me that it is at all necessary. What I think we want is a fair representation of the militia of Canada, and that we expect to have, that, I think, is all that is necessary. I could go on and enlarge upon the subject, but I think I have said enough to satisfy any reasonable man. I am perfectly certain that I will be able to satisfy the militia of this country that we are doing what is in the interest of the militia itself. My hon. friend has stated that the militia regiments are all full now, beyond their normal strength even. Well, has it come to this, Mr. Speaker, that in order to have the regiments of the militia of Canada up to tilt full strength, it is necessary to provide some picnic such as they would expect to have on this visit to Quebec ? I have a higher opinion of the militia of Canada than that. I think they will be in full strength, and will attend to their duties at the camps this year just as well as they have ever done. I may say to my hon. friend that I have had many communications from different parts of Canada expressing pleasure at the fact that we have given up the idea of mobilizing the whole militia of the country at Quebec,


Angus Claude Macdonell: I would like the hon. minister to announce to the House what his programme is, and let the people know what the military features are going to be.


Frederick William Borden: Precisely, and that is what I propose to do as soon as it is convenient. I said the other day when this question was brought up :
It is not correct to say that the troops are not going to the tercentenary. It is a fact, however, that the annual camps of instruction will be held as usual throughout the Dominion this year, instead of being held at one common point at or near the city of Quebec, as was proposed. The annual drill of the city regiments will also take place as usual this year. The reason of the change in the programme, which programme I announced briefly to the House three or four weeks.ago, is chiefly due to the difficulty of transportation. It will be understood, I am sure, that one of the principal things to keep in mind

in connection with this tercentenary celebration is to bring .together the largest number possible of people to Quebec to witness the ceremonies. Some time ago the chairman of the commission called my attention to the fact that the transportation lines, the railways and steamboats, must be left free as far as possible to bring the people to Quebec and take them home agajiq and he thought it proper to ask the Militia Department to agree not to move any troops on a certain ntimber of days before the celebration began and a certain number of days afterwards. It will be readily understood that such an arrangement would hamper the railway transportation lines very much. An earnest effort was made to see whether the difficulty could be overcome, but it was found it could only be partially overcome. It was therefore thought better that the camps should be held at the usual places of holding camps. As to the statement that has been made that the headquarters of the militia were unable to cope with the mobilization of 25,000 or 30,000 troops at a central point like Quebec, the story is absolutely without foundation, and is entirely absurd.
Then I went on to say that as soon as it was determined what number of troops would go to Quebec, I would make an announcement. I said that the Militia Department would be prepared to co-operate with the Battlefields Commission In every way in its power ; so it will be, and I hope before many days to be able to make an announcement to the House on that subject.


Mr. W. F. COCKSHUTT (Brantford).: On the 27th of March I had the honour to ask the minister a question when this matter first came up. as will be seen on page 5711. I quite coincide with the opinion of the hou. member for Toronto (Mr. Mac-donell) that the minister has considerably changed front since that matter was first brought to his attention in the House. I asked the minister if the statement was correct which I had seen, that 60 per cent of the militia regiments would be taken to Quebec.


William Foster Cockshutt: Is the percentage stated correct, 60 per cent?


Frederick William Borden: About 50 per cent.
Here was an answer in distinct terms as to the number that were likely to go. Now the department seems to have retired from the position they took up at that time. At that time the matter appeared to be under the charge of the Militia Department entirely, and we were given to understand that it would be handled by the headquarters staff altogether. Now, If we are correctly informed, there has been a change, and the matter is to be handed over to the Quebec Battlefields Commission, because we see it stated in the papers that the Quebec Battlefields Commission are to select what regiments shall go to Quebec and what regiments shall not go.


Frederick William Borden: I would ask my hon. friend to observe what I have said, not what the papers have said. I am not responsible for what the newspapers have said.


William Foster Cockshutt: I hear what the minister says now, and I am not sure that he has always stated the same.


Frederick William Borden: I read what I stated.


William Foster Cockshutt: I have the very best information that that is not what took place the other day when a certain number of colonels and commanders of regiments appeared before the minister. What went out to the public at that time was practically what the member for South Toronto has said, that the Militia Department had entirely retired from the position they had taken of making a big military demonstration at Quebec, and that is the impression that prevails in all sections of the country.
. Sir FREDERICK BORDEN. Entirely erroneous.


William Foster Cockshutt: I was told by more than one military man that the terms decided upon were such that it would be impossible for them to go, and the surrender of their pay and the difficulties that have been placed in their way would make it a financial impossibility for the regiments to go under the conditions named. Now if that is the case, it appears evident that Canada is to take a very little part in this great demonstration. If this demonstration means anything, it means a celebration of a military character, it is a military demonstration. We have fleets coming from Great Britain. No doubt if they hear on the other side that our militia are not going to take any part, that we have no fleet except the ice-breaker ' Montcalm.' and a few other disabled vessels, they will conclude, that we are practically out of it. Now we are told that even this military demonstration of which we expected so much, is going to be curtailed to such an extent that perhaps 3,000, or 4.000, or 5,000 may assemble. I say, Mr. Speaker, that this is a great and keen disappointment, not only to the militia, but to the citizens of Canada who look upon this as a great national occasion, an occasion when the patriotism of the people should be stirred, and when, if they were unable on account of financial or other reasons to go to Quebec themselves, they would take a keen interest in watching what was going on there, recognizing that we were celebrating the third centen-nary of an event which is very notable in Canadian history. I say it is to be deplored that the Militia Department are going back on what was expected of them. Whether it is going to be handled by the Battlefields Commission or the Militia Department, I think that the 50 per cent named in the

first place is not too great. The agreement was practically unanimous, as my hon. friend from South Toronto has said, no opposition developed on this side of the House.
Personally, I supported it very strongly as did several other gentlemen and I sincerely regret, Mr. Speaker, that the minister has apparently become comparatively lukewarm with regard to what was to be a great feature of the occasion. H<j told me, in reply to a question at the time, that the question of transportation was already engaging the attention of the department and that answers were coming in at that very time. Transportation could be easily managed if taken hold of in time. The river is open, there are plenty of first-class boats to be obtained and practically the whole western peninsula of Ontario could be served by the water route much more expeditiously and cheaply than in any other way. I believe that information has already been received by some gentlemen who have made inquiry that large boats can be obtained at a comparatively small cost for the transportation of the men and then they will feed them at the same price that the railway companies will charge for transportation alone. That is a statement that I received the other day from a gentleman who is thoroughly conversant with the question. If the railway and transportation companies of this country cannot take charge of the transportation of all these men, the United States alongside, I believe have intimated that they will allow the troops to pass through their territory if the request is made. I do not know that that is official, but at any rate I have it on good authority that some of the American railway companies have stated that they will see to it, if necessary, that troops are transported more cheaply in first-class cars than can be done by the Militia Department in box cars on this side. In that case why could we not send one, two, three, four or five regiments through the United States ? It might appear humiliating that we had to avail ourselves of American transportation for such an event but still it would be worth while making the attempt. I trust that such oilers will be received by the minister in the spirit in which they are conceived. The people are desirous of having a splendid demonstration on that occasion and they want to show what the Canadian militia system is. There has never been an opportunity in modem times when the minister and the department had such a chance of distinguishing themselves as they have on this occasion. To hand it over to the Battlefields Commission and to load them up with something that they do not want would be to make an unnecessarily large addition to their other duties and with the very expensive staff that we have in the Militia Department at Ottawa Mr. COCKSHUTT.
we should be able to place in the city of Quebec, 20,000 or 25,000 troops without seriously interfering with the ordinary traffic of the country. I think it can be done. I think that I am voicing the desire of the people and of the militia and when a great national occasion of this kind occurs and when we have an opportunity to show what the Canadian militia is and what our transportation facilities are it would be a pity if we should not take advantage of the occasion. There will be some large ships from across the water at Quebec. I understand the French Republic is going to be represented officially, the British government will be represented, the Prince of Wales will be there, an impression will be made that will be carried all over the world and if we fail to do what is expected of us I think we will do an injury to the country and an injury to the militia system of which we all to-day have every reason to be proud. I trust that the minister will give this his earnest and most serious consideration and that within a very few days he will come down with a statement that will be more satisfactory to the House and the country in regard to this tercentenary celebration that we are holding In the city of Quebec in the latter part of July.


Mr. H. A. WARD (Durham).: If my hon. friend the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) will permit me, I desire to say that I think a mistake was made by the department in issuing orders to" the regimental commanders with reference to the tercentenary until the arrangements were absolutely conclusive as to the transport of the troops. I do not think my hon. friend quite realizes the amount of disappointment that has ensued among the rural corps at any rate in consequence of the change of plan affecting them in going to the tercentenary. The orders issued to the commanding officers were to have fifty per cent of their respective commands in readiness.


Frederick William Borden: No, there were no orders issued at all.


Henry Alfred Ward: These were from the district officers.


Frederick William Borden: Inquiries were sent to see what could be done. No general orders were issued whatever.


Henry Alfred Ward: I think the minister is making a mistake in regard to that.


Frederick William Borden: No, I looked it up to-(Iay because I knew this was coming up.


Henry Alfred Ward: I will have to produce the orders to convince the minister. But, certain papers were issued-we will not call them orders for the present-advising the commanding officers to have fifty per cent of their respective commands in readiness
8S61

to go to Quebec. Another order, or another paper, came out a day or two afterwards requesting the commanding officers to say to their respective commands that they hoped they would understand that they might have to be transported in box cars. Surely, if it were not the intention to take them to Quebec it would not be necessary for the commanding officers of regiments to advise their officers and men that this was proposed to be done.


Frederick William Borden: That is entirely a mistake. Certain inquiries were made, and, owing to the difficulty at the very outset as to this question of transportation, it was thought wise to ask the commanding officers of the regiments, through the regular channel, whether, in the event of there being a difficulty about transportation, they would be willing to go in box cars. They were to have their option. If they did not choose to go that way they need not go. It was thought wise to point out at the outset the difficulties that there would be and that there would be a possibility of the accommodation not being such as we would like to give them. There were no orders ; it was simply an inquiry.


Henry Alfred Ward: Unfortunately I have not the papers here. I accept the statement of the minister, as I am bound to do, and I am perfectly certain he would not say that unless he was sure he was correct. At a later stage, I will have an opportunity of showing him the particular papers that I refer to. But, that is beside the question. What I wish to state, in so far as the rural regiments are concerned, is that I know, as a matter of fact, a number of regiments in our district have been drilling for the last three weeks in anticipation of going to Quebec. There is no doubt about that; I have seen them myself. It is a matter of keen disappointment to these men in the rural districts that they are not to take part in the celebration. I believe that it would be a good idea in the educative sense. There are thousands of young men in the rural districts who will never have an opportunity of seeing Quebec and I am sure the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) would like the members of the militia force to visit Quebec upon that occasion. We all take the greatest possible interest in the old city with its historical and other associations. It is a disappointment to these men in the rural districts because they will never have another opportunity such as this to visit the old city associated as it is with the history of the country. There is another thing that I would like to call the attention of the Minister of Militia to and it is that in a- pecuniary sense a good many of the officers are suffering. I happen to know that uniforms have been ordered by officers expecting to go, and which will have to be accepted
notwithstanding the fact that these officers may not go to Quebec. There are many things that the minister should consider. If there is any possibility of a change with regard to the rural regiments taking part in the celebration I trust the Minister of Militia will seriously consider the carrying out of the plan as at first proposed.


Mr. E. GUSS PORTER (West Hastings).: I understand the Minister of Militia has stated that that the Battlefields Commission are to make a selection from the different city corps.
ISir FREDERICK BORDEN. I never said that
Mr. PORTER, I have been informed that it was the intention to hand over the selection of the different corps to the Battlefields Commission.


Frederick William Borden: There has been no arrangement of the kind.


Edward Guss Porter: There is a feeling of great disappointment among the volunteers in the district which I represent that they are not to be permitted to join in the celebration. They are chagrined that they are not to be allowed to exhibit their proficiency and their military spirit which they have so well demonstrated on many occasions in the defence of their country. They feel their services to the country in the past have been such as to entitle them to be selected for duty at Quebec, if any city corps is to be selected. I speak more particularly in reference to the 15th Argyle Light Infantry.


Frederick William Borden: It is a good regiment.


Mr.   F.@: R, LALOR (Haldimand). The officers and men of the 37th Battalion of Haldimand have been expecting to go to the historic city of Quebec, and they will be greatly disappointed if the Militia Department decides that they are not to go. I impress upon the minister that in selecting the troops for Quebec he should not forget the rural battalions. I fear the city battalions get too much attention to the detriment of the rural battalions. I call the minister's attention to the fact that in the 37th Battalion there is a company comprised entirely of Six Nation Indians and I believe they would be a very attractive feature of the celebration.


Frederick William Borden: Hear, hear.


Mr. LALOR.: I trust the Minister of Militia will provide for a strong representation of the 27th Batalion at the Tereenti-nary celebration.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, House went into Committee of Supply.
Office of the Comptroller, of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police-
Salaries, $14,762.50; contingencies, $900.
[Stage Direction]
8S64
Rt.   H@: There is a decrease of $1,912 in this appropriation as compared with last year. The accountant. Mr. Fisher, was retired on the first of January, and his work has been taken by the chief clerk, Mr. Fortescue, with a member of the mounted police from the Northwest to assist in the details. One clerk has been transferred to the Department of the Interior and his work is now being done by a sergeant of the police. Mr. R. M. Galhvey. who had a salary of $1,457, died and his work is performed by a junior at a smaller salary. The promotion of Mr. Duplessis from second to first-class does not give him an increase of salary until January, 1909. The promotion of Mi-. Wilfrid Gravel from junior to senior second means an increase of $250. The others are statutory increases.


George Eulas Foster: There is a diminution of one clerk.


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


Mr. BERGERON.: Is he to be replaced ?


Wilfrid Laurier: It is not intended to replace him.
Pay of force	$300,000
Subsistence, forage, fuel a aid light, clothing, buildings, repairs and renewals, horses, dogs, arms and ammunition, medical stores, billeting, transport, water service, stationery and contingencies	 450,000
750,000


Wilfrid Laurier: In this estimate we ask provision for 700 men; 500 in Alberta and Saskatchewan, 100 in what is now the Northwest Territories, and, 100 in the Yukon. We are gradually reducing the force in the Yukon. I think we have only eighty-two men there now and henceforward we intend to make no distinction between those in the Yukon and the rest of the force except as to pay.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What men have you in Manitoba?


Wilfrid Laurier: We have no men in Manitoba except one or two who form a cordon on the boundary to protect the revenue.


George Eulas Foster: How are the one hundred men distributed in the Northwest Territories ?


Wilfrid Laurier: At Churchill there are eight or ten men, at Fullerton an island on the west shore of the Hudson bay, five men; at Fort Maepherson, at the mouth of the Mackenzie river, four or five men; at Herschel island, four or five men. There are men on the Peace river, at Stone lake and other places. I have here a map, showing the distribution of the force, which I will lay on the table. We have a patrol Mr. L4LOR.
from Winnipeg to Fort Churchill to assert our authority on the Hudson bay. Some years ago we commenced to assert our authority both on the Hudson bay and on the Arctic ocean at Herschel island, because we found that American whalers were going there without authority. Since the police have taken possession and asserted our authority, the American whalers have taken licenses from us and have paid customs duties, and our authox-ity is no longer disputed. At first these American whalers were inclined to demur, and I think they made some complaint at Washington; but of late years we have had no trouble. We have a patrol from Winnipeg to Fort Churchill and a patrol from Dawson to Herschel island, so that at present our jurisdiction is fully established.


George Eulas Foster: The mounted police who have asserted the sovereignty of Canada on those exposed portions of Hudson bay, are the permanent emblems of authority; they are always there, and they have force as well as appearance. The Prime Minister has said that although at first the American whalers were a little obstreperous and did not wish to take out licenses and pay customs duties, yet now everything is peaceably acknowledged and our sovereignty in those portions of the northwest and northeast is permanently established. If that be so, what is the use of sending Captain Bernier on an expedition this year and next year at an expense of hundreds of thousands of dollars? I am not finding fault with this in any party sense or wish to make party capital. I am simply asking the Prime Minister seriously to consider whether or not this should be allowed to go on under the plea of pi-otecting the sovereignty of Canada where absolutely nobody questions it. The United States has not raised a cavil with reference to our authority. These American whalers take out their licenses and pay their customs dues to the Mounted Police, who are the customs officers. Is not that sufficient? If it costs a good deal, the country is quite willing to pay the necessary cost. Why should it be duplicated by sending Captain Bernier on a useless expedition to the north?


Wilfrid Laurier: Captain Bernier goes much farther north than the points I have mentioned. He goes to the Strait of Behring, to Baffin's bay and to much other territory over which we claim jurisdiction, which at present is of very little use perhaps, but tbe value of which we do not know and which may develop.


George Eulas Foster: Who is trying to take it away fx-om you?


Wilfrid Laurier: Possession is nine points of the law. If we had sent the Mounted roliee twenty years -ago into the Yukon Territory, we would liave to-day more territory than we have. The great

mistake we made was not in attacking sufficient importance to our country. Tke Americans have been muck shrewder in that respect. I do not know whether my hon. friend has seen the last map of the northern country that has been issued at Washington, which shows that the Americans are taking possession of and claiming everything in sight. I do not think they are entitled to it, however.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: That does not give them the right to it, because they take possession of it.
Sir WILFRID LAT1RIER. They got Skagway by means of possession. If we had taken possession of it in time they would never have had it.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is that the way we lost Alaska?


Wilfrid Laurier: We have not lost Alaska, because it belonged to the Russians and was ceded by them to the United States. But there was a disputed territory between tile United States and Canada, and if we had taken earlier the precaution which we have now taken, of sending men into the country to take possession of it, we would have had Skagway to-day. In the last map issued at Washington, I think by the War Department, there are various islands in the north with American names attached to them, conveying the impression that these lands belong to the United States. Captain Bernier goes north in order to put the British flag and assert our authority on this territory, which we claim as ours. If my hon. friend reflects, I think he will agree that it is proper that we should take this precaution. My hon. friend asks who will take away this territory from us. If we had not asserted our sovereignty on Hudson bay four years ago, as we did, white men, attracted by gold or the discovery of the country, would probably have gone in and we would probably have found the Americans disputing 'our jurisdiction on Hudson bay. But by taking the precaution of asserting our jurisdiction we have reached a. point where our authority is no longer disputed. My hon. friend asked why it is now necessary to assert authority since it is recognized and why we should maintain these posts?


George Eulas Foster: I am not finding any fault with the Hudson bay posts. I think we ought to keep them, and according as people flow in the greater is the reason why we should keep them. But I object to this indeterminate charge and this expenditure of Captain Bernier in islands where there is no settlement and never will be any.


Wilfrid Laurier: How is my hon. friend sure that there will be no settlement in these northern islands? I understand there are most valuable coal de-282
posits in some of them, and it will be well for us to keep possession of them.


George Eulas Foster: But we are in possession and there is no question of giving them up.


Wilfrid Laurier: No, but there is question of somebody else taking possession of them. If we want to assert our jurisdiction in our own country, we must be all the time vigilant. Vigilance is the price, not only of liberty but of security as well. I am making no complaint of our American friends, but they are very enterprising, and if they find anything in any place where there is nobody, they are apt to take possession. For that reason the expenditure connected with the expedition of Cap-taiu Bernier is well warranted. On consideration my hon. friend will come to the conclusion that it is better to spend money in those high latitudes and maintain our jurisdiction.


George Eulas Foster: Whatever is necessary.


Wilfrid Laurier: This is necessary. If my hon. friend says we are spending too much that is another question, but we can all agree that it is necessary we should spend something in order to maintain our jurisdiction in these waters, no matter what the cost may be.


Mr. AMES.: With what rifle are the Mounted Police now armed ?


Wilfrid Laurier: The Lee-Met-ford and Winchester.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I see that the department buys many things from Revellion Bros, at Edmonton. Is that done by tender ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I have already explained on former occasions that about seventy-five per cent of the expenditure on the police force is done by contract. Twenty-five per cent is done in the locality where the expenditure is made, but all the large contracts are by tender.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Were the purchases from Revellion Bros, by tender ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Some of them.


George Eulas Foster: With reference to distribution of men in the territories, has each squad its own officer ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Colonel Perry is the commissioner stationed at Regina. There are some posts of more or less importance at Calgary, Fort Saskatchewan, Fort McLeod and elsewhere, where there may be ten or twelve or live men. There are a number of posts scattered all over the country in which there are only two and sometimes only one man. They are all subject to some other direction.


George Eulas Foster: Commissioner Perry is chief of all the Mounted Police, including those outside Alberta and Saskatchewan ?



886:S


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: I suppose the general instructions go through him to all the others, and each of the oflicers in isolated posts is in supreme command while he is there ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: We are paying for 500 mounted policemen in the two provinces we have created, how long are we to provide these two provinces with mounted policemen ? How long before they are to undertake their own policeing ?


Wilfrid Laurier: We have an arrangement with them for five years and they pay us 875,000 each year.


George Eulas Foster: What proportion is that of tlie whole expenditure in these two provinces ?


Wilfrid Laurier: One-third.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How many men in the mounted police ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Six hundred and eighty.


George Eulas Foster: I understood my right hon. friend to say that there are fifty in the Yukon and it is intended to cut down that force ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Are the repairs they were making in Regina yet finished ?


Wilfrid Laurier: They are going on all the time. This year we put up some new buildings in Regina. The work is done by the men themselves.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I do not see anything in the Auditor General's Report covering this work. I found one of the buildings at Regina in a very bad state, and the government were replacing the wooden foundations by stone. I found every other building in first-class condition. I think the works were stopped for some reason or other, and I do not see anything about them in the Auditor General's Report.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is all done.


George Eulas Foster: Is it found as easy to recruit new members as formerly and are the new recruits as good a class as the old ?


Wilfrid Laurier: It is very difficult to get men and still more difficult to keep them, owing to the prosperity of the country.


George Eulas Foster: Is our force deteriorating ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I think it is as good to-day as it ever was.


Mr. HERRON.: I would like to draw attention to the murder of a policeman at Crows Nest Pass some time ago. The : Mr. FOSTER.
policeman's name was Lewis and he was murdered in the town of Frank. The government have offered a reward of $200 for the capture of the assassin. It seems to me that the government might well offer a reward of $500 or even $1,000. I think some steps should be taken to give a decent reward for the securing of a murderer. It is very important that the police should maintain their standard for enforcing law and order. Along the western border and perhaps in the Crow's Nest Pass there are a number of pretty bad characters, but the police have always maintained law and order in a highly creditable way. When a man is murdered in the discharge of his duties I think the government should not be backward in the granting of reward for the capture of the murderer. A year ago I said in the House that I believed the mounted police were not paid sufficiently in that country. The Prime Minister has stated that it is very hard to keep good men in the service. That must be the case where ordinary labourers are getting $30 to $50 a month with board while the mounted police get only $15 to $25 per month. I believe it would be better if we had a smaller number of men who were better paid, particularly men of long service, because one good man of considerable experience in that country is worth two or three new men not accustomed to the conditions there.


Wilfrid Laurier: A reward of $200 has been offered for the capture of the murderer referred to. We could not have done better as under a standing order the police have power to do that without referring to us but they could not go beyond that amount.	_ t


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I think it is only an act of justice to say one word in favour of the mounted police as it is to-day. I am generally pretty hard upon the government and sometimes on my right hon. friend under other circumstances, but I have seen in the west that these men are really a credit to the country. They are well dressed, well kept, well disciplined, and their conduct is splendid. I have had the pleasure of visiting some of the mounted police posts and I found everything in perfect order, in fact their barracks I fancy were equal to anything that you would find in the regular army in England. I consider the force to be very useful. I remember in the old times when my right hon. friend and hi- friends were on this side they criticised the Conservative government for having the mounted police in the Northwest. One Liberal who is now a senator was very severe on that score. I was of the opinion then that we needed the police and I am still of that opinion. I think the maintenance of that force has a salutory effect in that immense country, their presence does much to uphold the peace and tranquility of the west.

As to the question raised by my hon. friend of the pay of the force I have nothing to do with that. I leave that to the generosity of the Prime Minister, but I would point out that the ordinary man who would receive .$40 to $50 a month in that country is not the same kind of man as those who are employed in the police. The mounted police are real soldiers, and many of them quite exceptional men. Their life is a special life and they seem to be perfectly happy. None of those I met made any complaint about pay, and I am sure that many of them would rather work in the foi'ce for $15 or $25 than outside for $40 or $50 a month. I believe they must be well taken care of and well fed and that their lodgings must be kept in perfect condition. On the whole I must congratulate my right hon. friend and his department. Neither in reading the Auditor General's Report nor in travelling in the Northwest do we find a word of graft in that department.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have to say to my hon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Herron) that the question of increasing the pay of the police has been brought to my attention more than once, but on the whole we have not yet seen the advisability of changing the present rate which was established some years ago. There is a great deal, of course, in what was said by the hon. member for Beauliarnois (Mr. Bergeron). The life of the police is a special career, the men are paid from 00 cents to $1 a day, according to a certain scale. They are provided at the end of thirty years with a pension. If a man engages at the age of twenty, then at the age of forty, while still a young man, he can withdraw from the force with a pension and, knowing the country, if he wishes to go into other business he is well equipped to do so. There are a certain number of men who like the life, they are paid a certain amount, they are fed and clothed: they become accustomed to the life and do not care so much for the money because they know they will not be left destitute in their old age. and that they can count on the bounty of the government. On the whole I think they are satisfied. During the twelve years I have been in charge I have not heard a complaint from the force with regard to that. They are too well disciplined of course to send me a complaint even if they thought they had reasonable ground of complaint, but I woul 1 have heard from the comptroller of the force if there had been any grievance in that respect.


Mr. LAKE.: Where is the recruiting taking place now?


Wilfrid Laurier: We have no special place of recruiting. Recruiting takes place in Ottawa, but the officers are authorized to take men. We have received applications from all parts of the British 282J
empire, but of late years, when we wTere not increasing the force, we have not thought of taking any from outside of Canada as there was no necessity for doing so.


George Eulas Foster: What percentage of the personnel of the force change each year from causes other than death?


Wilfrid Laurier: The comptroller is not ready to give a definite answer but he thinks about 15 per cent to 20 per cent.


George Eulas Foster: Is that percentage increasing gradually?


Wilfrid Laurier: I have not observed that it has increased of late.


George Eulas Foster: Is there a change in the nature of the offences with which they have chiefly to deal, and what is the chief offence now against which the mounted police have to act? I suppose that, wdth the increase of population, cattle stealing and horse stealing have been reduced to a minimum.


Wilfrid Laurier: At page 6 of the report of the mounted police we find a comparative statement of offences for the years 1900-1907. The figures are :
1907	 5,685
1906	 4,256
1905	 3,767
1904	 3,465
1903	 2,613
1902	 1,520
1901	 1,250
1900	 936
The most numerous offences last year were:
Offences against-
The person	 729
The property	 877
Public order	 66
Religion and	morals	 2,208
Indian Act	 336
Provincial statutes and Northwest Territories	ordinances	 1,308
There is nothing further in these statistics that I can see that would not apply equally to any other province.
Pensions payable to Mounted Police, Prince Albert Volunteers and Police Scouts, on account . of rebellion of 1885, $2,400.53.


George Eulas Foster: How many pensioners are there on that list?


Wilfrid Laurier: There are 10 persons still remaining on the list.
To compensate members of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police for injuries received while in the discharge of duty, $3,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: There are about 30 of these receiving compensation for injuries received while in the discharge of their duties.


George Eulas Foster: What board establishes the amount ?
*8871


Wilfrid Laurier: A medical board first, and then an officers' board.


Mr. BLAIN.: What amount is paid at present in pensions to the Mounted Police?


Wilfrid Laurier: The amount last year was $5,666, and the amount estimated for this year is $5,601.


Richard Blain: What is the number on the pension list altogether?


Wilfrid Laurier: Sixty.
Department of Militia and Defence-salaries, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Civil Service Act, $63,500; contingencies, $12,000.


Frederick William Borden: There is a net increase of $3,450, of which $1,050 is due to 21 statutory increases at $50 each. There is provision for four additional first-class clerks, $2,000. That is not an actual increase, because these clerks have been working for some time in the department and they are now made permanent.


George Eulas Foster: Where were they taken from ?


Frederick William Borden: They were connected with the stores, I think. I am not absolutely certain. They were supernumeraries. They were not permanent but they have now' been appointed and they have passed the examination.


George Eulas Foster: What salaries are they getting ?


Frederick William Borden: Four third-class clerks ; $2,000 for the four.


George Eulas Foster: Were they appointed at the same salaries they were receiving in their former service ?


Frederick William Borden: Yes, some of them at even less, I think. They do not mind that because they prefer to have permanent employment.


George Eulas Foster: They go out from the stores department and then the vacancies in the stores department are filled ?


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: So that makes an addition to the whole service ?


Frederick William Borden: No, I am told not.


George Eulas Foster: It must be so if you have filled the old vacancies and you are making four additions here.


Frederick William Borden: Perhaps I am wrong in saying the stores department. There is always a certain number of extra clerks.	.
, Mr. FOSTER. Are you filling the vacancies made by the appointment of extra clerks ?


Frederick William Borden: No.


George Eulas Foster: 


George Eulas Foster: Are there any extraordinary increases amongst all these clerks ?


Frederick William Borden: No, I think there are none. There are 21 statutory increases.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I see that a new order has been passed by which so many officers are to be made full colonels. What is the reason for that ?


Frederick William Borden: I think the order is based on a continuous service of 25 years. The idea is to rew'ard men wrho have served most of their lives in the active militia by giving them a higher rank for long, continuous and meritorious service.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I remember that under the old administration there were only five or six colonels.


Frederick William Borden: The recent militia law gave power to appoint a colonel and even a major-general under certain conditions.	-


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is it true that the other day in opening the House in New Brunswick, as stated in the press-I thought it was a mistake-there were five colonels, ten majors, fifteen lieutenants and one private for the escort of the Governor.


Mr. DANIEL.: And a general.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: And a general.


Frederick William Borden: I could not give my hon. friend any information on that but I will look it up.
Post Office Department-salaries, $366,531.25.


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General).: There is an increase of $6,468.50 made up as follows :	187 statutory
increases of $50 each, making $9,350 ; 5 increases of $78 ; 1 increase of $40 ; 1 increase of $10 ; 8 additional junior 2nd class clerkships at $800.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: That would make more than $6,000. There must be some reduction somew'here else.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is a difference betw'een the salaries of certain clerkships which became vacant and the salaries of the officers appointed or promoted to vacancies of $11,372, making an increase of, as compared with last year, of $6,468.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What is the matter with the man who inspects the boots ? I see that under the head of contingencies there is the following item :
Clerical and other assistance, including $50 a year to pay W. Cooch for inspecting letter carriers' boots, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act.


Rodolphe Lemieux: This man has been employed in the department for several years. We have to provide the boots for the letter carriers and Mr. Cooch, -who has been em-

ployed as a packer and sorter since 1882 and who is an old shoemaker and well qualified for the work, inspects the boots.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Do I understand that all these boots are brought here ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: We call for tenders in the different cities and if the prices are found to be acceptable we give an order. The boots are brought here and distributed.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: If these boots are made in Toronto or Montreal why should they be sent here and sent back again either to Montreal or Toronto ? The expense would be a great deal more than the salary and travelling expenses of a man sent out to inspect them.


Rodolphe Lemieux: They are sent by mail cars and it does not cost the department a cent. It is for the better administration of the department. We have to look after the uniforms in the same way. The uniforms are made in this city but last year they were made in Toronto and sent here. We have nearly 600 or 700 letter carriers and we have to test the boots and clothing. Sometimes we have complaints. This year we had a complaint about our suits and if we did not have the contractors in Ottawa under our own eye probably the complaints would be more numerous, but in consequence of having the clothing made in Ottawa and tested here we avoid a good deal of criticism.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: Will the minister make a statement as to the irregularities in the post office service in western Canada?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I saw it stated in the Toronto ' Globe ' and the Toronto ' World ' recently that robberies to the amount of $12,000 had been committed in the Winnipeg post office, but our inspector has reported that this statement is not true. Sometime ago a young man in the Winnipeg post office misappropriated $900, pleaded guilty, and his father refunded the amount and the boy went away. One of the British mail bags disappeared from a station between Montreal and Winnipeg some time ago and we expect to locate the culprit. Fortunately the money orders contained in some of the letters could not be cashed and duplicates are available for those who are properly entitled to them.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: What action was taken with regard to the young man in Winnipeg who was convicted and whose father refunded the money ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I should not have said that the boy pleaded guilty. He was strongly suspected however and the father paid the money that was missing. AVe surround the services with every safeguard, and in comparison with the enormous number of money letters and the great number of employees in the service all over the country
the offences have been comparatively few in recent years. AA7hen a man is found guilty he is sent to the penitentiary. In a recent case in Montreal a man was arrested, brought before the police magistrate, and sentenced to three years in the course of twenty-four hours.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Do I understand that the minister has appointed inspectors to some of the outside districts ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: When the amendment to the Post Office Act is passed I intend to appoint a financial superintendent, not an inspector. The expansion of the postal service especially in the west gives our local inspectors as much work as they can do in other directions and the book-keeping is so complicated that we must have a special man to instruct the different postmasters. It is my intention to appoint Mi*. Johnston, a reliable officer who has been thirty-five years in the service. He is now chief accountant at Ottawa and he will select his clerks specially adapted for the work in the large post offices. They will follow his instructions and so we will have uniformity throughout the Dominion.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Is he a very good accountant ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, he is quite an authority. He has been asked by one or two other departments to help them.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Why did you not send him to the Marine Department ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: He was probably too busy in our own department.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: There are a number of matters I wish to call attention to in connection with the Post Office Department, but as I do not wish to delay the proceedings now I shall avail of another opportunity.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How many male employees are provided for in this item.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 400.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: And how many ladies.


Rodolphe Lemieux: About 100. The ladies are specially proficient in certain work and young men would not accept the salaries paid for such work.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Did the minister read the Report of the Civil Service Commission on that subject ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: The report is that the employment of ladies prevented young men from going through the lower grades and obtaining the higher positions.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Some people criticise the employment of ladies in the departments, but I found the ladies there and as they

are rendering very good service I do not think I should displace them. My individual opinion is that I would rather have university trained young men in the service, but it is very difficult to get young men speaking both languages which is a useful accomplishment in our department which deals with all the provinces in the Dominion. The ladies are employed in typewriting and shorthand writing, and young men who have had a university course will not spend their lives at that occupation. For such duties, I am bound to say, the young ladies in our department give very faithful and efficient service.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I do not want to be understood as opposing the employment of these young ladies. They probably perform their duties as well as young men would perform them and at much lower salaries. But I was very much impressed with the statement in the report of the Civil Service Commission that in the different departments young men are not being trained for the higher positions, as would be the case if they commenced at the bottom of the ladder. That is the point I wanted my hon. friend to ' explain. Could my hon. friend say how long his department has employed young ladies?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I think for about twenty years. We have some young ladies, still young, who entered the department twenty years ago. My hon. friend will remember that ten or fifteen years ago a general movement began on the part of banks and other large financial institutions for the employment of young ladies in large city offices. With regard to the young ladies in the department, I repeat that I have no reason to complain, although of late I have declined to accept the services of any more ladies. I think we have reached the high-water mark; we have about a hundred in the department, and I think that is enough. The reason why we have of late years employed so many ladies in the department is not to the credit of the young men, because it is quite difficult to find young men who are willing to pass the civil service examination, while the young ladies are, as a rule, both more willing and more successful than the young men in these examinations. We need young men in the service, but young men want to be employed without passing the examination. When we cannot find the young men, we take the young ladies.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I am surprised to hear my hon. friend say that he cannot find young men. I was under the impression that there were thousands of young men who had passed the civil service examination waiting for positions.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is true, some of them have passed the civil service examinations ' Mr. LEMIEUX.
but they do not wish to enter the service unless they get $1,000 at once, whereas the law provides that they must begin with $450 and go up the ladder with an increase of $50 a year. An ordinary labourer comes into the department at $1.25 per day, and can go up to $2.25 per day; but when he passes the civil service examination, he must, according to the law, fall back to $450 a year.


Mr. BARR.: Does my hon. friend say that the young ladies in the different departments are equal to the occasion and in every way as efficient as men?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Perhaps I should have qualified the statement I made. The young ladies in the department fulfil their duties quite creditably in the special class of employment in which they are engaged. It is principally routine work, but they do it well. There are classes of employment in the department which I would not give to ladies, because I do not think, generally speaking, they would be proficient in them.


John Barr: Would they not be capable of going up to the top of the department?
, Mr. LEMIEUX. My predecessor, Sir William Mulock, established a regulation under which examinations are held every year in the various branches at Ottawa and in the larger city offices, to test the way in which the employees are performing their duties; and on the results of those examinations we promote the officials. As I have stated, the young ladies cannot go above a certain grade.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What is the scale of salaries, and how far can they go?


Rodolphe Lemieux: As a general rule, they commence at $500 and go up to $700 ; but we have two or three ladies in the department who have reached a higher salary.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I imagine that in all the departments in Ottawa there must be about a thousand young ladies employed. I do not understand why the ladies, if they pass the examination, could not climb to the top of the department-why one of these young ladies who have been there for twenty or twenty-five years should not be Deputy Postmaster General. I am considering what ought to be done in the future and am not saying anything about those employed. I am simply talking of the principle in the matter. Who is it that gave the model for the uniforms of the letter-carriers? I do not think anything could be invented that could look worse. If it can be changed without a damage to the constitution of the country, it ought to be.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The present uniform was adopted many years ago. I had first thought that I should be somewhat of a reformer in that direction. I wanted to change the hats, for instance, but I found many objections.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: From the contractors?


Rodolphe Lemieux: From the men them' selves. The helmets are used in the British army in southern climates, and our letter-carriers, during certain weeks of' the summer, are in many sections exposed to very high temperature and they find the helmet quite a protection. X wanted to substitute straw hats, but they said to me that, while they were of that opinion in the beginning, they found by expex-ience that the helmet was the best headgear. The uniform is not a bad one. It is not as heavy as it looks. Last year when I visited the Toronto post office and saw the men sorting the letters and going out to deliver them,
I had some of the uniforms weighed and found they were very light. A' good deal of the appearance depends on the men themselves. They ought to keep neat and tidy, and it is my intention later on to give' something more to the men just to teach them to be a little neater and tidier in their wearing apparel. They should have creased trousers and clean shining boots.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Have they only one uniform ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: They have a winter one and a summer one and they have oilcloth coats.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What cities are entitled to letter-carriers?


Mr. MONK.: He is not a manufacturer.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He is a large shoemaker.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: He has a retail store and is a shoemaker as well.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, he has a large store on St. Catherine street, and he has besides a large establishment where he employs many men.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: If he is the lowest tenderer he is entitled to the contract. I know the man, and if he undertakes a contract he will carry it out.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Each carrier goes to Lecompte and has his measure taken and the boots are made to order.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What is the price.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: How many letter carriers in Montreal?


Rodolphe Lemieux: 380 in round numbers.


John Barr: Is there a contract let in each city by tender or is this contract for the whole Dominion?


Rodolphe Lemieux: No, in each large city we give a contract to the lowest tenderer.


John Barr: How long does it continue?


Rodolphe Lemieux: For a year.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Last year I made new regulations. Cities whose population is 12,000 and whose revenue is $20,000 are entitled to letter carriers. I may tell my hon. friend that some cities which are entitled to letter delivery object to the system because it prevents the men, and especially the ladies, from going out to the post office and stopping at the shops en route.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I would like my hon. friend to inquire from Valleyfield whether they would like to have letter carriers or not. Valleyfield has the population and the revenue as well.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The population, according to the information given me by my hon. friend is there, and I shall inquire as to the revenue.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: How are the boots purchased?


Rodolphe Lemieux: By contract after public tender.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Are they purchased wholesale?


Rodolphe Lemieux: They are not purchased indiscriminately. We have a contract and the boots are made to order after measurements are taken.


Mr. URIAH WILSON.: With what firm?


Rodolphe Lemieux: With Lecompte in Montreal.


William Humphrey Bennett: I am surprised that the minister, in the face of the Auditor General's Report, would say that all these boots are purchased in Montreal. W hen Sir Wm. Mulock was Postmaster General he resorted to one of the pettiest jobs of patronage and gave to Aurora in his riding the patronage of the whole department. The minister says these boots are purchased by contract in Montreal. Do the facts bear that out? Let me show by the schedule what is purchased in Aurora, simply to give the benefit of the patronage to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) in whose constituency that town is situated.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What volume ?


William Humphrey Bennett: belts, 100 at 75 cents; sheepskin washers, 3* gross, $4.20, $204.20.
Watson, Win., Aurora: letter carriers' hoots, 46 pairs at $4.50, $207.
Watson, Wm., Aurora, letter carriers' boots, 13 pairs at $4.50, $58.50.
Boots for letter carriers at $4.50 per pair: Charles Tilley & Son, Toronto, 69 pairs, Wm. Watson, Aurora, 80 pairs, $360,


Rodolphe Lemieux: They are repaired in Ottawa and all the large cities. There are three or four different parties in Ottawa repairing mail bags.


William Humphrey Bennett: It seems odd they Should have to be carted from Toronto or up to North York.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Aurora is a stone's throw from Toronto.


William Humphrey Bennett: Not by any means. In order to make the patronage as useful as possible, a fair amount of this work is thrown into Newmarket. It is all a question of patronage on the same lines as the giving to the Office Specialty Company at Newmarket, $350,000 worth of business in the last few years. Passing the Supreme Mr. BENNETT
Court building this last week one can see thrown out on the waste heap splendid hardwood and clear pine cases with drawers and bronze handles, with letters on them, thrown out of the departments in order that the Office Specialty Company of Newmarket could make sales to the department.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: What are they doing with that?	'


William Humphrey Bennett: Smashing it up for firewood. Why cannot the minister buy letter-carriers' boots In Toronto or Montreal?
, Mr. LEMIEUX. I do not see what objection there is to distributing here and there throughout the country what my hon. friend calls patronage, which is simply what is needed for the department. I take issue with the hon. gentleman's statements. I am informed that in every case the price paid was the result of tenders asked. Take, for instance, the case of Tilley & Son, Toronto, to whom reference has been made and who sold boots at $4.50 per pair. That is the price paid in Montreal and every one knows it is not an exaggerated price. There is nothing here to show the department has paid an excessive price. Is there any reason why we should concentrate, or to use a new expression, Bovrilize the patronage in one city? If tenders are asked what objection is there to some of the work being done in Aurora or Newmarket.


William Humphrey Bennett: Who were the competitors for the supplying of these goods for Hamilton, Kingston and Montreal besides Watson of Aurora, and what were the respective rates at which they tendered?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I could not give off-hand the competitors, but I may say that the lowest price was accepted in each case.


John Barr: Were they advertised in the newspapers ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Would my hon. friend approve of my hon. friend spending $200 or $300 to advertise for tenders in the case, for instance, of this item of $211 for forty-seven pairs of shoes?


John Barr: Then it is simply the favoured few, those on the patronage list?


Rodolphe Lemieux: When reliable firms are called upon to tender and when the price is fair as this price is, $4.50-


Uriah Wilson: Does my hon. friend consider Tilley & Son, of Toronto, a large wholesale house? I think their principal business is dealing in shoe findings.
I know the firm, it is a small place. Is it true that the men leave their measures and have the shoes made to order?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, the measures are taken and sent to the makers. I know that is the case in regard to the uniforms which

are made here in Ottawa. The firm making them do not establish a branch in each city where we have a letter-carrier service, but they send their cutter to each city and he takes the measurements of each man ; the uniform is then made to order here where they have their establishment. The same thing applies to the shoes.


Uriah Wilson: And you are paying retail prices for all your shoes and getting no better shoes than you can buy ready made? Forty years ago you could get better shoes made to order.


Mr. LEM IE TJX.: We do not buy readymade.


Uriah Wilson: I do not care whether you do or not. You can get as good shoes ready-made as to order, if you pay the price. I have been dealing in shoes for forty years. We used to make many shoes to order, we would keep ten to twelve men busy, but now you can get a much nicer shoe ready-made than you can get made to order. I venture to say that not one in ten of the membei's of this House have shoes made to order now.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Are you sure of that ?


Uriah Wilson: That is my experience in my part of the country.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend wears American shoes?


Uriah Wilson: I do not wear American shoes. Geo. T. Slater, the Slater Company and McCready & Company are leading houses where you can get as good shoes as in the United States and cheaper than in the United States. You can go to the wholesale manufacturers and get them made at different widths. You can get a narrow width or a middle width, five or six diflerent widths so as to fit any foot. I see that these boots are being bought in the same way as goods have been bought for the Marine and Fisheries Department, that is at retail. No one will say a word against Tilley & Sons, who are a very respectable firm and who no doubt will furnish a first-class shoe. But the chances are that they take the orders and get some wholesale men to furnish them, and you are paying middlemen's profits.


William Humphrey Bennett: On S-54 there is an item, J. Fleury's Sons, Aurora, newspapers and parcel receptacles, and so forth, $4,719.39. Was there any competition in that line, or are they handed over to the president of the North York Liberal Association ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: No, there is competition.


William Humphrey Bennett: When the minister comes to his estimates again, will he bring down the names of all those who competed for these articles ?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: With regard to the items of S-64, my hon. friend from Lennox and Addington (Mr. Wilson) says that these goods were not made in Victoria where they were distributed. I see that goods of this class are made in many places. For instance H. Leger, Ottawa : letter carriers' boots, 25 pair at $4.50. J. W. Wright, Ottawa, letter carriers' boots, 26 pair at $4.50. It strikes me that it would be better to allow shoemakers who want to get orders the privilege of tendering.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is the price too high ?


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I am not a shoemaker, I do not know. It seems to me that if tenders were sent all over Canada, for instance, to the Mr. McCready firm in Montreal, one of the largest firms in Canada in this line of goods, you might probably get boots for $3 which you are paying here $4.50 ; you could get them cheaper on account of buying a large quantity at the same time. Then the country would save $1.50 each pair on boots. It seems to me that the department should look at the subject from an economical point of view. I see also that uniforms are bought in the same way.
Uniforms for letter carriers: blue melton trousers, 27 pair at $3; blue melton tunics, 16 pair at $5.15; overcoats, 10 at $6.30; pea jackets, 6 at $6.30.
But there is no name given to show who they were purchased from. On page S-62 I find another case of a purchase without any name being given.


Rodolphe Lemieux: They are all purchased from the men who have the contract. The uniforms to which my hon. friend refers as having been bought without any name being given, are all bought from NO el & Chevrier, who have the contract for uniforms for the whole Dominion. It sometimes happens that letter carriers are appointed over and above the number that were specified when the contract was given, and of course these have to be supplied afterwards. But they are supplied at the same price as the other uniforms and the lowest tender was accepted.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: At the Ottawa post office I find another item :
Uniforms for letter carriers: * blue melton trousers, 38 pairs at $3; blue melton tunics, 18 at $5.45; overcoats, 9 at $6.30; pea jackets, 9 at $6.30.
Turning over to the Montreal post office I find ;	.
Uniforms for letter carriers: blue melton trousers, 15 pairs at $3.25; 137 pairs at $3; serge overcoats, 22 at $6.30; pea jackets, 15 at $6.75 and 59 at $6.30.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will explain why orders are given sometimes for different numbers. The uniforms are not all delivered at one specified period of the year. For in-

.8S84
stance, a man comes into the service at the beginning of tbe summer and gets a uniform. If he comes into the service in the middle of the summer he will get his second uniform only at the middle of the summer. We cannot apply the same rule as to the delivery of trousers and shoes to every man, because they do not all enter the service at the same time.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I think it would be better to supply them all under one contract.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is only one contract, and that contract was awarded to the lowest tenderers, Noel & Chevrier. There were five or six tenderers in all. Now some men will enter the service at the end of a season, they will get their summer uniform. The next year they cannot expect another uniform at the beginning of the summer because they have not used long enough the uniform supplied them in the previous summer. That accounts for the difference in the delivery of uniforms. You will see that at one place 100 uniforms are delivered, at another place 30, at another place 35 and so on. This does not prove that there is more than one contractor, it proves that the uniforms are delivered at different times.


Edward Guss Porter: The Post Office Department appears to be not quite so generous in dispensing credit where credit belongs, as it is in dispensing patronage to political friends. I had occasion, during the canvass of the election in 1904, to visit a section of the riding I have the honour to represent, which was not served by a post office, and in which there was a very considerable settlement. I saw at once the necessity of some provision being made for these people, and while I was in the vicinity I drew up a petition which was largely signed. The petition was headed by the Rev. Father Mclnenney, who was parish priest at that particular point. This was Bell's Rapids, in the county of Hastings. I presented that petition to the department here, and urged the necessity of establishing a post office at that point. Nothing was done for some considerable time, and I repeatedly wrote to the department urging upon them again and again the necessity of having these appointments made. Finally I received a letter from the then Postmaster General on the 19th of April, in which he says :
I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter expressing the hope that the department might establish a post office at Bell Rapids. In reply I have to state that some time ago on the application of Mr. Henry Pringle, of Belleville

I ask the Postmaster General to note that.
-Instructions were given to establish a post office at Bell's Rapids and the inspector re-Mr. LEMIEUX
ports that the office went into operation on the 1st instant.
I was of course surprised at being informed by the Postmaster General that the post office had been established upon the recommendation of Mr. Henry Pringle. I can quite understand that the government would not give me any credit for being instrumental in having a post office established in my riding, although such is the fact. Shortly after I received this letter Sir Wm. Mulock went to England and I had not an opportunity of calling his attention to the matter. He was succeeded in the office by Mr. Aylesworth and the following questions and replies were put and answered in the House :


BELL'S RAPIDS POST OFFICE.
Mr. PORTER asked:: 1.	When was the post office known as Bell's Rapids established?
2.	Who is the postmaster?
3.	Upon whose recommendation was such office established, and such postmaster appointed, and when?
4.	Were there any other recommendations or applications for establishment of such post office ? If so, by whom, and when ?


Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH (Postmaster General).: Bell's Rapids post office was established on April 1, 1905, with John Hicks as postmaster, on the application of the Rev-Father Mclnerney, of Maynooth, the report of an inspector, and the recommendation of Mr. Henry Pringle, of Belleville.
Here we have the statement repeated that the post office was established on the recommendation of Mr. Henry Pringle. When Mr. Aylesworth gave this answer in the House I immediately telegraphed to a newspaper reporter at Belleville asking him to see Mr. Pringle to ascertain whether the statement made by Mr. Aylesworth, and in the letter of Sir Wm. Mulock, was in accordance with the fact. The reporter saw Sir. Pringle and he telegraphed me on the 3rd of May :
Pringle says he knows of no such office. If he ever had any communication with the government he cannot recall it.
The reporter also made a declaration in connection with the matter in which he says :
I am personally acquainted with Henry Pringle, of the city of Belleville, in the county of Hastings.
On the 3rd day of May, 1905, I had an interview with the said Henry Pringle in Belleville when I asked him if he knew where Bell's Rapids post office was or whether there was such a post office in this county to which he answered: ' I know of no such post office.' I then said: ' Have you ever had any communication with the Post Office Department about such office ?' To which he replied: ' 1 cannot recall any, I don't think I did.'
Without explanation it would seem remarkable that Sir Wm. Mulock should


write me as lie dill and that Mr. Ayles-worth should corroborate his statement giving credit to Mr. Henry Pringle, of Belleville, in view of the fact that Mr. Pringle did not even know there was such a post office in the world. I have stated that I considered that this government was more generous in bestowing patronage upon its political friends than in giving credit to a member of this House who might be entitled to it for acting in the public interest, and my statement is based on the fact that in the election of 1904 I was opposed by a man whose name is well known not only in this House but throughout the country, Mr. Byron O. Lott. Mr. Byron O. Lott, as the defeated Liberal candidate, would be entitled to the patronage of this riding.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Where is he now.


Edward Guss Porter: Had Mr. Byron O. Lott been still residing in the west riding of Hastings, the answer of the Postmaster General would have been that the post office was established on the recommendation of Byron O. Lott, but Byron O. Lott then and now is sojourning in the United States to escape criminal prosectution for his connection with the bogus ballot boxes. The government could not, therefore, give the credit to Mr. Lott, and being determined not to give the credit to me they looked somewhere else. One would have thought they would have selected the local Liberal member for that district, but he also has been discredited and so they left the riding of North Hastings where this post office is located and went to West Hastings and there selected the defeated Liberal candidate in the legislature and gave him the credit for establishing this post office at Bells Rapids. I hope the day is past for that manner of establishing post offices and bestowing the credit for establishing them. I do not attribute any of this to the present Postmaster General, but 1 do hope that the course pursued by Sir Wm. Mu-lock and repeated by Mr. Aylesworth will not be adopted by the present Postmaster General in his administration and that he will give credit where credit is due.
Some resolutions reported.


George Eulas Foster: Before the House adjourns I wish to say that according to arrangements made the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Worthington) will bring up the Ross rifle question on going into Supply. Will the House be moved into Committee of Supply?


William Stevens Fielding: We will take Supply to-morrow and we will proceed with the Post Office vote generally, to be followed by the Customs vote generally, and if there is sufficient time by the Railway vote generally.	_
At six o'clock, House adjourned.

Thursday, May 21, 190S.