1909-02-04

QUESTIONS.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. SINCLAIR-by Mr. Bickerdike- asked:
What percentage of the traffic passing over the Intercolonial Railway is east bound?
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals).: 1. For the year ended December 31, 1908, percentage of east-bound tonnage, was 37-93 per cent.


VACANCY ON BOARD OF RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS.
Mr. STAPLES asked:: 1.	When will the vacancy on the Board of Railway Commissioners, caused by the death cf the late Hon. Mr. Greenway, be filled?
2.	Has the government received any petitions or resolutions from any organizations asking that an able and practical farmer be appointed to the position? If so, from what organization ?
3.	Do they name any particular person or persons whom they want appointed? If so, who is the person or persons?


Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	This has not yet been decided.
2.	The government has received representations from various bodies interested in agriculture requesting that a farmer be appointed to the Board of Railway Commissioners.
3.	The government is of opinion that it would not be in the public interest to announce the names submitted, at present.


DOUBLE TRACKING OF INTERCOLONIAL NEAR AMHERST.
Mr. RHODES asked:: In reference to the survey proposed for double tracking of the Intercolonial Railway from a point at or near Amherst to a point at or near Truro, via Parrsborough:
1.	When did actual field work begin, and when did it cease?
2.	Has the survey been completed? If not, why not ?
3.	Have plans and profiles been prepared? If not, why not ?
4.	What is the total cost to date?


Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	Field work began August 24, 1908, finished December 1, 1908.
2.	Survey has been completed.
3.	Plans and profiles have been prepared.
4.	$9,914.05.


COST OF BRIDGE OVER SHELL RIVER.
Mr. ROCHE asked:: 1.	What was the original estimate of cost of bridge recently completed over the Shell river at Shellmouth?
2.	What was the total cost of the bridge?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister Public Works):: 1.	$9,772.40, exclusive of approaches,
based on design which was not adopted.
$33,000 exclusive of approaches and superintendence, based on design of steel
superstructure and concrete substructure
as finally adopted.
2. Contract price steel superstructure	 $20,400 00
Contract price concrete substructure	 16,596 00

Extra work required to reach suitable foundations	$	3,535 85
Superintendence, travelling expenses, advertising, &e.	2,420 84

Total cost	 $42,952 69


COST OF POST OFFICE AT SELKIRK.
Mr. BRADBURY asked:: What was the total cost of post office at Selkirk, Manitoba?


Hon.   WM@: PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works), $30,666.21, including site.


DELIMITING BOUNDARIES OF MANITOBA.
Mr. ROCHE asked:: 1.	What progress has been made towards arriving at a settlement with the government ot Manitoba in regard to the terms to be included in the Bill to be introduced delimiting the boundaries of the province of Manitoba?
2.	Will a conference with the provincial ministers be held before the Bill is introduced ?
3.	Will the Bill be introduced in time to be considered at the ensuing session of the local legislature?


Reiffenstein.  J. H ....@: I may inform my hon. friend that a Bill is now being prepared in the Department of Justice to give effect to the resolutions which were adopted last year with reference to the boundaries of Manitoba, Quebec and Ontario. The Bill with regard to Manitoba will be submitted to the government of the province of Manitoba for conference between the government of that province and the government of the Dominion. It will be submitted to the provincial government in time to be considered by the provincial legislature.


RIDING MOUNTAIN TIMBER RESERVE.
Mr. ROCHE asked:: 1.	What amount was paid by the government. by way of compensation to those who had squatted in the Riding Mountain timber reserve, in order to have them remove from the reserve?	'
2.	When, where, and by whom was the money paid to the half-breeds who had located at Clear lake, township 19, range 19?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior):: 1.	$3,575.
2.	On 22nd September, 1908, at Elphin-stone, to all but one who was paid at Grandview on 7th December, 1908. Payment was made by W. A. Davis, chief forest ranger.
STURGEON IN LAC DU [BONNET.


Mr. BRADBURY asked:: 1. Does the government realize that Lac du Bonnet, Manitoba, is a natural and important breeding ground for sturgeon?
2. Is it the intention of the government to allow sturgeon to be taken for sale out of this lake?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior):: 1 and 2. The lake has been reserved against fishing for some years past; but I have received certain representations as to whether the closure should be continued, which I am considering.


ST. ANDREWS LOCKS.
George Henry Bradbury: _ How many employees had the government in connection with the construction of St. Andrews locks, and what are their names and salaries ?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 1.	Eleven employees.
2.	E. A. Forward	$191	75E. S. Miles	
150	00H. G. Kerrigan	
130	00E. H. G. G. Hay	
100	00John Boyd	
150	00Walter Jull	
90	00


Reiffenstein.  J. H ....@: Davis	
60	00C. H. Campbell	
55	00George Moore	
50	00Wm. Billington	
50	00Bella Billington	
14	00


COMING CENSUS.
Mr. BOYER (Translation) asked :: 1. Is it the intention of the government to ask the parliament to vote at this session the
moneys necessary for the taking of the next census ?
2. If so, will the census work be started in the early part of 1910 ?
The Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture.) In the answer to the hon. member, I may state that the votes necessary for the taking of the next census will be submitted next session only.


FRENCH TRANSLATION OF DOMINION LANDS.
Mr. BOYER asked:: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to have translated into French the Dominion Land Act and the recent departmental regulations relating to the purchase of homestead and pre-emptions?
2.	If so, when will the French copies be delivered to the public?
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior.) The translation into French of the Dominion Lands Act and the recent departmental regulations relating to homesteads and pre-emptions is now well under way, and it is expected that the printing will be completed and a supply received for distribution within the next few weeks.


SALARIES IN DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR.
Mr. FOSTER asked:: 1.	What is the name, position and salary of each clerk in the outside service of the Department of the Interior at Ottawa, who re-ceivel increase of salary after June 1, 1908, what is the amount of the increase, the date on which it was granted, and the date it became effective, and also the date or dates in which such increase was actually paid?
2.	What is the name, position and salary of (a) each clerk in the temporary inside service, Interior Department, at Ottawa, who tendered his resignation from the inside service since 1st July, 1908, and (b) of any persons appointed to the outside service of the Interior Department at Ottawa since same date, with position and salary to which they were appointed, and in both cases the dates of resignation and appointment?


Frank Oliver: 
Mr. W. J. ROCHE.: 
Ellis F.: 
Reiffenstein.  J. H ....@: 
Reiffenstein.  J. H ....@: Rice, F. W	
Rochon, E. C	
Roger, Alex	
Rowan-Legg, E. L ....
Shanks, Thos	
Sheppard, N. B	
Smith, Jacob	
Spreckley, R. O	
Stomach, R. S	
Sutherland, H. E	
Strothers, J. H	
Sylvain, John	%..
Tache, Henri	
Umbach, J. E	
Villeneuve, E. J	
Webb, G. C	
Weld, W. E	
Whitcomb, H. E	
Williamson, F. H. H..
Wilson, E. E. D


Reiffenstein.  J. H ....@: 
Mr. OLIVER.: 
SOUTH AFRICAN LAND GRANTS.
Mr. W. H. SHARPE asked:: 1.	Has the government under consideration any changes in the conditions relating to the South African land grants?
2.	Do the proposed changes contemplate a relaxation in the condition of residing on the lands so granted? If so, what are the proposed changes?


Frank Oliver: No changes are contemplated.


DOKIS INDIAN RESERVE.
Mr. GORDON asked:: 1.	Have- all berths in Dokis Indian reserve been paid for in accordance with tender, requisition ?
2.	If any have lapsed for non-payment, what are the numbers, and are they for sale now?


Frank Oliver: [DOT]
1.	All berths on the Dokis Indian Reserve have been paid for except one, viz., berth

No. 2, sold to Mr. Patrick McDermott, of South River, Ontario.
2.	This berth is held by the department and has not been again offered for sale.


DAM AT MONTREAL RIVER AT LATCH-FORD.
Mr. GEORGE GORDON asked :: Has the contract for building dam on Montreal river at Latchford been let? If so, when will the work be started?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works).: No contract has yet been let. The matter is under consideration.


NEW POST OFFICE AT CHESLEY.
Mr. DONNELLY asked :: 1.	Was the amount voted last year for a
new post office at Chesley expended?	,
2.	Will there be a further amount placed in the estimates at this session?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	No.	.	.
2.	Matter will have due consideration.


LOWERING THE WATERS OF LAKES SIMCOE AND COUCHICHING.
Mr. SAMUEL SHARPE asked :: 1.	What, if any, measures have been taken by the government to lower the wrnters of Lakes Simcoe and Couchiching?
2.	What moneys, if any, have been expended for this purpose, the date of expenditure and persons superintending the same?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to take further measures to lower the waters of said lakes, thereby reclaiming thousands of acres of first-class arable land?


William Pugsley: As this question covers a number of works done in the neighbourhood during several years, it is suggested that a return be asked for.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Stands as a notice of motion for a return.


TRUST FUND OF RAMA INDIANS.
Mr. SAMUEL SHARPE asked :: 1.	What is the amount of the trust funds held by the government on behalf of the Indians on the Rama reserve, North Ontario?
2.	Has the capital account of this fund been
diminished by the government lately? If so, when, by how much, for what purpose, at whose instance and by whom was the money expended?	.
3.	Were the said Indians consenting parties to a diminution of their trust lands? If not, under what authority were the funds utilized for other purposes than for the immediate benefit of the said Indians?


Frank Oliver: 


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) :: 1.	The trust funds of the Rama Indians held by the government amount to $14,335.78.
2.	No.
3.	Answered by No. 2.


EXHIBITIONS ASSISTED AND PARTICIPATED IN THE DOMINION.
Mr. PAQUET asked :: 1.	What exhibitions in this country were subsidized by the government in 1908?
2.	What was the amount of each of these
subsidies ?	[DOT]
3.	What exhibitions out of Canada were subsidized by the federal government in 1908?
4.	What was the amount of each of these subsidies ?
5.	Who were the official representatives of Canada at these exhibitions?
6.	What was the salary of these representatives ?


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture):: 1.	The Dominion Exhibition held at Calgary, Alberta.
2.	$50,000.
3.	There were no exhibitions out of Canada subsidized, but the Dominion was represented at and participated in the Franco-British Exhibition, held at London, England, and the Scottish National Exhibition held at Edinburgh, Scotland.
4.	The amount expended during the year 1908 was at London about $333,000 and at Edinburgh about $27,350.
5.	At London, the Hon. Arthur Boyer. Honorary Commissioner, and Mr. William Hutchison, the Permanent Exhibition Com missioner; at Edinburgh, Mr. T. H. Race.
6.	Hon. Mr. Boyer received no salary, but was granted a living allowance of $15 per day. Mr. Hutchison receives a salary of $3,000 a year and expenses when abroad. Mr. Race was paid $10 per day for his services and living expenses.


DELAY IN ISSUING CHEQUES TO MEN EMPLOYED IN TORONTO HARBOUR WORKS.
Mr. MACDONELL asked :: 1.	What is the explanation of the delay in
issuing cheques to men employed on the Toronto harbour works?	_
2.	Is the government aware that it is asserted the wages for October had not been paid on December 23?
3.	Is the government aware that this delay has entailed great hardship upon those who are thus deprived of their wages when urgently required ?
4.	Have the wages for October been paid? If so, on what date?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 1.	Exhaustion of appropriation.
2.	No.

3.	No.
4.	Cheques for October and November wages were mailed from Ottawa on 23rd December, 1908.


POST OFFICE MACKEY'S STATION, ONT.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. ARMSTRONG asked -.
1.	Has the government received complaints regarding the management of the post office at Mackey's station, Ontario, and the condition and delivery of mail at that place?
2.	If so, what is the nature of said complaints, and what action has been taken to improve the conditions found there?
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General).: No complaints have been received at the department regarding the management of the post office at Mackey's station, Ontario, since the appointment of the present postmaster in 1905.


DOMINION 4 PER CENT LOAN.
Mr. AMES asked :: When the Canada reduced 4 per cent loan shall fall due on January 1, 1910, what will be the amount of the sinking fund in hand towards its redemption?


Hon. WM. PATERSON (for Minister of Finance).: Approximately $25,236,343.


DOMINION LOANS.
Herbert Brown Ames: 
Hon. WM. PATERSON (for Minister of Finance):: 
IVE STOCK ON EXPERIMENTAL FARMS.
Mr. STAPLES asked:: 1.	How many heads of stock are there on the respective experimental farms, and what do they consist of?
2.	What is the estimated value of the different kinds, and for what purpose are they utilized?
3.	How many acres are there in each experimental farm?
4.	How many acres are there under cultivation on each farm?


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture).: I would ask that this be put in the form of a motion for a return.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Stands as a notice of motion fcr a return.


KINGSTON MILITARY BUILDINGS.
Mr. EDWARDS asked:: 1.	How many cottages or dwellings were built last year on the military grounds near Kingston ?
2.	Were they built for the accommodation of the servants of the military college?
3.	What was the cost of the said dwellings?
4.	Were tenders called for the work, and by what contractor was it done?
5.	What amount of money has been expended on the new rifle butts at Barriefield?
6.	Were tenders called for, and by whom was the work done?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 1.	Sixteen.
3 Contract price $77,739; buildings not yet completed.
4.	Yes; M. Sullivan.


Hon. Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia and Defence):: 2.	No, but for the ' Civil Subordinate Staff ' of the R. M. C.
5.	Eighteen targets have been erected at a cost of $12,158.80.
6.	Yes, public tenders; the successful tenderer being contractor W. M. Leacy, Prescott, Ont.


PURCHASE OF LAND NEAR KINGSTON FOR MILITARY PURPOSES.
Mr. EDWARDS asked:: 1.	From what persons during the last four years was land near Kingston purchased by the government for military purposes?
2.	How much land was acquired from each person, and what was the price paid?
3.	Who acted as agent for the government in effecting the said purchases?
4.	Did the government through its agent agree to erect or to nav for the erection of fences bounding the land purchased?



5.	Is it the intention of the government to acquire more land adjoining |that already-purchased ?


Hon.   S@: 1 and 2. Land has been purchased from the following: E. A. Milton, 34 37-100ths. acres for $3,437. The Misses Kelley, 55 77-100ths for $1,952.
3.	The negotiations for the purchase of the above two properties were conducted by the officer commanding, eastern Ontario command, assisted by Mr. George Cliff, a real estate agent.
4.	Not so far as the department is aware.
5.	Yes.


IMPORTATION OF MAIL BOXES.
Mr. ARMSTRONG asked:: 1.	The government having stated that they purchased six thousand mail boxes and brought them into Canada without paying duty, under whose authority were these boxes and fittings delivered, or how was possession obtained without entry being passed at customs?
2.	What is the date of said entry, and through what port of entry did they come?
3.	is it the practice of the Customs Department to furnish accounts covering payments of duty on goods imported into Canada, and did the Customs Department furnish such accounts covering the mail boxes?
4.	Was the Minister of Customs or any officer in the customs service of Canada requested to forward a statement or account showing the amount of duty payable? If so, on what date was the request made, by whom was it made, and was the request granted?
5.	Were prices paid for the rural mail boxes the same as is charged the United States government for similar boxes? If not, what is the difference in prices?


Hon.   WM@: PATERSON Minister of Customs) :
1.	Possession was obtained of rural mail delivery equipment by the Post Office Department prior to customs entry on order from the Department of Customs, upon undertaking for payment of duty after delivery.
2.	The dates of customs entries for this equipment are as follows: Port of Ottawa, 26th of January, 1909; Port of Toronto, 30th of January, 1909 (as per documents sent through Department of Customs, 28th of January, 1909).
3.	The Department of Customs, in special cases, furnishes vouchers for payment of duty on imported goods. Upon an invoice being furnished, officers of the Department of Customs gave instructions as to the rate and amount of duty to he paid on the said equipment, and officers of Customs at the ports receipted the vouchers for the payment of the duties.
4.	The controller of postal stores on or before 12th of January, 1909, delivered to the Collector of Customs, Ottawa, an ac-
Mr. EDWARDS
count of the rural mail delivery equipment imported, with request for advice as to the rating and amount of duty payable. The request was granted.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 1, 2, 3 and 4. These questions refer to the Customs Department.
5.	So far as the department is aware, the United States government does not buy rural delivery boxes, but patrons of such routes are required to supply themselves with the approved boxes at their own expense.


INQUIRY ON SS. 'MONTCALM.'
Mr. PAQUET asked:: 1.	Has the Minister of Marine lately placed a new officer or engineer on the ' Montcalm ' at Cap Rouge?
2.	What is the name of this engineer, and when was he sent to the 'Montcalm'?
3.	Is he charged with studying the efficiency of the work of the ' Montcalm,' as regards the opening of navigation up the river from Quebec ?
4.	Is he charged with studying the results
of the work of the ' Montcalm ' with regard to inundations?
5.	Does he perform other duties and what are they?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. One of the engineers attached to the staff of the St. Lawrence ship channel, Mr. N. B. McLean, is at present on the steamer Montcalm observing the ice conditions and reporting to the department.


THE ROSS RIFLE.
Hon.   S@: In the answer given to Mr. Northrup on Monday, last, (page 346 of ' Hansard ') in regard to the claims for damages that have been put in for injuries received through the use of the Ross rifle, it is stated that the accident to Sydney A. Fletcher, New Westminster, British Columbia, was caused by the rifle bursting. This is incorrect. The accident was caused by the cartridge case bursting and injuring the firer's eye. The rifle was not injured at all.


MOTION AGREED TO WITHOUT DISCUSSION.
[Stage Direction]
For a copy of all corespondence, orders in council, papers, and documents relating to the question of fisheries in the Pembina river, in the province of Manitoba, and of regulations or agreements with the United States government in reference to rivers running from one country into the other.-Mr. W. H. Sharpe.

Mr. LENNOX.: Can the Minister of Railways tell me when the return will be

brought down as to the number of accidents at level crossings, which was ordered on my motion at the opening of the session?


George Perry Graham: This requires quite a lot of research, but I am asking the officials to furnish all the information required by the House as speedily as possible.
, REPORT OF MR. JUSTICE CASSELS.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: May I ask the Secretary of State when the report of Mr. Justice Cassels will be printed and laid before the House?


Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (Secretary oi State).: I have been furnished with a memorandum, showing that the first volume of evidence consisting of about 350 pages was issued in October last. It is explained that there was a gap in the manuscript caused by the evidence given in French not being translated into English. That has since been done and the second volume consisting of about 350 pages will be dis tributed early next week. The third volume is in type and will be distributed on or about the 16th inst., and the remaining volumes will follow in quick succession after that.


RAILWAY COMMITTEE OF PRIVY COUNCIL
Robert Laird Borden: When may we expect the information promised by the Minister of Railways (Hansard, page 268) concerning the orders of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council in relation to level crossings.


Hon.   G@: I have already brought down the order in reference to the crossing at Kingston. It is quite difficult, I understand, to get these orders of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, but an official of the Railway Department who was formerly an official of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council, is endeavouring to get them.


PROTECTION OF OUR COAST LINE AND SEAPORTS.
Mr. FOSTER.: Yesterday a, day was set for the resolution which I propose to submit to the House, but afterwards the First Minister stated that that being government day


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Not government day, but public Bills and Orders.


George Eulas Foster: Is there any objection to taking the discussion up on Tuesday, the 15th ?


Wilfrid Laurier: That is government day.
18J


George Eulas Foster: Is it not sufficiently important ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I will try to arrange a day for my hon. friend.


George Eulas Foster: If it does not come on that day I am afraid it will have to go over for another fortnight.


Wilfrid Laurier: Very good.


INTERNATIONAL WATERWAYS TREATY.
[Stage Direction]
Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID, LAURIER (Prime Minister). Some time ago the hon. the leader of the opposition made inquiry as to the waterways treaty which is now being considered by the Senate of the United States. I told my hon. friend we would communicate with the home authorities, and I have to-day the authority of His Excellency the Governor General to give to the House the despatch which His Excellency has received on this subject from the Earl of Crewe, the Colonial Secretary. The despatch reads:
London, January 29, 1909.
I am in receipt of your telegram of January 28, and from your telegram of January 9, I gather that your responsible advisers have the full text of the treaty before them.
According to press reports there seems to be some misunderstanding as to the presentation of the treaty to the Dominion parliament.
In this country the treaty-making power is the King, acting on the advice of his responsible ministers, who in cases of treaties which affect a Dominion Act of course in full consultation and accord with the government of the Dominion concerned.
In the United States the treaty-making power is with the advice and consent of the Senate, and until the Senate of the United States of America approve of any treaty it is not the practice to publish or present to parliament either in this country or in Canada, or to publish in the United States or to present to congress. The fact that the Senate of the United States see the treaty before the parliament of the Dominion, but not before government of the Dominion, is therefore entirely due to the terms of the constitution of the United States.
I am in hopes that your responsible advisers will clearly explain this to parliament, and will point out that the relation between the parliament of the Dominion and the government of the Dominion in this respect is practically analogous to that between the Imperial parliament and the government of His Majesty the King.
(Sgd.) CREWE.

Mr.  J. D.@: REID (Grenville) moved second reading of Bill (No. 2) to amend the Passenger Tickets Act. He said :	Last
year I presented this Bill in exactly the same form, but the Prime Minister did not wish it to go to the committee on account

of the absence of the Minister of Railways.	The Bill proposes to add two
clauses to the Passenger Tickets Act. In this bill I ask that the mileage book issued by the railway companies should be good on their trains. At present if a passenger has purchased a thousand mile book and presents it on the train, the conductor cannot take the number of miles off, but has to insist on the passenger paying for a ticket. All that the owner of a book can do is to get a ticket in exchange at the station for the number of miles torn off by the agent. On the other side of the line, they issue these books, but there these books are good on the trains. I claim that when a railway company sells a mileage book, that book ought to be valid on the train as well as at the station. In Canada the railway companies charge 21 cents per mile for their mileage books. On the other side of the line they charge 2 cents per mile; and I understand that some of the American railway companies which run trains partly through Canada, issue mileage books, which are good in Canada, at 2 cents per mile. It seems to me that our railway companies should reduce the rate to 2 cents per mile for these mileage books, and if necessary limit the duration of these books to a certain time. This matter is one which I would like the Railway Committee to discuss. Another clause in this Bill deals with the interchange of tickets from union stations. There are a number of stations in Canada which are called union stations because they are used by more than one railway company. Often the trains of different companies start almost at the same time and passengers are apt to take the wrong train. A passenger who has bought a ticket by the Canadian Pacific Railway will sometimes take the Grand Trunk Raii-way by mistake, and the conductor of course cannot accept his ticket. My suggestion is that if any one should happen to get on the wrong train, going to the same point, the conductor should accept his ticket, and the company would then collect from the other company who sold it. It may be said that if the passenger has the money, there is no reason why he should not buy a ticket and collect the other one from the other company. But it takes two or three months to get the money back, and often the passenger may find it almost impossible to collect it. He may be living at New York and may take the train in Toronto for Montreal and take a Canadian Pacific Railway train instead of a Grand Trunk Railway or vice versa. If he had purchased a Canadian Pacific Railway ticket and then by mistake took the Grand Trunk Railway train, there is no reason why the conductor should not accept that ticket and hand it to the company who would in turn collect the amount from the Canadian Pacific Railway. This would not cause the companies Mr. J. D. REID.
any great inconvenience, because every day they are selling tickets on which they must collect the money from one another. For instance, I purchase a ticket at Toronto for Ottawa. Half the trip is on the Canadian Pacific Railway, and the Canadian Pacific Railway have to collect from the Grand Trunk Railway the amount from Brockville to Ottawa. My proposition therefore will not impose on these companies any extra trouble worth mentioning. I have in my mind a case in which a woman got on a train in Toronto bound for Montreal. It was a night train. She had a Canadian Pacific Railway ticket and by mistake she got on the Grand Trunk Railway train. She had not enough money to pay for another ticket so that the conductor had to put her off at Port Hope. She was taken back to Toronto and had to stay there until the next morning so that she could not get to Montreal until the next night. This was a great inconvenience, especially as this woman had been called to Montreal on account of sickness in her family. I can see no reason why the Grand Trunk Railway should not have accepted her ticket and then collected the amount from the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Wilfrid Laurier: Does my hon. friend know of any other case?


Mr. J. D. REID.: I have heard of others but I do not suppose there are manv. There are, however, some in which the hardships are. very great. It is easy for a passenger to take the wrong train, and these mistakes are made generally by persons who may not have the money, to purchase other tickets. These are points I would like the Railway Committee to consider and discuss. I do not want to take up the time discussing the question, as we can do that much better in committee. The right hon. the Prime Minister gave a good reason last year why he could not allow it to go to the committee, but now that the Minister of Railways is here (Mr. Graham) I would ask the right hon. gentleman to let the Bill go to the Railway Committee.


George Perry Graham: I am not sure that we ought to hold the railway companies responsible for the mistakes which the rest of us make. While there is something in the contention of my hon. friend, I presume that there is no very extensive grievance through people getting on the wrong train with the right ticket. If the great body of the public were in the same position as my hon. friend and myself, it would make no difference to them which train they got on, but unfortunately for them they are not in that happy condition. The trouble possibly arises primarily in the fact that the stations are not constructed as they ought to be for great traffic. In a properly constructed and conducted union station of large pro-

portions, it is almost impossible for a passenger to get on a wrong train because he cannot get in or where the wrong train is. As regards the question of mileage books being honoured on the trains, there is room for argument and I would like to Imar some discussion of it by the Railway Committee.
1	have had conductors on Canadian trains honour my mileage coupons and I think the order which provides that they do not accept the mileage coupons except at the station, if it exists, must be of recent date However, that is worthy of discussion. There may be reasons of convenience and safety to the companies which justify such an order.
As to the question of thS rate at which the books ought to be issued, I stated last night that the Canadian parliament has adopted a course with reference to the control of rates through a Board of Railway Commissioners, both as to freight and passengers, and I believe we ought, at least for the present, to give that board a fair trial hi the arrangement and adjustment of rates, both passenger and freight. If there be any hardship, any reason why passenger rates should be reduced from one point to any other point, the Board of Railway Commissioners has full power under the Act to hear that complaint and adjudicate upon it. When it is said the railways of Canada must give a mileage book rate of 2 cents per mile, it is well known, particularly in a new country, that there are parts of these railway lines, and the entire road of some companies, that could not stand a rate of
2	cents per mile; but parliament, in its wisdom, has placed these matters in the hands of a Board of Railway Commissioners, deputing them to adjust the rates in different parts of the country according to the conditions that exist in that part of the country. There are some sections on new roads where it would be very unjust and unwise to tie the company down to a rate that might be perfectly fair on some other part of that same line or on some other line, and the difference of conditions existing in different parts of the country has led parliament to place this control of rates in the hands of a Board of Railway Commissioners, and I might say to my hon. friend that I am willing to have some other parts of the Bill discussed in the Railway Committee, and cannot say that this part shall not be discussed, I set my face against that part of it and say that the government could not consent to changing our policy in that direction. If there is any complaint the board has been established for the purpose of adjudicating upon such a complaint.
There may be some difference of opinion in the committee as to this interchange of tickets. My hon. friend has referred to the fact that one line now collects a rate
for another line, but there is this difference: The line on which the traffic originates has a joint traffic arrangement with the line with which it connects and they divide the receipts pro rata according to their joint tariff arrangement. Under this proposition there is no joint tariff arrangement because under the system suggested, the Grand Trunk, for instance, if it sold a ticket, would simply originate the ticket and would have the contract, and it would work out that the road that originated the tiaffic would pay a percentage to the road that completed the traffic for collection and its part of the freight, and we would find here that the road that sold the ticket and got no profit would have to pav the road that did not sell the ticket, but got all the profit for collecting its ticket. You could not make that work in practice unless you could make the law work backwards in this particular case. My own view is that it would be difficult to work. I have had some experience in selling tickets in the past. The ticket seller has to make his returns daily; the conductor takes up a certain number of tickets and his collections must correspond eventually with the ticket seller's report of tickets for that day. If we allowed that mixing up of tickets and required one railway to honour the tickets of another railway, we would interfere a good deal with the rights of these companies and the contracts they make with the passengers.
Having said this much and explained my position in regard to the price of mileage tickets, I have no objection to having this Bill go to the Railway Committee for discussion, without committing myself to any part of the Bill.


Mr. LANCASTER.: I agree with the Minister of Railways that the matter of the rates might perhaps as well be left to the Railway Commission. The minister has not dealt with the clause requiring the conductor to accept these mileage tickets. If a man once pays his money to any agent of the company, why should he have to exchange the tickets he thus buys for any other ticket? The railways sell these tickets for their own benefit, and having sold them that sale should be final. I would think that principle of the Bill ought to be sustained.
There is some need for the part of the Bill compelling a railway to honour the ticket of another railway whose trains start from the same station, as in the case of the Union station in Toronto. I have often seen people put off the train at South Park-dale because they had tickets of the other line. The trains leave at nearly the same time and there should be some protection for people who take the wrong train, par-

ticularly as the trains of the same railway do not always leave from the same platform. It might be advisable to enact that where the trains leave the same station within half an hour of each other the tickets of the other line should be honoured. The railways could honour each other's tickets in this way and adjust their accounts at the end of the month as they do in other matters. In some parts of the country there is an evil such as is sought to be remedied by clause 7b of this Bill.


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

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill (No. 3) to amend the Railway Act.-Mr. Bickerdike.
Mr. ROBERT BICKERDIKE (St. Lawrence, Montreal).: I understand that, under the arrangement arrived at just before the adjournment of the House last evening, it will be impossible for me to go on with this Bill, as the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham), has taken us into his confidence and informed us that he intends to bring down a Bill to cover this case. Had this Bill gone on, I should have desired to propose an amendment in the form of additional clauses. With the permission of the House, I will read these clauses, which I commend to the favourable consideration of the Minister of Railways. My contention is that the whole of this matter should come under the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission. They are the only people, I think, who can deal with it intelligently. Therefore, I would have proposed to introduce the following:
2.	All highway crossings at rail 'level shall he constructed, protected and maintained in accordance with the orders and regulations of the board.
3.	The board may determine what highway crossings at rail level, now used, are, in its opinion, dangerous, and thereupon the board may direct the company to change the curve of the railway at such crossings, or alter the approaches thereto, or erect gates thereat, or make such other changes as the board deems necessary for the protection of persons using such crossings. Provided that no company shall be required to make such changes in any one year at more than twenty-five per cent of the crossings upon its railway which are determined by the board to be dangerous.
2. The board may direct at which of such dangerous crossings the necessary changes shall be made during the first year and so on in each succeeding year until all such dangerous crossings have been so changed.
I hope that this principle will be incorporated in any measure on the subject that is adopted.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: That can stand as a notice. Stand.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: 


CRIMINAL CODE-AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. ROBERT BICKERDIKE (St. Lawrence, Montreal) moved the second reading of Bill (No. 4) to amend the Criminal Code. He said: As I said, when I introduced this Bill, the object is to add to the number of cases in which the lash may be used. The first is for those who carry concealed weapons and use them on the slightest provocation. The next is in the case of assault upon females. The section says:
Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to three years imprisonment, and to be whipped, who assaults his wife or other female and thereby occasions actual bodily harm.
The Bill provides the same in the case of those guilty of robbery; and the fourth case is that of assault with intent to rob-highway robbery. In my opinion, in all these cases, the judge should be given discretion to sentence the offender to the lash as well as to imprisonment.
Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice).: Before the second reading is carried, I would like to say a word on the general subject adverted to by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bickerdike) who has introduced the measure. In doing so, I wish to be understood as expressing the individual opinions on the subject which I myself hold, and as not desiring that those opinions should carry any especial weight except such as my position as one of the members of this House might involve. I am opposed to the whole principle of inflicting punishment upon criminals by the use of the lash. I regard it merely as a survival of the days of primitive man, when the * only canon of punishment known was the law of retaliation, which exacted an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life. In later days, days which, while not within living memory, are not yet so far gone by, the principle of retaliation seemed still to survive in regard to many offences known to the British law. In the days of the Stuarts punishment by the infliction of personal pain was the rule, perhaps, rather than the exception, and we read of the use of instruments of torture. We see these instruments of torture preserved in our museums, and we think ourselves better than our forefathers, who applied the rack or the thumbscrew or the boot, or other means of inflicting bodily pain upon those who had offended against the law or who were charged with some such offence. We consider ourselves, in modern days, to have become more civilized, to have attained truer ideas of the principles upon which punishment legally and judicially imposed for offences against the criminal law ought to be administered. And yet the principle, or practice, of flogging for certain offences still applies, and provisions that it may be

the means of punishment still appear upon our statute-book. I am not proposing that there should be alterations; I am not prepared to set up my individual opinion against the opinions of very many men thoroughly as well able to form sound judgment upon this subject as I can be, and I am not proposing to amend the Criminal Code by reducing the number of cases in which whipping may be administered. But there are serious practical difficulties in the way of carrying out the law as it now stands in the few cases in which whipping is a part of the punishment which the law prescribes. One practical question is: Who is to be the official who shall administer this punishment? The judge adds to his sentence of so many months, or so many years, imprisonment-quite as an off-hand matter, it may be-a provision that the prisoner shall be flogged once, or twice, or it may be three times, during the course of his sentence. That is all the court does in the matter; no directions are given, but it is left to the officers of the law to carry out the sentence of the court. The prisoner goes to some jail, or prison, or penitentiary, and the responsibility for seeing that the sentence is carried out rests upon the head of that institution.
The warden of the penitentiary sees perhaps for the first time when the prisoner arrives accompanied by the warrant of commitment, that flogging is to be administered to this man. Is the warden himself to handle the knout, or is he to delegate that duty to one of his subordinate officials ; and if to one of them, is the warden to select the man who shall carry out the sentence of the court ? In practice the matter is reduced to that. The warden has to nominate some one of his subordinate officials and instruct that man, putting I suppose the instrument of punishment into his hands, to lay the lash on the bare back of the prisoner. That punishment will be either a farce, a perfect mockery, or it will be something so terrible to think about that it ought, I think, to give any one concerned in the infliction of such punishment, or in ordering it, pause before he pronounces the words [DOT] that would condemn any fellow human being to such degradation, and to a punishment of that description. It all depends upon the willingness of the executioner, upon the amount of energy he puts into his right arm when he lays on the blows. The punishment may be a farce, or it may be something terrible to contemplate. I suppose it is intended to be a real thing, that it is meant to be a whipping laid on with all the strength that the warden or guard of the penitentiary who may be willing to administer it, can put into his blows.
I do not discuss the moral effect upon the man who administers the punishment.
I think, to say the least of it, that it cannot be an elevating effect. I do not wonder when I find that many and many a man who has accepted a position as guard or warden, or police official in our penitentiaries, says,, when ordered to administer a whipping, this is not within my contract,
I did not come into the public service of Canada to be a quasi executioner. It accordingly reduces itself in practice simply to what I say, that there are some particular guards in the penitentiaries who are willing to do this thing ; there are others who are unwilling, and we have to select such means as we can find. In the custody of our prisoners in penitentiaries or in jails no matter, I may say, how highly the prison offence which they may commit would seem to deserve the lash, no matter though the offence may be one of such an effect upon the other convicts as practically to destroy the whole discipline of the institution, no matter though the offence may be one arising out of pure ugliness on the part of the convict the lash is not used. We have upon occasion, and in extreme cases, used an instrument of punishment best described by the word paddle, and with which we administered a sound snanking upon the convict. I see a considerable difference between the two things. The lash is designed to tear the flesh, to bring blood; the other instrument will at least leave no external sign of injury. At times we punish in our penitentiaries by turning the hose upon the prisoner, in a confined cell so that he cannot escape when the water is turned on. We find that a very effective punishment indeed. It produces discomfort. It may be that at the time of the infliction it produces more or less of a sensation which might properly be described as pain, but it produces no ill effects. For my part, and for every reason, I state myself to be entirely opposed to the principle of punishing an offence against our laws by something which is literally nothing but an infliction of bodily pain.
It is said that there is a kind of fitness, a kind of special propriety, in punishment of this sort for offences against women. There might be other punishment suggested that would seem to be even more proper. No man I suppose, in this House or out of it, would seriously suggest the mutilation of an offender against these laws; and yet in conversation men say to one another at times that that would be the proper punishment. Is there any difference in principle ? There may be a difference in degree; but so far as I am concerned, each proposition seems to me to rest substantially upon the same principle for its foundation.	.
In regard to this particular measure which has been proposed by my hon. friend, four specific offences are mentioned as those which he proposes to add to the list of

crimes already mentioned in the Criminal Code for which whipping may be inflicted by the presiding judge, or the presiding magistrate, who disposes of the charge. The possession of a deadly weapon is one, also assaults, not assaults of the character which are commonly spoken of as criminal assaults, indecent assaults, but the ordinary assault and battery of a man beating a woman. Then highway robbery, or assaults with intent to commit highway robbery. Now taking these in turn, I may say to my hon. friend that so far as the offence of carrying a deadly weapon is concerned, my views go entirely with his own. I see no justification whatever in this country for a man carrying upon his person about the streets a weapon which can only be used for purposes of offence. A knife may be a deadly weapon, a razor in the hands of a desperate man may be a most deadly weapon. But these are. generally instruments of usefulness. I would not be disposed to extend to the carrying of instruments of that character the special punishment which my hon. friend is proposing here, or any special punishment. The carrying of a dirk or dagger, a weapon that may be used only for the purposes of stabbing, is altogether a different story. But even in that case, while every one would, I think, agree, while certainly I would agree, to the fullest extent with the views of my hon. friend that the carrying of such weapons ought to be made punishable, I would not be willing to add to the imprisonment the punishment of whipping. So with regard to the offences of highway robbery, robbery with violence, or an assault with intent to commit such robbery.
1 am perfectly aware that, as a matter of record, the offence of garrotting at one time became so prevalent in England, in London particularly, that extreme measures had to be resorted to in order to stamp it out, and the punishment of whipping was prescribed. That was carried out by the judges, and as a consequence the crime of garrotting was in a short time at an end and no longer known in that portion of the world. But I may concede to my hon. friend, or to any one who advocates the application of whipping to offences of the character of highway rob-berv or assaults with intent, that if there were such an unusual condition of things in any community in this country as seemed to call for very special and extreme measures of repression, whipping might be for a time used as a means of putting an end to what might be called an outbreak or epidemic of the character T am referring to.
But, I know of no ground for believing that any such condition of things does, at the present time, exist anywhere in Canada. In conversation my hon. friend mentioned to me the prevalence of offences of this sort in certain portions of Montreal, and I have Mr. AYLESWOKTH.
been unable to avoid noticing, in reading the files of prisoners' cases, of applicants for clemency during the last few months, or during the time that I have been in charge of the Justice Department, that these offences did seem to be more prevalent in the city of Montreal than anywhere else in Canada. There are more frequent convictions for offences of that character apparently in Montreal than in Toronto or any other of our larger cities. But there have been no representations made to the department from judges, juries, or other quarters that the offence of assaulting with intent to commit highway robbery, or the actual commission of highway robbery, has become so rife in Montreal or anywhere else in the country that such special, extreme measures to repress it are necessary and in the absence of such representations I certainly feel myself unable to go with my hon. friend to the extent of enacting that such offences, wherever committed in Canada, should henceforth be punishable, at the will of the presiding magistrate, by the use of the lash.
There remains the offence of assault and battery where a woman is the victim of it, and in this regard I will admit that the application of the law of retaliation, (because it simply comes to that) is more justifiable because the apparent fitness of things seems to make it more proper, or less improper, to demand whipping as a part of the punishment than in any of the other instances that my hon. friend has selected in the measure now under consideration. I have, even in regard to offences of this character, the feeling which I have already expressed. I think that simple imprisonment ought to be, and would be, in all ordinary cases, a sufficient punishment for the beating of a woman by a man, but the offender is one for whom no man worthy of the name would have any sympathy and whom no man would wish to protect. I certainly do not wish to stand here as the defender of such a man. I am prepared to offer no opposition to my hon. friend's measure in so far as the second clause is concerned, making any one convicted of an offence of the character described against a woman liable to be sentenced to flogging. I certainly think that even in such cases sentence to such a punishment ought to be sparingly pronounced, but there may be cases in which it is the only way to protect our women from the assault and beating of a husband, or, it may be, of a father. At any rate if my hon. ifriend is willing to limit the provisions of his Bill to the second clause, I shall offer no opposition to it, but as far as the other clauses are concerned, while I speak, as I say, my own sentiments alone, and am sneaking for no other member of this House than myself,
I am opposed entirely to the position of my hon. friend.


Mr. E. N. LEWIS (West Huron).: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised and sorry that the hon. member for North York (Mr. Aylesworth) has expressed the opinions that he has just delivered himself of in this House. I am glad to know that it is solely as the member for North York that he has spoken. My opinion is that his expressions still may do harm, as he is also the Minister of Justice for Canada. I consider that a man who is brutal enough to commit any of the brutish crimes which are outlined in the Bill of my hon. friend for Montreal (Mr. Bickerdike) should be punished in a physical way, in the only way that will affect him. One of the main reasons that the hon. member for North York has stated for not inflicting this punishment i3 that he cannot get any one to inflict it. That is a matter of detail and we need not discuss it here. Otherwise we might say that a man should not be hanged because we cannot get any one to hang him. I congratulate the hon. member for Montreal on his Bill and I hope it will carry; crimes of the class in question are rampant and must be put down.


Mr. W. B. NORTHRUP (East Hastings).: Mr. Speaker, I merely rise to express my dissent from the propositions laid down by the Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Ayles-worth). The Minister of Justice, in his remarks, spoke and I think very properly and very naturally from the standpoint of the criminal, but he uttered not one single word from the standpoint of the unfortunate victim. I have always understood that in all penal legislation the one great thing was the defence of the inoffensive portion of the community. If it be true that offences of this character are being committed in this country, if it be true that the existing means of punishment have proved insufficient to prevent such offences, then I think this House should be prepared to resort to any means that may be necessary to protect the women of this country. I quite agree with all that the Minister of Justice says against the punishment that may degrade a man. I believe that it was a disgrace to the British navy that flogging existed to the extent to which it did, because we all know that the British seamen were, on the whole, a noble band of men, but I fail to see how a brute such as the one of whom we read in the papers the other day, convicted of an offence against his own daughter, a girl of 18, could be degraded by any punishment that could be inflicted. I desire to say that I shall support the Bill of the hon. member as it is, not for a moment as a matter of vengeance, not at all in order to be vindictive, but simply as the surest and best means of putting a stop to these offences. The Minister of Justice himself must admit that in cases of extreme emergency the very course suggested would be a course sufficient to wipe out such an offence as this. Therefore, on behalf of the inoffensive portion of the community, the women and children of this land, I am prepared to support this legislation. In fact, I would go a step further and say that I have often felt that the provision on the statute-book applicable to this offence is really for the benefit of the lazy loafer. As perhaps every man in this House and every lawyer knows a man unwilling to work is supported by an honest, industrious wife until patience ceases to be a virtue and he is taken to court. She lays a complaint and the husband is punished by sending him to the county jail where, all during the winter, he lives in comfort and luxury, while the poor woman that he has sworn to support is obliged to go out and support herself and her family. If the hon. gentleman would introduce another clause to provide that those men who failed to support their wives and children should not be rewarded by being sent to the county jail where they will not have to work, but would be given an adequate punishment it would have the effect of compelling them to do their duty in this regard.


Reiffenstein.  J. H ....@: My hon. friend from Hastings (Mr. Northrup) has not apprehended the remarks of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice said in his opening remarks that he was simply expressing his own opinion and his own opinion was that he was against the suggested punishment of flogging in all eases, but he stated that in so far as offences against women were concerned he left this clause to the judgment of the House. He expressed his own opinion but he did not go any further. He presented objections which I think, are worthy of consideration with regard to the other disposition of the Bill which concerned offences there described, such as garrotting which was at one time prevalent in England. But, there is a class of beings who beat their wives and they deserve no sympathy from anybody. I would have no compunction whatever in giving the man who beats his wife or who beats a female a taste of his own medicine. However, when the Bill gets to committee it will be for hon. members to consider whe->
ther they are prepared to apply the lash for the other cftences described in the Bill. For my part I would hesitate to say that a man who carries a concealed weapon should be whipped, or even that a man who commits such a heinous offence as robbery should be subjected to the lash. We all remember that some years ago the offence known as garrotting was so prevalent in the city cf London that the magistrates asked that the lash be applied for that offence, and the law having passed in a very short time afterwards the offence disappeared.

which shows that the passage of such a severe law may have a very salutory effect in suppressing certain offences. I do not know that at the present time the offence is so prevalent in the city of Montreal-where it seems to be more prevalent than elsewhere-as to warrant such an extreme measure as inflicting the lash. I think this Bill should be read a second time and then go to committee so as to further elicit the opinion of the House. I repeat that I think my hon. friend from Hastings did not quite apprehend the views of the Minister of Justice who merely suggested that it should be left to the House to determine what should be done.


Mr. A. M. BEAUPARLANT. (St. Hya-einthe).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I did not expect that this bill would come to-day for its second reading. This is not meant as a reproach against my hon. friend from Montreal (St. Lawrence). On the contrary, I acknowledge that he was entitled to press with the utmost expedition a piece of legislation which he holds as good. Therefore, 1 will not deal with this question; I merely intend putting upon record my disapproval of the proposal which the hon. member for St. Lawrence has just put forth.
We often hear it said that we live in a progressive era. Then, I think it would be a backward move to pass this measure.
I was pleased to hear the Minister of Justice saying that, as a matter of principle, he is opposed to this bill. Such an attitude on his part is consistent with that spirit of toleration which in my opinion is the liberal tenet. At the same time, it seemed to me that the statements put forth by the hon. member West Huron (Mr. Lewis) and the hon. member from East Hastings (Mr. Northrup) who have dealt with this question from the opposite side were tainted with the spirit of former days.
The hon. member for St. Lawrence no doubt seeks a most praiseworthy result, that is the betterment of men, but is he positive that he will achieve his end by those violent means?
I contend that the enforcement of such a punishment renders him who undergoes it an irreconcilable foe to society; Now then such cannot be the aim of society which has the least interest in bringing about that result.
That punishment is not only a disgrace for the culprit, but the dishonour is shared by the members of his family. That is unjust, still it is so. Public opinion will overlook and forget the jail and the penitentiary, but it will not overlook such a punishment. It looks upon it as upon the death penalty. Recent events have justified my fears on that point. A man was hanged. He left behind him a brother and two nephews who were leading a quiet and honest life in Montreal. The nephews were Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
two good natured workmen in a manufacture and were surrounded by the esteem and good will of their fellow-workers. Immediately after the hanging they were the butt of the most offensive and cruel remarks. They could not but be morally affected by such a situation. They, found work elsewere but they were again tormented in their new employment. The result was that being constantly wronged, they became wrong-doers themselves and now they are both in the penitentiary.
Some will say that this is an exceptional case, but I rather think that it is an instance of what happens unfortunately too often. Therefore I contend' that upon no account has society the right to do such an injury to people who are no offenders against its laws, especially when it has for its own protection other means which do not involve such lamentable results. To achieve that end society can rely on the jail and the penitentiary which ought to afford enough protection to the community.
I maintain that the existing legislation countenancing that ignominious punishment ought not to be tolerated any longer. However we are now discussing the proposal put forth by the hon. member for St. Lawrence and I must content myself with impugning it. The disgracing punishment by the lash has a demoralising influence upon the man who undergoes it, so that he cannot pluck up his courage and become an honest man again. That is a sufficient reason to reject it. Moreover I think that, the hon. Minister of Justice antagonizing this proposal, we shall hear no more about it.


Mr. JAMES W. MADDIN (South Cape Breton).: The Minister of Justice, in reviewing this Bill, has said a great deal in which I concur. I agree with the hon. gentleman in all that he said with regard to the infliction of punishment, and I think the member for Hastings misunderstood the Minister of Justice, because as the Criminal Code now stands whipping is provided for all offences of an indecent nature committed against women.
However, when it comes to imposing corporal punishment for such offences as carrying concealed weapons or wife-beating, I submit that in doing this we are returning to the days of barbarism. Before hon. members vote on this measure, they should bear in mind that, under our criminal law, power is vested in the magistrates to summarily try cases of certain offences, such as indecent assaults and wife-beating, and the punishment in such cases' is of a very arbitrary nature. In our Penitentiaries Act it is provided that persons condemned to imprisonment for less than two years may be confined in a county jail and not be sent to penitentiary at all. Within recent years, in many of our municipalities,

where hard labour is imposed, the prisoners are obliged to work on the public highway. In a number of counties in the province from which I come, the judges in cases where imprisonment may be imposed for two years, are in the habit of making the term 12, 15 or 18 months in the county jail of the county where the offence was committed. Thus if the lash is to be applied for these various offences, the Bill will go further than its mover contemplated. The duty is not then cast on the warden of the penitentiary but on the keeper of the county jail and the sheriff of the municipality, and I submit that these are men of considerable refinement and good breeding and it would be exceedingly repugnant to them to take up the lash and apply it to the back of one of their fellow creatures.
This is not a new question by any means. For a number of years it has been agitated throughout the leading law publications, both on this side of the Atlantic and the other, and the consensus of opinion seems to be that it is not wise to return to the lash for trifling offences. In fact the majority of authorities are of the opinion that it is unwise to apply the lash in any case. As regards that part of the Act which punishes a man for wife-beating, I wonder what the mover of the Bill has to say about the woman who beats her husband.


Robert Bickerdike: I would say, serves him right.


James William Maddin: As a matter of fact, if sta tistics were well and intelligently collected throughout the length and breadth of the country, while the records would not show as many cases of husbands beating wives as of wives beating husbands, still there are a number of such cases. I agree with my hon. friend from Hastings (Mr. Northrup) in having no regard for the man who strikes a woman under any provocation. But my hon. friend has taken but one view of the case. I have no regard or sympathy for the man who hangs about the house, a drunken loafer, living by the earnings of his wife. But what about the diligent hard working man who works eight or ten hours per day, and when he comes home finds his supper not ready, his children not washed and his wife gallivanting about the country. What is sauce for the goose might very well be sauce for the gander, and the mover of this measure might well be asked to incorporate in it husband as well as wife beating.
There is another very serious objection. So long as those who administer the laws of the land do not look with favour on a particular statute, that statute will not be successfully applied. I do not think it is to the discredit of our judges to say that the majority, in cases where whippings are imposed are very loath to impose it. As a matter of fact the punishment is optional just as it is in this Bill, and in a large number of cases the judges are very loath to impose it. In my short experience where I reside, I only recall three instances in which the lash was imposed, and for some reason or other it was not in? these cases applied. What will be the result if legislation of this kind be adopted? If the lash is not applied now in cases where it may be imposed, it is not more likely to be applied when imposed in more trifling cases, and a law which is not enforced will be looked upon by the criminal as so much dead wood which he need not take into account. Therefore I say that while the lash may have a tendency to lessen the outbreaks of crime of a certain violent character, I have no doubt that the diet described in Oliver Twist, which was supplied in the parochial workhouse, and the other rigours of that workhouse would be sufficient deterrents in cases of a less serious character, such as are dealt with in this measure.


Mr.  W. B.@: NANTEL (Terrebonne.) (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I shall say but one word on the question which is now before the House. I entirely agree with the hon. Minister of Justice on this point. In the first place I do not think that the circumstances prevailing in Montreal, for instance, would justify such a measure. I hope that we shall never go back to the barbarous ages, which in my opinion would be the result of this measure. The offence however odious, for which flogging is intended as a punishment, is after all but a mere misdemeanour, therefore it is more or less serious.
As a matter of principle, I am in favour of the death penalty, although I am entirely adverse to flogging. I will say more, I would favour the wiping of that punishment out of otir criminal code. With still more reason, I cannot approve of it in such a case as this when there is no motive to enforce it as the offence is not serious enough. Therefore I hope that this legislation will never become a part of our criminal law.


Mr. A. B. CROSBY (Halifax).: I am largely in accord with the hon. Minister of Justice as to this Bill. The fact that the majority of the lawyers in this House are opposed to such clause is one reason why I favour it, because that is an indication to me that it will have the effect of decreasing offences of that character and there will be less work in the courts for some lawyers. My hon. friend from Cape Breton (Mr. Maddin) put the question why there should not be some provision for the protection of men. Well, the man who goes to his home and is beaten once by his wife and then is foolish enough to go back, deserves to be beaten the second time.
That is not the case with the poor wo-

man; she has to stay at home all the time, she has frequently to submit to abuse in order to care for her children. The man at whom this punishment is aimed is the very man who will frequently trouble and bother such a woman, disturb her and her family and eat the food which she has provided by her day's hard work for her children. Therefore I am quite in accord with the punishment proposed. I am quite sure that the difficulties in connection with the infliction of the whipping can be overcome. We cannot be too careful or too severe in this particular, and while I agree with the Minister of Justice in all the other matters to which he has referred, I am in sympathy with the section of the Bill regarding the care and protection of our women.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into committee on the Bill.
On section 1-Whipping for possession of weapon.
Robert Bickerdike: After listening to the discussion I have decided to accept the suggestion made by the Minister of Justice. It is not exactly what I expected to get, but I am one of those who will take what I can get and hope for more later on. I move that clause one be struck out and shall move amendments to clause 2 and clause 4.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and section 1 struck out.
On section 2,
The following section is inserted immediately after section 292:
292a. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to three years' imprisonment and to be whipped, who assaults his wife or other female and thereby occasions actual bodily harm.
Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I would call attention to the state of the existing law upon a cognate subject. Section 292 of the Criminal Code provides a punishment of two years imprisonment-not three,-and whipping, for any man who indecently assaults any female, or makes such an assault- with the woman's consent, where such consent is procured by fraud. I would suggest to my hon. friend that there can be no reason why an assault which is not indecent should be the subject of a more severe punishment than that which the law now prescribes for an indecent assault, and therefore would suggest the substitution of two years for three years. If that is done the purpose of my hon. friend can be accomplished more neatly by simply adding to the present section 292 a third subclause which would make the section read:
Every one is guilty of an indicatable offence and liable to two years' imprisonment and to Mr. CROSBY.
be whipped who indecently assaults any female, &c., &c.
And 3,
Who assaults his wife or other female and thereby occasions her bodilv harm.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I would agree with what the Minister of Justice has said except the last few words. 1 was going to move to strike out the words ' or other female,' I believe that any man who assaults his wife and does her harm cannot be punished too severely. I have no sympathy with the statement that a man could be assaulted by his wife; I do not think there are many men whose wives can hurt them very much. But I do say that any man who assaults the woman he has undertaken to care for for life ought to be lashed. I do not think the same punishment should apply m the case of any female; such a provision would undoubtedly give rise to many cases of blackmail. In many cases in the Criminal Code the prosecution are called upon to corroborate in some material particular the serious offence against the female. This is a good and salutary provision. If you put it in this way and make any man subject to the lash for assault upon a female occasioning bodily harm, you will have a serious condition of blackmail. I do not think it necessary. There is already this serious punishment for men who indecently assault females. I would move, in place of the amendment of the Minister of Justice, to strike out the words ' or other female ' because such cases are already dealt with in the serious case of indecent assault. I think the only assault, other than an indecent assault, for which a man should be lashed is an assault upon his wife.


Robert Bickerdike: I certainly object to that; I think a man is just as guilty, if not more so, if he goes and beats another man's wife than if he beats his own.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: No, for exactly the reason I say, a man and his wife might lew blackmail. Then a man swears to protect his wife and he does not undertake to protect the other.
Amendment (Mr. Lancaster) negatived : Yeas 62, nays 71.


Mr. BARR.: Mr. Chairman, I call your attention to the fact that a large number of those who voted were not present when the question was called.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: By the vote the amendment is lost.


John Barr: I have asked for a ruling on a very important question, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to have it.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The rule of the House is that a member may not vote on a question unless he has heard the question put.


John Barr: Then, I sumbit that a large number of those who voted on the other side could not have heard the question, because they were not in the Chamber when it was put.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: It is impossible for the chairman to choose out those who came in late.


Robert Bickerdike: I move the following amendment to section 2 :
Assaults and beats his wife or any other female, and thereby occasions her actual bodily harm.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: As I understand the amendment, it is that all the words in section 292 be struck out and the words just read be inserted.


Robert Laird Borden: That will not carry out the purpose suggested by the Minister of Justice. It requires provision in the line mentioned by him, namely, to append this as a subsection of section 292. To pass the amendment in the form proposed will make absolute nonsense, and, if put! on the statute-book, would make us all ridiculous.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: It is moved that section 2 as it stands in the Bill be expunged, and the following be inserted instead :
Section 292 of the Criminal Code is amended by adding thereto the following:
Or (c) assaults and beats his wife or any other female, and thereby occasions her actual bodily harm.


Mr. SPROULE.: It does seem to me that the statement of the Minister of Justice ought to be heeded. If we provide a law to inflict a punishment and there is no provision for the infliction of the punishment, we commit an absurdity. Is the Minister of Justice prepared to suggest an amendment which would provide some one to inflict the punishment ?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: Perhaps not every hon. member has a copy of the Criminal Code before him; therefore, in order to understand what we are doing, I will read the section as it now stands :
292. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to two years imprisonment and to be whipped who (a) indecently assaults any female; or, (b) does anything to any female by her consent which, but for such consent, would be an indecent assault, if such consent is obtained by false and fraudulent representations as to the nature and quality of the Act.
That is the clause as it now stands. If the amendment is carried it will subject any person who, by assaulting any woman, occasions her actual bodily harm, to the
punishment of two years imprisonment and being whipped.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I would ask the minister if that is one of the sections in regard to which corroboration is required; because if not, I certainly must oppose that amendment. It will be a very dangerous law to put upon the statute-book if it is not accompanied by a requirement for corroboration. I have not the statutes before me, but perhaps the minister can tell us. Let us know what we are doing.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I may say in reply to my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) that I am not able to answer his question on the spur of the moment. My impression is strong that no corroboration is required, but I may be in error in that respect. I suggest that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Robert Laird Borden: Before the committee rises I would like to add a word along the line of what my hon. friend from Grey (Mr. Sproule) has said. The Minister of Justice made a very emphatic and cogent argument against the whole principle of this Bill. The two principal points he made were, in the first place, that the infliction of this punishment for any offence is degrading and ought not to be imposed. In fact, if the argument of the Minister of Justice were carried to its legitimate conclusion, the enactments already upon the statute-book in that regard should be eliminated. The other point which the minister made is that it is impossible to carry out the punishment, that there is no person appointed by law upon whom that duty can be imposed, unless you are to presume that the warden of the penitentiary or the keeper of the jail can himself select one of his subordinates, and order him to perform what the minister regards as a degrading duty, degrading not only to the person who receives the punishment, but degrading to the person who inflicts it. Now the committee has arrived at the conclusion that in respect to one offence the punishment by whipping or flogging should be extended. Well, it seems to me that before this committee rises we ought to have some statement from the minister as to what the law is in that regard, and that this Bill should be amended so that the duty of carrying it out shall be imposed upon some definite official, who, if he fails to carry out the law, will himself be guilty of an offence. We ought not to put these punishments upon the statute-book and leave them to be disregarded, as they have been in the past, according to the testimony, not only of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice, but of gentlemen of the legal profession in this House who have given their experience.
Progress reported.


COMxMONS
[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of Mr. Reid (Grenville).
That in the opinion of this House tenders received in any department of government should be immediately placed in safe custody under seal so as to prevent any possibility or suspicion of tampering; and should be opened in public at the time and place mentioned in the advertisement and in the presence of at least three principal officials of the department; and the persons so tendering or their duly authorized agents should be at liberty to attend at the said time and place and see such tenders opened and recorded, if they so desire, and the proposed amendment of Mr. Guthrie thereto.
Mr. H. H. MILLER (South Grey).: When I was speaking a few days ago in reference to this motion, I made some allusion to the remarks of the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro) in reference to dredging contracts that had been let to the Hon. A. G. MacKay. In the course of his remarks the hon. member for North Grey stated that in these days Conservatives did not tender for contracts of any kind with this government, because, owing to the manner in which contracts are let, it was of no use for them to tender. I think that statement is not according to facts. I remember talking a little while ago w_ith a very prominent Conservative in this country, and he referred to the frequent remarks of a gentleman who was, during the last parliament, a member on the opposition side of this House, and this gentleman with whom I was speaking said that this late Conservative member had dredging contracts on the brain. He said it was true that some men in this country were making a large amount of money out of dredging contracts, but they-do not all belong to one political party. He said that one of the most intimate of his personal friends is a Conservative who has made a considerable amount of money, and is making money to-day, out of dredging contracts. I did not ask him to give me the name of his friend who was so making money out of dredging contracts, because it was none of my business. I simply give you his statement for what it is worth. I understand that a Conservative named Poupore, formerly a member of this House, is a prominent contractor with this government, and is I hope making a reasonable amount of money out of his contracts. I understand another gentleman-


Mr. CROTHERS.: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. Is the hon. gentleman speaking to the question before the House?


Henry Horton Miller: I am also informed that a gentleman-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Robert Laird Borden: 


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I did not hear the hon. gentleman's last words, but I presume the rules of the House will be observed.


Henry Horton Miller: I shall endeavour to observe them. I think I am. I am speaking in direct contradiction of the words used by the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro), and of his argument, and I think that certainly has a direct bearing upon the motion before the House. A man named Boone from Sault Ste. Marie-


Robert Laird Borden: I rise to a point of order. I do not so regard it. My hon. friend from York, New Brunswick (Mr. Crocket) was making a reply to the Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Ayiesworth) and he was called to order because he was not discussing the question directly before the House which related to the opening of tenders. The point of order having been taken the Speaker then in the Chair sustained him. I would respectfully submit that exactly the same principle should impel the hon. gentleman now addressing the House to speak to the resolution and not introduce matters that are obviously not relevant under the ruling which has already been pronounced.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: As the House is aware, I have just taken the chair and did not hear the remarks that were objected to. If the point of order is,pressed I shall have to call back the Speaker to rule on the matter.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN.: The mover of this resolution gave as a ground in support' of
it-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I think the hon. gentleman should await the return of the Speaker.


Henry Horton Miller: I will endeavour not to infringe at all. At the present time I do not think I am infringing the rules or saying anything which is out of order. In discussing the matter of opening tenders-


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but a point of order has been raised, and it has not yet been settled.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is not
pressed.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: If the hon. gentleman does not press his point of order, of course, the hon. gentleman who has the floor may proceed.


Wilfrid Laurier: If the hon. gentleman waives his point he may go on.


Robert Laird Borden: The point of order is pressed ; perhaps the hon. gentleman (Mr. Miller) may waive the line of argument.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is what he should.


Henry Horton Miller: Certainly I am quite prepared to do that. But, if I am ruled out of order I scarcely know on what ground I can stand.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Henry Horton Miller: I contend that I am in order. It has been argued that tenders are not properly opened, and that certain bad effects have resulted. I am endeavouring to prove that these bad effects have not resulted. Then I wish to show that what the hon. member for North Grey has stated, that owing to the manner in which tenders are opened it is impossible for Conservatives to obtain contracts from this government, is not a fact, and I am endeavouring to show that Conservatives have obtained and are obtaining contracts as the result of tenders they have put in to this government. I understand that Mr. Poupore has many times received contracts from this government as a result of tenders that he has put in under the method that is now in vogue.


Robert Laird Borden: I rise again to the question of order. I submit that the hon. gentleman has no right to discuss the tenders of Mr. Poupore or any one else under the ruling which you pronounced when this debate arose on a previous occasion.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I have already decided, on a point of order being taken, that the debate must be confined strictly to the motion and the amendment thereto, and anything irrelevant is out of order. I am not prepared to say that the last words were relevant not having heard them.


Henry Horton Miller: My argument and what I was stating was this: I understand that the motion before the House declares that the present method of opening tenders is not a good one, that evil results follow, and that in consequence some new method ought to prevail. In support of the resolution it has been stated that Conservatives do not tender for public contracts, and that men of all shades of politics belonging to all parties, ought to have fair play. I want to show that the argument is not a proper one, that the statements are not correct, and that it is not so that as a result of the present method of tendering Conservatives do not obtain fair play. In order to prove my contention I have been endeavouring to show and will show-and perhaps that is the reason why the point of order is so persistently urged-that Conservatives have obtained, do obtain and may obtain contracts from this government as other people do.


Robert Laird Borden: I venture to submit that this is no more relevant than was the consideration of the question regarding
dredging contracts in the harbour of St. John. If this is relevant then that is relevant.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Mr. Speaker, I might just call your attention to the fact that in this motion which is being discussed certain amendments to the regulations applying to the reception and opening of tenders were suggested by the mover to prevent any possibility of suspicion or tampering with tenders. Every gentleman on the other side of the House supporting this resolution, either directly or indirectly, stated his suspicion that there was tampering with tenders. Surely the hon. gentleman is permitted to answer that? Surely that is cognate to the question before the House? It is entirely different from the case of the Mayes dredging contract because that was clearly irrelevant, nobody having asserted that there was anything improner with respect to the reception or opening of those tenders.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Of course, my ruling is well-known to the House. Having decided that a certain matter is out of order it is no argument to say that it is in answer to what was said because a lot of what was said was irregular. I hope that hon. gentlemen will follow the rule and confine themselves to matters relevant to the question under discussion. Bourinot says that illustration is sometimes permitted, hut to undertake to discuss any specific case under this resolution would be clearly out of order.


Henry Horton Miller: I bow cheerfully and always to your ruling. I contend that I was doing what you say I am permitted to do- using this case as an illustration. I am prepared to show a long list of names but I am content to let that pass. I want to say in conclusion that it seems to me that it would tend very much to shorten the sessions of this House if members would confine themselves to charges which are not founded upon suspicion but which they can back up by evidence. The mover of the resolution suggests that there should be three persons present in place of two at the opening of tenders. Does he think that that would make any real change in the conditions or that if there is wrong-doing with two persons present there might not be equal wrong-doing with three? I do think there may be something in the suggestion of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake), who spoke a few days ago. He gave it not altogether as a suggestion but as a statement of the practice in some departments in Great Britain, and it was that the persons who are present when tenders are opened are changed from time to time, and that they are not always the same persons who are performing that duty. I think that the contention of my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works was well founded, and that there is a great deal in it

that if you say that contractors must be present when tenders are opened you simply lend yourself to a system that permits conniving and conspiring, and which will cause a great deal more evil and produce worse results than can or do exist to-day. The hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro) said:
I have always been in favour of the principle of letting contracts by public tender in a bona fide upright and conscientious manner.
No doubt the hon. member was sincere when he said that, and I should think every member of the House could use the very same words with an equal degree of sincerity. But the trouble with the hon. *gentleman (Mr. Middlebro) is that like too many of his friends on the other side he is prone to let his suspicion rather than his reason govern him. I believe that we should endeavour to adopt all methods that it is possible to adopt even if it were only for the purpose of lessening the suspicion of our friends on the other side of the House. If it were possible that the Auditor General or some such official in whom we all have confidence could be present when these tenders are opened, I would be agreeable to the adoption of such a system, but in the meantime I think the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) is the better of the two proposals before the House.


Robert Laird Borden: The amendment which has been presented by the hon. member (Mr. Guthrie) declares that the method of inviting, opening and considering tenders as embodied in the order in council of June 18, 1900, is in the opinion of this House a proper safeguard in the public interest. That order in council makes the following provision:
Where tenders are called for by any department of the government they shall be addressed to the officer of the department specified in the notice calling for tenders. In the notice it shall be specified that the tenders shall be under seal and endorsed 1 tender for	specifying the work or supplies for which tenders are called. When received they shall be stamped by the official to whom addressed, with the day and hour of their receipt, and placed under lock and key until such time as it shall be found convenient for opening them.
It does not seem to me that this provides any sufficient safeguard in the public interest. What is the meaning of the provision that the tenders shall be under seal? So far as I can understand, it only means that the person tendering shall affix his seal after his name, and it does not even go to the extent of providing that the tender shall be sealed up in a package or envelope. That may have been the intention of the gentleman who drafted the order in Mr. MILLER.
council, but he certainly did not say it. Therefore, there is absolutely no provision in the order in council as to tenders being inclosed in an envelope, and yet it is considered by the member for Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) a perfectly adequate safeguard. The other safeguard provided in this order in council is that the tender shall be placed under lock and key. That is the most absurdly slipshod expression I have ever heard of in an order in council or any other document, if the intention is to safeguard the public interest. In short, the order in council omits every single one of the very necessary safeguards which are contained in the resolution presented by my hon. friend from Grenville. The motion declares :
That in the opinion of this House tenders received in any department of government should be immediately placed in safe custody under seal so as to prevent any possibility or suspicion of tampering; and shall be opened in public at the time and place mentioned in the advertisement and in the presence of at least three principal officials of the department; and the persons so tendering or their duly authorized agents should be at liberty to attend at the said time and place and see such tenders opened and recorded, if they so desire.
When this motion was presented to the House last year, the right hon. the Prime Minister endorsed it in every particular except one, and that was with reference to the tenders being opened in public. But, even if you omit that provision, you will see that the order in council falls very far short of the motion of my hon. friend (Mr. J. D. Reid). Under the circumstances the attitude of the government in inviting the House to approve of a supposed safeguard which is not a safeguard at all, ought not to commend itself to our judgement. I believe that the provisions contained in the resolution of my hon. friend from Grenville are the provisions which will commend themselves to the people of this country as adequate and necessary safeguards in the public interest.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Some of the discussion on this resolution has been relevant, but a great deal of it has been irrelevant. I am as anxious as any other hon. gentleman in the House that a vote should be taken before six o'clock, and, therefore, I will prolong the debate for only a few moments. T purpose supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), and I will construe my vote as being an affirmation that the regulations now in torce are preferable to those proposed by the hon. member (Mr. J. D. Reid). I agree, to some extent, with the leader of the opposition when he says that the existing regulations * are not absolutely perfect; the drafting is

very imperfect indeed. The present regulations respecting the reception and opening of tenders for government work and supplies are, that they shall be stamped by the officials to whom they are addressed with the date and hour of receipt, and then placed under lock; that at a later date they shall be opened before the minister and an official of the department, and in the absence of the minister by another official of the department to be designated by him. The resolution of the member for Grenville proposes two changes only; first, that the tenders shall be opened in the presence of three officials, and, secondly, that the public as well as the tenderers shall have an opportunity of being present. Wherein are the present regulations defective, and if they are defective how can the suggestions contained in the resolution of the member for Grenville remedy the defect. I submit in all fairness that the recommendations contained in the resolution of my hon. friend (Mr. Reid) are not of a business like character and cannot commend themselves to anybody. To my mind it is utterly unimportant and trivial as to whether one or two or three or one hundred and three persons are present at the opening of the tenders. If there is any stage at vhich tenders should be protected it is while they are being received by the official of the department to whom they are addressed and while they are in his possession, and it is a mere waste of time to discuss how many persons shall be present when tenders are opened or whether the public shall be present or not. The resolution before the House does not suggest throwing around the officer who receives these tenders any protection or safeguard whatever.


John Dowsley Reid: Will not the fact of having them opened at the time and place mentioned in the advertisement do that ?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I shall come to that later. The hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) was right the other day when he said we must trust some one official in matters of this kind. As he said, the business of the world is carried on by reason of trust which man extends to his fellow men. Well, under the present regulations, and even under the regulations as proposed to be amended, the tenders would all be received by one official. If you do not trust this official what would you require to do in order to safeguard both public and private interests. You would require to have two or three men to watch this official as he opened his mail every morning, and two or three others keeping eye on the lock, and two or three more sleeping with this man at night, which might seriously disarrange domestic affairs. You would have to make sure that on the day and at the hour for closing tenders, the 19


REVISED
[Stage Direction]
time piece of this official was right, and perhaps you could not even trust the clock and a committee of two or three would have to go out and ascertain the time of day by the sun. My hon. friend from Qu'Appelle made a very good suggestion the other day. He suggested that if there be any objection to the mode of receiving and opening tenders, it is at this point the amendment should be made and not as regards how or when tenders should be opened, because that is after all, a very trifling matter which ought not to occupy the attention of the House one second. If you are going to make an amendment, I would say, let the officer who receives the tenders endorse on it the time and hour of reception and sign that with his own hand. Let him then pass the tender on to another officer, to be called the custodian of tenders, and let him also mark the time of reception as the former official. Then when the time for the reception has expired let these tenders be brought before the minister or his representative and be opened in the presence of the minister and these two officials.
As regards the proposition to have these tenders opened before the public, there is nothing in it to commend it to the judgment of this House. Just see what inconvenience that would occasion. But first let me say that the lowest tender is not always accepted. In some instances it may not be wise to accept it, either because of the financial inability of the tenderer or some other good reason. Imagine then what would follow if every person who tendered knew who were the other tenderers and what were their figures. One can easily understand how, when the lowest tender was rejected, the party who made that tender would storm the department in his attempt to satisfy the minister that he was quite competent and trustworthy and ought to get the contract. It is easy to understand how he would appeal to parliament and how hon. gentlemen opposite would make frenzied attacks on the government for not having accepted the lowest tender.
As to whether one or two or three are present at the opening of the tenders that is a matter which is utterly irrelevant and unimportant. But if you take these regulations as they stand, they are open to the construction that the tenders shall be opened in the presence of three officials. In this connection I desire to call the attention of the Minister of Public Works to what I think is imperfect drafting. The last clause reads: ' They shall be opened in the presence of the minister of the department calling for tenders and one of the principal officials of the department designated by that minister.' My reading of that clause up to that point is that the tenders are brought before the minister and one of his principal officers, and are opentd by the of-

[Stage Direction]
fleer who received them, so that they are opened in the presence of three persons. True the remaining portion of the clause rather weakens my contention because it says: * Or in the presence of the minister or where it is not convenient for him to be present they shall be opened by two of the officials of the department to be designated by the minister.' It seems to me that there is a little confusion here which requires to be removed.
My hon. friend the mover of the resolution (Mr. Reid) laid special stress upon that part of it which provides for the opening of these tenders injrablic and in the presence of any of the tenderers who may see fit to attend. Of course if the tenders are opened in public it follows that the parties tendering may be present, but it would be very unfortunate if that feature were introduced into the regulations and it is one which ought not to commend itself to this House.
Thomas Wilson Crothers: I quite agree, I simply want to emphasize one point in addition to those mentioned by the hon. leader of this side. The regulations provide that in the absence of the minister, he may name two officials who may open the tenders. The hon. Minister of Public Works in introducing these resolutions, told us the other day that that provision was inserted to meet cases in which the minister could not be present, and he cited Moncton where tenders are opened for hundreds of thousands of dollars and where it would not be convenient for the minister to be present.


George Perry Graham: At present there are no
tenders opened at Moncton.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I was not referring to what the Minister of Railways said, but to what the Minister of Public Works said, that they were opened at Moncton.


George Perry Graham: I do not want to interrupt, but I would not like that impression to go to the public, and I want the House to understand that tenders are not opened at Moncton.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I accept at once the statement of the Minister of Railways that the tenders are not opened at Moncton, but I do not know anything to prevent them being opened there. As a matter of fact, he says they are not, but they might be opened at Vancouver, or Victoria, or anywhere else in Canada. The regulations give the minister power to name two officials without stating who the officials shall be or their status. They may be two subordinate officials, and I submit that the provisions enabling the minister to name two subordinate officials anywhere in Canada would not command the confidence of the people in this country.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: House divided on amendment of Mr. Guthrie.

Messieurs
Allen,
Aylesworth,
Beauparlant,
Bfland,
Biokerdike,
Black,
Borden (Sir Frederick), Boyer,
Brodeur,
Brown,
Bureau,
Calvert,
Carrier,
Carvell,
Cash,
Chew,
Chisholm (Antigo-nish),
McCraney,
McGiverin,
McIntyre (Perth), McIntyre (Strathoona), McKenzie,
MoLean (Sunbury), McMillan,
Major,
Maroile (Bagot), Martin (Montreal), Ste. Mary's),
Martin (Regina), Martin (Wellington), Mayrand,
Meigs,
Michaud,
Miller,
Molloy,
Clark (Red Deer),	" "J * Nesbitt,
Clarke (Essex),	Neely,
Conmee,	Oliver,
Currie (Prince	Papineau,
Edward),	Pardee,
Delisle,	Parent.
Demers,	Paterson,
Devlin,	Pickup,
Dubeau,	Proulx,
Dugas,	Prowse,
Ecrement,	Pugsley,
Ethier,	Rankin,
Fisher,	Reid (Restigouohe),
Fortier,	Richards,
Gauvreau,	Rivet,
German,	Robb,
Gervais,	Ross,
Girard,	Roy (Dorchester),
Gordon (Kent),	Roy (Montmagny),
Graham,	Rutan,
Guthrie,	Savoie,
Harris,	Schell,
Harty,	Sealey,
Hodgins,	Sifton,
Hunt,	Sinclair.
Knowles,	Smith (Middlesex),
Kyte,	Smith (Nanaimo),
Lanotot (Laprairie-	Smith (Stormont),
Napierville),	Stratton,
Lanctot (Richelieu),	Sutherland,
Lapointe,	Talbot,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),	Tobin,
Lavergne,	Todd,
LeBlanc,	Tolmie.
Loggie,	Turcotte (Nicolet),
Lovell,	Turcotte (Quebec
Low.	County),
Maclean	Turgeon,
(Lunenburg),	Turr ff.
MacNutt,	Verville,
McAllister,	Warburton,
McCoig,	White (Victoria,
McColl,	Alta.), Wilson (Laval).-11
NAYS.	
Messieurs	
Ames,	McCall,
Armstrong,	McCarthy,
Arthurs,	Maddin,

Barker,	Magrath,
Barnard,	Marshall,
Barr,	Meighen,
Blain,	Middlebro
Blondin,	Monk,
Borden (Carleton),	Nantel,
Boyee,	Northrup,
Bradbury,	Osier,
Broder,	Owen,
Burrell,	Paquet,
Campbell,	Perley, [DOT]
Chisholm (Huron),	Price,
Clare,	Reid (Grenville),
Cowan,	Rhodes,
Crosby,	Roche,
Crocket,	Russell,
Crothers,	Sohaffner,
Daniel,	Sexsmith,
Doherty,	Sharpe (Lisgar).
Donnelly,	Sharpe (Ontario),
Edwards,	Smyth,
Elson,	Sproule,
Fraser,	Stanfield,
Goodeve,	Staples,
Gordon (Nipissing),	Stewart,
Haggart (Winnipeg),	Taylor (Leeds),
Henderson,	Taylor (New West-
Herron,	minster),
Jameson,	Thoburn,
Lake,	Thornton.
Lalor.	Wallace,
Lancaster,	White (Renfrew),
Lennox,	Wilson (Lennox ai
Lewis.	Addington),
Lortie.	Worthington,
Macdonell,	Wright.-76.
PAIRS:	
Messieurs	
Ministerial.	Opposition.
Macdonald,	Hughes,
Lemieux,	Haggart.
Emmerson,	Currie (Simooe),
Law.	Bristol,
Fielding,	Foster,
Gladu,	Beattie,
King,	Porter,
Geoffrion,	Forget,
McLean (Huron).	McLean (S. York),


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Motion as amended agreed to.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at Eight o'clock.	'
House in Committee of Supply.
Department of Customs.-Salaries and contingencies, $214,675.
William Paterson: The first item is Commissioner and Chairman of Board of Customs. Last year the salary was $4,000 under the Act When he comes into class A of 1st division, it is $5,000. It is automatic. The assistant commissioner last year received $3,600, and the statutory increase will make it $3,700.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I thought the statutory increase was $50.
19i


William Paterson: In the 1st division it is $100. The maximum of this salary is $4,000. Then, in the second division, subdivision: A, there are 13 salaries to be provided for. There were 8 before, and 5 were brought in from the outside. Before that there is the first division, subdivision B. That subdivision runs from $2,100 to $2,800. There are six estimated for in that, three that are permanent and three that were brought in from the outside. In the second division, subdivision A, which runs from $1,600 to $2,100, there are thirteen estimated for. Eight of these are in the inside service and five are brought from the outside. The next is second division, subdivision B. There are 121 estimated for, 104 of whom are brought in from the outside or were temporary. That class runs from $800 to $1,600.


Mr. TAYLOR.: You have made an increase of one? You had 104 outside, 16 inside and now you are providing for 121. Where does that extra one come in?


William Paterson: That is a position not yet filled. We are estimating for a typewriter that we will have to secure.


David Henderson: Will this typewriter be appointed by the commission?


William Paterson: Yes.


David Henderson: Is that the case with all officers? I had my attention drawn this afternoon to the question as to who would appoint the clerk of the committee on agriculture to succeed Mr. McLeod. Would that also come under the commissioners or would he be appointed by the officers of the House?


William Paterson: That is within the jurisdiction of this House, as I understand it. There are 23 in the third division, subdivision A, which runs from $900 to $1,200. Seven of these come from the outside. The third division, subdivision B, runs from $500 to $800. Five are brought in from the outside. Then, in the next class, that of the messengers, there are six estimated for. Five are brought in from the outside and there is an addition we are providing for. We will require another packer.


David Henderson: Will the minister just explain why it is necessary to have another packer. Is the work so much greater this year than last that it is necessary to have another? The feeling of the House is that the number of civil servants should not be increased but rather a reduction should be made. I hope the government will do what they can to keep d#\vn the expenditure and not make any more unnecessary appointments.


William Paterson: There is a great deal of work of that kind. All the different
*1)83

iports and outports have to have their stationery sent to them and the work of these packers consists largely in that. For some time we had an extra employee from the Department of Public Works doing that work, but we prefer to have an officer of our own. I agree with my hon. friend that it is desirable when our revenue is decreasing that we should go carefully. While we are providing for these appointments it does net mean absolutely that additional officers must be employed. I think the commissioner feels that it will be necessary to have this typewriter and this messenger, but if he finds he can get along without them the appointments will not be made.


David Henderson: The minister has indicated that the work of these messengers is largely in connection with sending out stationery to the ports and outports. Of course, the larger the number of outports the larger the number of messengers that will be required. I understand the government has given an assurance that there will be a customs port established at Milton, in my own county. I understand this because the gentleman who opposed me in the recent election gave the people there the assurance that there would be a customs port opened at that point. I suppose that this is one of the results of it. Evidently there is going to be an additional customs house and with that I am finding no fault. I would be very glad if the minister would open a custom house there. It is the county town and I do not know any reason why it should be without a customs port any more than any other county town in the province should be without one. Perhaps the minister can give us an assurance to-night as to whether he intends to implement the promise or not and if a port will be opened there. We had the very strongest assurances that a port would be opened in the interest of the people there. I take it for granted that the promise was given by the minister no matter who should be elected. I will not assume for a moment that the minister simply intended to open a customs house there if my opponent was elected because that would be a. kind of bribery held out to the electors that I do not believe the Minister of Customs would countenance. I believe that if he made the promise that a customs house would be opened in Milton it will be opened no matter who is elected. I have sufficient confidence in the minister to believe that he would not hold out a bribe to the people of that county or say that in the event of a supporter of the government being elected a customs house would be established. I am bound to believe he is too honourable a gentleman to offer a bribe of that kind to the electors. The people did not elect a supporter of the government, but nevertheless we expect Mr. PATERSON
that whatever promise was made in good faith by the minister, or the candidate who gave the assurance, will be carried out. It will be very useful to have a customs house at that place, and as the government has determined upon it I would like to have it as soon as possible. Perhaps the minister can inform the committee when it will he done?


William Paterson: When these estimates are through I am going to ask the committee to go on with the outside vote and then that question will come up.


John Dowsley Reid: You could answer that in a few minutes.


William Paterson: I suppose my hon. friend and myself are very much of the same mind. If there has to be a member of the Liberal persuasion from Brant, I suppose my hon. friend (Mr. Henderson) would as soon see me here as any one else. And on the other hand if there is to be a Conservative from Halton I am pleased it is the hon. gentleman. I do not claim any superior virtue, but I should not consider it proper for me to say in any county: If you will elect so and so you will get something, and if you don't you will not get it.


David Henderson: I would not have asked for this to-night if I thought the promise were only to be carried out in the event of the return of a supporter of the government. I do not believe the Minister of Customs would make any such one-sided pledge. Was the statement simply made by the hon. gentleman who opposed me to catch a few votes, or did the Minister of Customs make the pledge?


William Paterson: A great many requests come for these custom ports from members on both sides, and in the Northwest especially.


George Taylor: Answer the question straight. Did you make the promise?


William Paterson: No. I did not make the promise to Halton. I do not make any promise in connection with any of these requests. We say we will inquire whether the business will warrant it or not, and speaking now for Milton, I should judge it is a point that would deserve consideration if we find ourselves able to open any other port. If there has been a promise given, then because the election turned the way it did will not effect the question in any way.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Mr. A. HAGGART.: It is reported in the press that Colonel Scott, collector of customs at Winnipeg, was about to be superannuated and a successor appointed. Would the Minister of Customs give me some information as to that?


William Paterson: I have been asked that question outside the House. So many statements get into the newspapers that are without foundation that one cannot keep track of them. All I can say is that so far as I am concerned, I have taken no steps in the direction of relieving Colonel Scott from the duties of his office. Colonel Scott has not asked to be relieved of his duties, and my personal inclination is that so long as an officer can discharge his duties properly and wishes to remain I do not view with favour a change being made. There has been no action taken on my part looking to the immediate retirement of Colonel Scott. I suppose Colonel Scott is now at an age that if he asked to be superannuated his request could be complied with under the superannuation Act. There has been no intimation on my part as to superannuating Colonel Scott against his will. Does that answer the question?


Alexander Haggart: I think that answers it. Colonel Scott we know to be an energetic man who does not require superannuation, and of course the minister is speaking for the government.


William Paterson: I did not catch that.


Alexander Haggart: The Minister of Customs has told us that Colonel Scott has not asked for superannuation, and I infer he will not be superannuated until he asks for it?


William Paterson: So far as I am aware he has not asked for superannuation, and of course if anything were to be done it would have to emanate from the Department of Customs.


John Dowsley Reid: Are we to understand that so long as Colonel Scott is able to perform his duties satisfactorily he will not be superannuated until he asks for it?


William Paterson: I have not had the question brought before me for action. I do not know how the report originated. What I have said is so long as the duties of an office are performed satisfactorily I would not be inclined to make a change unless, of course, the public interest would render it desirable.


Mr. CROCKET.: Has there been any request for the superannuation of the collector of customs at Fredericton?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I do not like to interrupt hon. gentlemen, but I would point out that a discussion on the outside service has no relevancy to this vote for the inside service.


Oswald Smith Crocket: But the discussion has been allowed.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: That is true, and I was about to suggest that it was not relative to this vote.


Adam Brown Crosby: Will it not look bad in the eyes of the people that while the customs revenue is decreasing the government is adding to the number of officials?


William Paterson: It is for that reason that we are proceeding with great caution, but I think we are meeting the wishes of hon. gentlemen on both sides that there should be an increase in the salaries, and that the staff should be maintained at a strength sufficient to do the work. Although the amount received may not be so large there is still a great volume of correspondence to be attended to.


Adam Brown Crosby: If we are going to open
new ports there might be some excuse, but the minister has not told us that new ports will be opened.


Mr. MEIGHEN.: Would the minister
give the names of the 129 officials who were brought into the service during the last 12 months?


William Paterson: These were not all brought in during the last 12 months because many of them had been in the service for years. Some years ago we thought it desirable in the public interest that a number of statistical officers who formerly prepared statistics at outside points should be brought to head quarters at Ottawa so that the statistics would be gotten out at an earlier period and be of more use to the commercial community. These officers were brought to Ottawa about eight years ago, many of them had been in the service for years and years before that.


George Taylor: The hon. gentleman wants to know the names of the 129 who were brought in during the last 12 months.


William Paterson: The accountant gives me the following appointees during the year 1908:	F. Clemenson, appointed July
16, resigned September 15; R.' Braid, appointed March 26; J. Devlin, August 24; C. W. Dunlop, February 25; A. M. Dupuis, March 17; W. H. McElroy, March 7; F. H. Wood, June 17; Miss Sherry, July 17; T. A. Hastings, August 1; F. Barrette, February 5. The commissioner informs me these appointments were mostly made to fill vacancies.


Mr. WRIGHT.: I understand there are a number of officials engaged in compiling the Trade and Navigation returns and others engaged in preparing the returns of the Trade and Commerce Department, which are practically of the same nature. An arrangement might be made to have the figures for the two branches in the one publication and unnecessary expense saved.


William Paterson: The Trade and Commerce Department have no statistical officers and they use our tabulation.


David Henderson: The returns of the
Minister of Customs deal with imports entered for consumption and the Trade and Commerce returns give the imports whether entered for consumption or not. The returns prepared by the Department of Customs are most essential, but in the figures of the Trade and Commerce Department there is considerable duplication, which causes a great deal of expense and confusion as well.


Mr. S. SHAEPE.: An item of this kind should not be allowed to pass without a protest from the members on this side, because the Minister of Customs has increased his staff by ten or twelve, which will entail a minimum increased expense of $8,000 a year, while at the same time the revenue is decreasing. I think the Minister of Customs is not conducting his department with that measure of economy which he would have us believe.


William Paterson: I think that the hon. gentleman did not understand me. They have not been increased by that number.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: But there have been some ten new appointments in the face of a decreasing revenue.


William Paterson: They have been mostly to replace those who left the service.


John Dowsley Reid: Whom do they replace?


William Paterson: Mr. Dunlop replaces another who resigned. Mr. Dupuis replaced Mr. Wall, who went to the Post Office De-partement and Mr. Wood replaced another Mr. Wood, who resigned. Mr. Hastings succeeded Mr. Beilis, who was promoted.


John Dowsley Reid: Whom did Mr. McElroy replace?


William Paterson: He is a new appointment.


John Dowsley Reid: And Mr. Barrette?


William Paterson: He is also a new appointment.


John Dowsley Reid: And Miss Sherry?


William Paterson: That is another new appointment. Mr. Braid is a stenographer in the commissioner's office.


John Dowsley Reid: Then the hon. gentleman admits that at least six or seven thousand dollars are added to the expenditure of the department?


William Paterson: No, $800 is the highest salary.


John Dowsley Reid: And Mr. Devlin?


William Paterson: That was a new appointment in the statistical branch.


John Dowsley Reid: That makes about seven new appointments.


William Paterson: 


William Paterson: Five new appointments the accountant tells me. That is pretty economical out of a staff of one hundred and seventy-six.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: With a decreasing revenue?


William Paterson: But we worked along all the time with an increasing revenue with a staff which we would have been justified in increasing. Last year was a year for revenue of which we never saw the like, and we are in hopes that this year there will be a renewed increase, a hope no doubt which my hon. friend shares.


George Taylor: If the hon. minister will read his speeches of two or three years ago when we had an increasing revenue, he will find that he justified the increase in his staff by the increase in the revenue. I have always been willing to admit that he was not so great a sinner as his colleagues, but I am afraid that, in face of the decreasing revenue of last year, he has shown that he is being led away by the bad example of his neighbours, and is increasing his staff in the face of a decreasing revenue.


William Paterson: In looking back at the speeches of other years, one forgets the circumstances at the time.


George Taylor: What right has the hon. gentleman to increase the number of employees in his department when there was not the same amount of work to be done? It looks as though he had just appointed some friends to fill positions which were made on purpose to accommodate them.


William Paterson: My hon. friend is a business man and he knows that we may have a decreasing revenue in a year when trade is depressed and yet have an increase in the work. There might be as many entries with a shrunken revenue as with a larger revenue. There would be as many invoices, or more, only they would be smaller in amount, and these would entail just as much work as in a year of greater revenue. We have not filled two of these places which became vacant, and I have not found the heads of my department at all extravagant.


Mr. BEODEE.: The decrease in revenue rather affects the outside service, because the bulk of the customs work falls on the customs officers throughout the country.


William Paterson: But the statistical work deals with all of them. -Let me give another reason for the extra work. As the tariff existed prior to last year, certain material was allowed in free for certain purposes, and the importer would simply make a declaration that these articles were

for those purposes and they came in free. We found that the practice was abused and that goods brought in free for specific purposes had, in some cases, gone out of the hands of the importer into those of other men who were not entitled to this piivilege. I then changed the system and said that these articles, though free under the tariff, should pay the duty, and then the importers would file their claims for a rebate, which we would check by our officers. Hon. gentlemen can therefore understand how much work that cast on the department, but I believe that the department gained more in revenue than it cost by the extra expenditure.


Mr. OSLER.: The other evening it was admitted that some action should be taken to make civil servants work longer hours; and in view of the increases in their salaries they ought to work longer hours.


William Paterson: What does the hon. gentleman suggest as the number of hours they should work?


Edmund Boyd Osler: The feeling of the House was that the present hours were too short.


William Paterson: What hours would you suggest?


Edmund Boyd Osler: From nine to five would be suitable and reasonable, I think.


William Paterson: Not speaking of one de-partmtent more than another, but dealing with my own department alone, because it is now under discussion, I may say that our hours now are from nine to five.


Edmund Boyd Osler: If the hours of the other departments were increased, could not some clerks be transferred from those other departments to the customs ? Certainly it is not well to increase the staff with a decreasing revenue. The only possible justification, one would think, would be the expectation that the revenue is going to increase.


William Paterson: I am not passing judgment on the other departments. I give the hours that my department observe. We think that we get good work out of the officers.


Adam Brown Crosby: Is it not well to consider all. this before we provide salaries for additional officers ? I have listened to gentlemen here who tell us that we have five or six hundred officials more than is necessary. If we are to add five more to the customs alone, it certainly does not look well. It seems most unfair to the people of the country to increase the staff while the revenue is decreasing.
know. I have given our hours, and I may say thq,t those are observed, for there is an attendance book. The minister does not have to sign it, but if he had, I think he would be found the only sinner. He does not attend very early, but perhaps makes it up in later hours.


Adam Brown Crosby: The minister holds to the principle of increasing the staff with a falling revenue ?


William Paterson: No more than is necessary.
Department of Customs.-Contingencies, $9,000.


William Paterson: There is an increase here of $2,000 in sundries. This increase is only apparent, as the travelling expenses of officers at Ottawa whose travelling expenses, prior to September 1, 1908, were paid out of the vote for Board of Customs, in 1909-10, will be paid out of this vote for civil government contingencies. In 1907-8 the travelling expenses of these officers amounted to $1,673.95. Besides, there are the sundry expenses of the statistical office, $341, which will have to be paid out of contingencies.


Arthur Meighen: I would draw the attention of the minister particularly to the argument used by himself a moment ago. I find the increase, over and above all that was paid to these members of the outside service to be over $1,600. To that add $150 per head for those who are brought in and those who are already in. And, in addition, there are the new appointments. Referring to the estimates of 1896, the total of employees in the inside service was 32. I find now that those in the inside service number 45, but the additions from outside make the total almost double what it was. In 1895, the expenditure was $36,800, whereas the expenditure now although it is impossible to distinguish between the two divisions, would be over twice the amount. Ten vacancies have occurred, but instead of trying to reduce the staff, the minister has filled the vacancies and appointed new officers besides. The minister's argument at one time was that the staff must be increased because the revenue was going up, but now that the revenue is going down there is no decrease in the staff. Now the same hon. gentleman argues that a diminution of the revenue brings about no decrease in the necessary work. If this can be justified, surely the revenue is no guide to the expenditure of this government.


William Paterson: Going back to 1896, you find a different position altogether.


George Taylor: We had an
economical government then.


William Paterson: As I say, I am not Mr. PATERSON. I do not want to say passing judgment on other departments, anything against my predecessors. I think Work in others may be heavier for all I I that the gentlemen that you have had at

the head of this department were pretty close-I do not know but that, perhaps, they were as close as I am. But look at the comparison of revenue; nineteen millions in 1895, last year fifty-eight millions-three times the amount. We are going to drop eleven or twelve millions this year, but I expect we are going to pick up next year and these are the estimates for next year. I am sure that all hon. gentlemen will join with me in the hope that the revenue will increase. Since 1896 the revenue has increased threefold. I do not think the number of entries increased that much, but still there was a vast increase in the number of entries. An entry of $10 takes as long to make as an entry of $1,000.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I am not able to follow the hon. minister's logic. When asked for an explanation for that increase in the number of his staff by 5 clerks, he told us that with a decreasing revenue there was as much work as, when there was an increasing revenue. That might be a reasonable answer for retaining the same number on the staff, but it is not an answer for increasing the staff by 5 clerks. Then, in explaining the expenses on sundries, he proposes to increase the allowance by nearly 50 per cent. We who are from the rural parts of the country and not acquainted with handling millions, would like to know all about these sundries. We know that sundries, like charity, often cover a multitude of sins. I would like the minister to explain not only the expenditure of $1,500 or $1,600, but to explain to us new members from the country the whole sum of the sundries.


William Paterson: I am from a rural county like the hon. gentleman himself. This sum of money was paid last year for the same service, travelling expenses of officers that were in the outside service.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Generally, what are the sundries for?


William Paterson: If the hon. gentleman will look at the Auditor General's Report, page F-5 he will see the customs contingencies all set out.
Salaries and contingent expenses of the several ports in the Dominion including pay for overtime of officers, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act, $1,800,000.


William Paterson: There is an increase here of $95,000.


John Barr: Can the minister tell us how much of this $95,000 increase is due to overtime earned by officers? I should think that when these officers work only four and a half hours a day we should not have so much overtime.


William Paterson: At centres such as Halifax, St. John, Montreal, Hamilton and other places trains are coming in at all Mr. PATERSON.
hours of the night and you have to have officers there to attend to them. In Montreal a steamer comes in; she unloads day and night and you have to have your officers there to attend to that. The hours of these officers are from 8 to 6 and in the olden times they got no overtime. When they worked overtime we used to make the railway and steamboat companies pay them. The companies came to my predecessor as well as to myself and reported that they saw no. reason why they should do that. They said that the revenue of Canada should be looked after by officers in the pay of Canada and, with a disinclination to swell the expenditure of my department for some years, I took the position of my predecessors and waved them off. Finally their argument prevailed with me. I could not see any reason why a. railway or a steamboat company should have to pay officers of the Dominion government. It was our duty to look after the Dominion revenue. I might have said: Do not run your trains at night; do not come into the harbour at night, and if I had said so they would have been forced to pay the officers. We assumed that burden ourselves, and now these men who were largely paid in days gone by by the transportation companies are paid by ourselves, except that if they want any Sunday labour we will not give it to them. We give it to them on holidays, but on Sundays we do not. With officers working during the day the question might arise as to whether a man having worked from 8 to 6 o'clock is in a position to do two or three hours more labour, but unfortunately in many cases the pay of our officers at these large ports is such that it is impossible almost for some of them to live on what they get, and there is a very great desire on their part to augment the salaries which they earn between eight and six by putting in two or three hours at night and getting 25 cents an hour for it. The question has occurred:	Would it be better for us to engage men specifically who should go on at six o'clock at night and remain until six o'clock next morning to do the work that is now done or allow these men to have a few hours extra work, which work arguments their salaries and which, they .claim, does not give them more than they require to provide a living for themselves and their families. That is the whole explanation.


John Barr: Can the hon. gentleman tell us approximately the amount that is given for overtime? Is it not a fact that there are some who are employed for night work?


William Paterson: About $95,000.


John Barr: It says ' including overtime.'


William Paterson: The payments are set out in the Auditor General's Report by

provinces as follows:	Ontario, $24,048.58;
Quebec, $34,382.67; New Brunswick, $8,812.40; Nova Scotia, $5,320.55; Manitoba, $5,205; British Columbia, $13,295; making a total, with the amounts expended in Prince Edward Island, Alberta, Saskatchewan and the Yukon, of $94,346.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: These items will be chargeable other years as well as this year. That does not account for the increase.


William Paterson: I do not know anything as to that, but the hon. gentleman asked a specific question and I was answering that. What we w'ant to do with this vote is to provide that in case we have to open some new ports we may be able to do so. We are fighting shy of that as far as we can. We have so many applications.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Are there any new employees to pay out of this amount?


William Paterson: Yes, there will be new employees. But we have to estimate that we may, notwithstanding our disinclination to increase the number of ports, find cases that are of such merit that we will have to yield. We want to do as well as we can this year and we want to do as as little as possible in the way of supplementing salaries, though, if our feelings were consulted, we would do a great deal more. With the decline in our revenue we will have to ask the officers to be patient with us, more especially as within the last two or three years in the Customs Department there have been increases of salaries to outside officers of between $200,000 and $300,000. While that seems a large sum of money, but when you spread it from the Atlantic to the Pacific with nearly 2,000 employees, you can see that it would not be a very large increase for any one. There are some who have complained to us that in our division of the money their cases have been overlooked. We do not intend to give it to every one, but there are some cases in which they say that an injustice has been done to them. We propose to ask for a few thousand dollars so that if there are some cases of exceptional merit which have been overlooked we may be able to deal with them, and, if there are new ports to be opened, that we may have the money to open them. There are new towns constantly developing in the Northwest which to-day may not be of much importance, but which within the next twelve months may have to be established as customs ports.


Mr. LALOR.: I believe that the outside service is underpaid in many instances and I congratulate the Minister of Customs that he has decided to increase the salaries of his officials in the outside service. I believe that will meet with the commendation of the House. Is the minister giving the increases on account of merit or simply as a percentage on the present salaries?


William Paterson: We have endeavoured to consult with the collectors at the large ports and we have taken the reports of our inspectors at the smaller ports in making these increases. Three years ago there were to be found men in Montreal who had been fifteen or twenty years in the custom service and who only received $500 a year. We were able to increase their salaries first to $550, then to $600, and then to $650. My aim is that in the large cities where living is expensive, every officer shall have at least $700 a year. They work faithfully from eight o'clock until six, and I think the Dominion of Canada will not want them to work for less than $700 a year. If I get this money I will consider some of these cases. I say frankly and fairly that no consideration guided the department in the distribution of this money which could be considered an unworthy reason. I know of course from the date Of their appointment how they came into the service but I can say that simply because they did not come in under me, no officer was debarred from that which was his fair due. You will have to trust us in the distribution of this money to do what we think is right and fair to the various officers. If any hon. gentleman knows of any case where merit has not been recognized and if he lets me know I will be very pleased to consider it.


Mr. GOODEVE.: In view of the invitation given to us by the minister I wish to mention a very peculiar condition of things in connection with the custom office in the city of Rossland. In the early days of Rossland we had a large custom business there, but with the collapse of the boom the number of entries and the custom business generally decreased very materially, so that there was not employment for one half of the former staff. Mr. B. R. Macdonald who was Collector of Customs at Rossland, and who I do not hesitate to say is one of the very best officers in the whole service, applied to be removed to Prince Rupert, believing that would become an important place and that his long and faithful service justified promotion. He was sent to Prince Rupert but was not appointed collector. Things drifted along at Rossland for some time, and the remaining officials in the office were sufficient to carry out the work, but eventually the collectorship was declared vacant. There was in the office at Rossland a man who had been in the service for seventeen years or more and who had been collector, but no sooner was the collector-ship declared vacant than the Liberal Association called a meeting to receive applications for the position and they recom-

mended a certain man who not only had absolutely no experience in custom work but who had never done clerical work of any kind in his life. He was a blacksmith. I am not reflecting on his occupation in any way. I respect the man very much and he was a clever man in his own business, but he had no experience in clerical work and yet because he had been an influential party worker he was, on the recommendation of the Liberal Association, placed in the position at $1,600 a year, over the head of a man who had been in the service for seventeen years. Now, here is a case in which merit has been overlooked^ Here was a man taken from a blacksmith shop and given a salary of $1,600 a year while the two other men in the Rossland custom house who had served for years received $900 a year and $1,200 a year respectively All the new collector at Ross-land had to do was to go to the office each day and one of the regular officials who was well versed in the law, and who was now made subordinate to him, had to instruct him in his duties. For this sinecure, as I say, he is receiving $1,600 a year. No wonder there is an increase of $95,000 in this vote. Now, there is more in the story. When Mr. Macdonald went to Prince Rupert, although he was one of the best men in the service, he was refused the appointment of collector and a man who had never been in the customs service and who had no experience whatever was appointed to the position. Strange to say when the new political appointee to the collectorship found that the boom did not come at Prince Rupert as he expected he believed he could make more money back in the city of Vancouver and he resigned. These are too glorious instances to show how the money of the people is wasted. Why does this collector at Rossland receive $1,600 a year practically for a sinecure? The other men were doing the work and doing it well, and I venture to say that there is a continued falling off in the revenues of the office; so that there was absolutely no need for the appointment. And why did not the men who had long worked in the service of the country receive that advance which the minister says he gives to those in the inside service? Why should not the outside service be treated in the same way as the inside? The hon. minister assured us that when a vacancy occurs in the inside service the other men are moved up but he has not carried out that principle in the outside service. It is appointments made in this way which destroy confidence in the government of this country. I would like an explanation of the instances I have referred to.


William Paterson: The hon. gentleman is no doubt stating that he thinks it his duty to point out to this House, but I do not think he knows all the circumstances. My Mr. GOODEVE.
recollection is that Mr. MacDonald, who was collector at Rossland, asked to be transferred to Prince Rupert on the ground of ill health and his request was granted.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: He was collector at Rossland, and he asked for a similar position at Prince Rupert, but another man was made collector there and Mr. Macdonald was made subordinate to him.


William Paterson: But he is there and is in receipt of his salary. As we presumed, Mr. Macdonald was going to remain at Prince Rupert and another collector had to be appointed instead of giving the appointment to Mr. Grigor there was another person recommended, and I hope he is a good officer. If the hon. gentleman says he is not, I shall have to get reports on him from my inspector. I may be asked why the position was not given to Mr. Grigor. I am informed that he has to do relieving duties at times, because in a province like British Columbia, we require to have at these different ports an extra man to take the place temporarily of an officer at another port who may be ill. If there has been any injustice done, I shall be very sorry, lout I do not think I am open to the charges of extravagance. My hon. friend will not say we should discharge an officer at any port simply because there may be a falling off in the revenue.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: What I complain of is that they took an outside man of no experience and unnecessarily placed him in office in view of the decreasing revenue and entries. They did so purely for political purposes. I was not referring to Mr. Grigor, whom the hon. Minister has mentioned. Mr. Grigor is a good man and a friend of mine, but during my election he deliberately left his office and went to Nelson and stayed two weeks there electioneering against me while all the time he was drawing his salary. I am not saying any thing against him because he has had experience in the office and is a personal friend of mine, but what I object to is that out of that increased vote of $95,000, I can point to two instances where the money of the country is paid to men who are appointed simply because offices had to be made for them.


William Paterson: But there was a vacancy was there not ?


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: When the revenue and the entries were falling off, the office could have been left vacant. When one man could fill it for five or seven months without any assistance what necessity was there for making another appointment. I am not asking the minister to discharge anybody because it would be most unfair to discharge an employee on the ground that there was a temporary falling off in the

revenue; but when an office became vacant and there was no need to fill it, why appoint a man to that office, especially one who has no experience. In that one instance you could have saved $1,600. I am not reflecting upon your appointee further than to say that the office should have been given to the man who had done good and faithful service during 17 years.


William Paterson: It would not do to leave a port without a collector.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: Why not give the place to the man who deserved promotion ?


William Paterson: The thing has been done and if it be wrong we will have to look into it. But you could not leave the port without a collector. The vacancy was caused by the collector asking to be removed to Prince Rupert. We went on for a time with the officer in charge and then another officer was appointed temporarily to do the work. I suppose that Mr. Stephens was not able to attend to all the work.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: There are three employees in that office. I am not divulging anything of a private character because it was published in the Daily ' Press ' that the Liberals had called a meeting for the express purpose of recommending a man for the appointment. There were three or four applicants, and among them were men who had been long in the service and were, entitled to promotion. The government passed over a man who had done faithful service for 17 years and who still has his old salary of $1,200 and they placed a political partisan over his head in the office at $1,600.


George Taylor: Will the minister take note of the facts that this customs officer whom he appointed at $1,600 a year engaged in political work ?


William Paterson: I was very sorry to hear that.


George Taylor: Will the minister dismiss this officer, according to the resolution of the House for which he voted, that civil servants must not take any part in elections? It is charged that one of his officers vacated his position and went out on the stump for two weeks at a time, in aid of the Liberal candidate.


William Paterson: I trust the hon.gentleman is mistaken. If the hon. gentleman will write me a letter stating that this officer neglected his duty and spent his time electioneering against him, I will write to the officer and ask him what explanation he has to make, as I think it is always fair to the officer to do.


George Taylor: The hon. gentleman made the statement from his seat in the House.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: I am not making a charge against the officer but against the minister and his department for making an appointment for political purposes. We have two excellent men there; Mr. McDonald is one of the best men in the service, and I have no charge to make. But I am asked to vote tor an increase ot $95,000, the revenue is falling off, and here is a case where an unnecessary officer is appointed.


William Paterson: I think it was proper to fill the office and I have never yet, I frankly confess, considered the fact of a man being a Liberal as a bar to his appointment to office, other things being equal; that is not done under party government.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Does this vote contemplate an increase in the staff?
' Mr. PATERSON. Yes.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: How large?


William Paterson: I cannot tell you that, it will depend on the requirements. Of course in a country developing as rapidly as Canada is we cannot estimate exactly what increases will be required in the Customs service 14 months ahead.


George Taylor: Does that include the port about which the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) inquired, Milton?


William Paterson: There is one of the points we have to consider.


George Taylor: Is that estimated for?


William Paterson: We have not worked out any detailed scheme as yet.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: The hon. member for Kootenay (Mr. Goodeve) has brought up an interesting question as to the principle followed by the minister and his department in making appointments in the Customs service. We are told that in the inside service men are appointed according to merit and service; is the same principle followed in the outside service? Are appointments made by the promotion of efficient officers to vacancies or are they made by an outside political pull or by the award of a patronage committee?


William Paterson: Promotion does not follow in the outside service as a matter of course. As a rule if a collectorship at a port becomes vacant a new appointment is made.


John Dowsley Reid: There have been promotions, but it is not the rule.


William Paterson: Yes, there have been promotions, but that is not the rule.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Does not the minister think it a better policy to promote a man who has done efficient service rather than appoint a

new man? At Port Colborne a vacancy was caused by the death of Mr. Sidey, but I notice a new man has been appointed, and the local paper states that although he is the son of a worthy citizen of Welland, he has been for a number of years living in Chicago. In such a case, where there are good officers, they should have been promoted.


William Paterson: I think there is only the one official there.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: There were two, Mr. Rams-den the landing waiter, and the late Mr. Sidey.


William Paterson: Mr. Ramsden held a dual position, partly under the Customs and partly under the Railway Department.


Mr. MAGRATH.: The answers given by the minister have been most satisfactory to me. I understand this item deals with the outside officers. There has been a good deal of talk here about the salaries and hours of the inside service. I have always believed that the inside service has been starved, and I am pleased to see that their salaries have been increased. Is there any indication of increase in the salaries of the outside service? Are the salaries provided by this item the same as have been in force for some years? because I have the same feeling towards the outside service. It, too, is being starved. The cost of living has increased greatly in the last few years. I hope the minister has that feature in view.


William Paterson: This year we granted increases to officers in the different provinces as follows:	Number of	AggregateProvince.	increases.	amount.Ontario	310	$23,430Quebec	274	14,400New Brunswick	55	3,100Prince Edward Island.	13	800Nova Scotia	121	6,600Manitoba	52	3,650Alberta	14	1,200Saskatchewan	13	1.050British Columbia.. ..	63	5,150
These are the increases granted during the past year. The hon. gentleman will see that this is a small increase among so many officers. Many of the increases have been only $50 or $100 or $150, but the hon. gentleman can readily see that even with the increased amount granted each year for three or four years past by parliament the increases have not been large. But when you spread it over about two thousand officers from the Atlantic to the Pacific it gets pretty thin.


Charles Alexander Magrath: If it is convenient for the minister to give it, I would like to get some information. Take the case of a customs port with a revenue of $200,000 a year, what is the salary paid to the chief Mr. LALOR.
officer there? I want to make a comparison between the salary of a first-class clerk in the inside service and that of an officer in charge of a port such as I speak of, and distant, perhaps, two thousand miles from Ottawa. If I can get the information, I believe I can show that such an officer is not properly paid.


William Paterson: There is a little difference in the provinces, but in such a case as the hon. gentleman speaks of, the salary of the collector would be from $1,500 to $1,800. Of course, there are other officers at the port.


Charles Alexander Magrath: Does not the minister sympathize with the idea that these men should be paid more?-for I believe they should.


William Paterson: I can certainly ask for more if the House will give it to me. Personally, it will be very pleasing for me to do so. But I have asked all I can venture to ask, and even when I ask for the amount I do, there seems to be a disposition to criticise me very closely.


Charles Alexander Magrath: I do not believe there is a business in this country in which men having the custody of $200,000 a year are paid only $1,500. I have no desire to embarrass the hon. minister, and am satisfied with the answers he has given. Some gentlemen here do not appear to be satisfied with the conduct of affairs in British Columbia, but I would remind them that they are overlooking that doctrine 'To the victors belong the spoils'-a doctrine which has been developed as a hot house- plant, but this, however, is not the time to discuss that.


Adam Brown Crosby: I do not want to vote money until I have some idea what is going to be done with it. As junior member for Halifax, one of the leading customs ports of Canada, I desire to say that, if it were not for the overtime that the officers there work, they would starve-a man has to work night and day for a mere existence. We have from 67 to 70 men there working at salaries of from $650 to $750. The collector is a man who left a very lucrative business to take his present position, a man held in the highest esteem by the citizens of Halifax. He receives $3,200 a year. I am not complaining of what is paid to the inside service, but you pay a first-class clerk on the inside service more than you pay our collector. If it were not for the honesty of the people of Halifax and Nova Scotia, we would not get as much revenue as we do. If these officers were not honest men, they would pay themselves. The minimum, the very lowest, salary that an officer should be asked to work for in a port like Halifax should be $1,000 a year, and it should run from that to $4,000 for the collector. Next to the collector comes the surveyor, who

now receives a salary of $1,500. Then we have two chief clerks getting only $1,200 a year, then the cashier at $1,150. And there are from 10 to 15 who run from $1,000 down, with about 70, as I have said, with between $650 to $750. I do not think that we should have more officers, but we should try to pay the officers we have fair salaries. If the minister will give me some reason to believe that the money he asks for is going to be used to augment the salaries of these men, so that they can make a decent living for their families, I am prepared to support this item. Perhaps the other cities are in the same position, but I do not think their position can be quite as bad in this respect as that of Halifax. If the Minister of Customs can say that he will look after Halifax, and that the minimum salary of a customs officer in Halifax shall be $1,000, that will do, and I shall feel that there is a desire on the part of the Customs Department to treat the cities outside of Ottawa fairly. I am not saying a word against the inside service or the gentlemen who occupy positions in it, but while Halifax is a pleasanter place to live in, it is as dear as Ottawa. I want to see our men get something like a fair share of the money we vote for the department. If the minister will assure me that he is going to deal with those officers of whom I have spoken-and he knows the collector of Halifax and the officers there, and I am sure he will agree that they are, as I have said, a fine lot of men; I will say no more.


William Paterson: Unhappy is the lot of a Minister of Customs, with some critics asking him to increase his estimates tenfold and others declaring that he is already asking an unreasonable amount. I admit that our officers i,n Halifax are good, they work hard, and I suppose living has increased in Halifax as it has in other places. But when you ask me to bring them up to $1,000, I would have to come to parliament and ask for over half a million of money, and I do not think parliament would be disposed to do that. Last year, for instance, the increases amounted to $59,450, that was distributed over all the provinces. Here I am only asking for one-tenth of what the hon. gentleman asks me to do. Within the last few years we have made increases running into the hundreds of thousands. While I am proposing $60,000 to increase certain salaries, I am bringing upon myself a mass of communications and representations, and raising hopes from the Atlantic to the Pacific that I shall not be able to gratify, because there will not be a man in the service, scarcely, who would not wish to get a share. We will pick out what we consider the most deserving cases. Every officer in the Dominion will think he is entitled to a piece of it.


Mr. MARSHALL.: I think we ought to be fair to the minister. I think he is perfectly right in asking for this increase. I understand he will not use it unless it is necessary. We must'remember that this country is growing, and there will likely be new offices opened. While we are criticising the expenditures we must be fair. In my own town, for instance, we have a very good officer who is getting, I think, only $700 or $750 a year. If the revenue went down one-half, are you going to close that office ? That man cannot work for less than that, and it is not fair to ask him to do it. I am in sympathy with this estimate the minister is asking for. Any person can see that it is necessary to provide for the future. There is another thing. It is impossible for the minister or any other minister to make appointments that will please everybody. I understand that these appointments are made on the recommendation of the local executive of the Liberal party. If there is an appointment made in Rossland, as has been explained here to-night, I fancy the minister is governed by the reports from the executive, and I fancy that if we were in power, in making appointments, the advice of our local representative would receive earnest consideration. I can understand, as the minister says, that he does not know whether there will be one more or a dozen more officers required next year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I notice here the ever recurring phrase 'Notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act to the contrary.' I understand when we amended the Civil Service Act that one of the purposes was to do away with that very thing.


William Paterson: The new Act does not apply to the outside service.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You are dealing with the outside service now.


William Paterson: We are working under the old Act, and I had to put in these words, because otherwise we could not pay for overtime.


John Dowsley Reid: The minister explained a few minutes ago that part of this increase was required to enable the customs to pay the officers for their overtime work.


William Paterson: That has been done for several years.


John Dowsley Reid: I understood that the system in vogue for several years was that when officers went to the railway stations after hours, they collected from the railway for their overtime. I have understood since that instead of allowing the officers to collect from the railway the government collects from the railway and divides that among the officers. I wanted to know if that is the case. In my own town, for example, for years and years the officers

would go down to the Canadian Pacific Railway, perhaps at 9 or 10 at night, and for their overtime they would send in a bill at the end of the month for $40 or $50 as the case might be, and the Canadian Pacific Railway would pay it. Now has the Canadian Pacific Railway been relieved of that expense, do the government pay it now and collect nothing from the railway, or does the government collect from the railway and divide it among the employees?


William Paterson: No. In the old times, as I have explained, we required the transportation companies to pay for this overtime. But they never paid the officers direct, we did not permit that. The government collected from the company the amount of the overtime of the men and paid it to the men. The railway companies did not pay the officers direct. But a few years ago, when parliament sanctioned the change I asked for, we relieved all the transportation companies of this payment of overtime, and it is now paid out of the Dominion treasury. We require the transportation companies to pay now only in exceptional circumstances. For Sunday labour we will not pay, but we make them pay to us, and we divide it up among the men.


Adam Brown Crosby: In the city of Halifax is it not a fact that the merchants pay the extra time of the officers ?


William Paterson: I s*ppose this is what the hon. gentleman refers to. Importers bringing goods into the county are supposed to deal on a cash basis. We do not let them have their goods until we get their money, that is a safe way of doing business. But as there are large importations made by merchants who do not want to pay all the money at once, there has been known for years what we call the bonding system; that is, we have a bonded warehouse in which they may store their packages of dutiable articles. They do not want to pay the duty all at once, which may amount to a very large sum, and they put their packages into a bonded warehouse and take them out as they wish, five or ten packages at a time. They apply to us, and we send one of our officers to open that warehouse and deliver to them the number of packages they want, and collect the duty thereon. For many years we charged a uniform rate of $40 for a bonded warehouse. One man might put $300,000 worth of goods in a bonded warehouse, and another only $50,000 worth, perhaps another $10,000, but none of them would pay more than $40. In the case of a large importer we found that it would take perhaps the whole time of one of our lockers to attend to that one house, while another man who paid as much for his store house, $40, might only require the service of a locker once or twice Mr. J. D. REID.
a week. We thought that was not fair. We said: We will make the men pay us who have bonded warehouses, it is a privilege given to them, they are saving the interest on the duty which is a large amount and if they are going to take the time of our officers for their own convenience and benefit we will establish a uniform rate that they shall pay for the time that they use our officers.


Adam Brown Crosby: Surely the Minister of Customs does not mean to tell us that about the ordinary bonding system in the customs.


William Paterson: That is the only way that the merchant pays anything and that is what the hon. gentleman is asking about.


Adam Brown Crosby: I think there is another way. I think the Minister of Customs has given a wrong impression of the bonded system. He has given the impression that a man puts his goods into the bonded warehouse because he wants to save his money. Does the minister mean to tell us that there are not hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of goods put into the bonded warehouse and then ship-ed out to another country?


William Paterson: Yes.


Adam Brown Crosby: Well, then, how are they saving money in that case?


William Paterson: How did they get the goods there? Do you suppose that we leave the doors open to them to go and put the goods in without an officer being there?


Adam Brown Crosby: That is where you get your revenue.


William Paterson: If they do not have the services of the officer they do not pay him.


Adam Brown Crosby: Oh, that is not the matter I am discussing. Did the minister not say distinctly that the reason for the bonded warehouse was that a man could put his goods in there and save his money because he would not have to pay the duty until he took them out? I am sure that 25 per cent of the goods go out of the bonded warehouse in Halifax without paying duty at all, and the deputy minister of Customs knows that. I do not want the impression to go abroad that the merchants in Halifax put their goods into the bonded warehouse for the purpose of saving money when they do not.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Carried.


Adam Brown Crosby: I beg your pardon. I am not carried yet. Is it not a fact that the merchants pay for the overtime of the officers after hours? There may have been a change made but if so it has been made recently.


William Paterson: I am very sorry if I have offended the hon. gentleman in any way by my allusion to the fact in my explanation that the bonded warehouse means a saving to the merchants storing their goods there.


Adam Brown Crosby: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if I am not right in my statement about the warehouse?


William Paterson: 1 am going to answer the hon. gentleman.


Adam Brown Crosby: Well I want an answer, yes or no. If I am right I am right, and if I am not, I am not.


William Paterson: I said they put their goods in there for the purpose of saving revenue. Let me put it in a happier way and say that by virtue of putting their goods in there they save it, and I do not think it is any disgrace to a man to do it and I see no cause for offence. If these goods are going to be re-exported they cannot go into the .bonded warehouse unless our officer is there to see them go in and they cannot take them out a month or a year after unless our officer is there to see the goods as they go out. For the services the officer renders they pay and they pay nothing else.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is not that officer paid his regular salary from the vote we give every year?


William Paterson: He is paid his regular salary, but do not confuse this with overtime. The officer doing this does not get the money paid for the bonded warehouse. It comes into the Dominion Treasury.


Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: Has the minister any idea what amount was collected for the services of lockers last year?


William Paterson: It was $29,000.


John Allister Currie: Does the minister not think that the government, having relieved the railways of a similar charge, it would be a proper thing to relieve the commercial community also? Are the railways and steamboat companies more deserving a consideration in the monetary sense than the mercantile community? That is a question I would like the minister to consider during the coming year. It is not so much the amount of money that.they are required to pay for the services of an officer as the difficulty of getting an officer when he is wanted.


William Paterson: It is an advantage to a man to be able to defer the payment of duties and especially when it runs into thousands or tens of thousands, or, as in some cases, hundreds of thousands of dol lars. But he is one man perhaps in a business community of a hundred of fifty who gets that advantage. Should the other men who do not avail themselves of it, and
who get no benefit from it, contribute towards that expense or should we not get that $29,000 for the service rendered to the man who has the benefit of it and place that money in the Dominion Treasury? Outside of the question of overtime, the money comes into our treasury. The principle is that the man who gets the benefit pays for it, while the man who does not take advantage of it pays nothing for it. I am sure that the merchants using the bonded warehouses will admit that it is absolutely fair.


Adam Brown Crosby: The minister has not answered my question. I asked him if there was not money paid by merchants and shipping men at Halifax for extra time. I would like to get that question answered, yes or no.


William Paterson: I am told that there have been $101 paid by all the bonded' houses for overtime throughout the Domino11 of Canada, and that has only been when they wanted an officer before eight in the morning or after six o'clock at night.
Mr. CROSBY Can I get the minister to leave bonded warehouses for two or three minutes and tell me if there has been any money paid to tide waiters and officers on ships which come into Halifax to discharge cargo by steamship agents and shipping men?


William Paterson: For Sundays.


Adam Brown Crosby: And for no other time?


William Paterson: No other time, the^case?^*^ How long has that been


William Paterson: About three years.


Adam Brown Crosby: I thought it had taken place very recently. 1 would like to know when they were relieved.


William Paterson: That is a reform we have made.


Adam Brown Crosby: A reform! Then, I want you to make another reform and give the men the money you have taken away from them. If you will give them the same proportion I am prepared to vote for these estimates.


William Paterson: If they have the services of this officer between eight in the morning and six at night, according to the hours they use him for their own benefit, they must pay us, the money goes into the Dominion Treasury and it is not given to the officer, but if they take an officer before eight in the morning or after six at night they pay us that money, which money we pay to the officer and which has amounted for the whole Dominion of Canada to $101.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is it the intention to superannuate the inspector of customs at Fredericton?


William Paterson: It is proposed to superannuate the collector at Fredericton.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Has the minister any objection to state what applications he has received for the office, and from whom?


William Paterson: I am safe in saying we have received no applications yet and I do not know that I am anxious to get them. The superannuation has not been passed and we are not yet in a position to fill the office.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the Minister of Customs purpose making the further reform of providing out of the consolidated revenue fund a sufficient sum to pay the cost of advertising the meetings of these political committees who recommend appointees. Would not that be a logical addition to the expenditure of the country?


William Paterson: I have not had an opportunity of studying how this was done in times past but I will look into it.


Robert Laird Borden: The minister has not only looked into it but he has acted upon it in the case of Rossland. In view of the expose in that case I should think the minister ought to pay the extra salary of $1,600 out of his own pocket.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Did the collector at Fredericton apply for superannuation?


William Paterson: I am not aware that he did.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I understood the minister to say when speaking of Winnipeg that there would be no superannuation except upon the application of the collector himself. Why is that rule departed from in the case of Fredericton?


William Paterson: I qualified that statement by saying that the collector should be able to discharge the duties of the office. The public interest may require the superannuation of a collector without his applying for it.


Oswald Smith Crocket: From whom has the minister received any information that the collector at Fredericton is not capable of performing the duties of the office? That statement of the minister will be a surprise to the people of Fredericton.


William Paterson: We judged from the inspector's report, that it was advisable this step should be taken.


Oswald Smith Crocket: And without any application for superannuation being received from the collector himself.


William Paterson: Yes.


Oswald Smith Crocket: When does the minister ^propose to superannuate the collector at Fredericton?


Oswald Smith Crocket: 


William Paterson: It is in process. These superannuations have to pass the Treasury Board who inquire into the merits. You can superannuate an official for cause after he attains 60 years of age, but the Treasury Board do not approve superannuating a man simply because he is 60 years old unless it is for the benefit of the service.


George Taylor: The benefit of the party.


William Paterson: Oh no.


Robert Laird Borden: Is this action taken upon the report of any person?


William Paterson: The report of our inspector.


Robert Laird Borden: Would the minister bring that down?


William Paterson: I don't think it would be well to ask for that. The inspector reports to us confidentially in a measure, and to publish the report might hurt somebody's feelings. I have no objection to bring it down, but I would rather show it to my honourable friend. Of course I do not impute anything wrong but it was considered advisable to superannuate the collector in this case.


Adam Brown Crosby: I believe that the minimum salary of customs officials in the city of Halifax should be $1,000. I believe also that they should be brought under the Civil Service Act because there is always a tendency for the man with a pull to get more than others who have not the pull, and I know very good officers in Halifax who have not had an increase of salary for several years. The only way they can get fair treatment is to bring them under the Civil Service Act. If the minister would indicate there would be a general increase in the salaries of the Halifax officials, I would be satisfied..
Salaries and travelling expenses of inspectors of ports and of other officers on inspection and preventive service, including salaries and expenses in connection with the board of customs and salary of chief and general inspector at $4,000 per year, $135,000.


William Paterson: There is a reduction of $104,500 in this vote caused by the transfer to the inside service of officers whose salaries were formerly charged to the vote for the outside service.


Robert Laird Borden: Was there any particular group of officers so transferred?


William Paterson: It would principally refer to the clerks in the statistical office,


John Dowsley Reid: Were there any new officials appointed in 1908 under this item?


William Paterson: They would be included in the names I have given. I have given the names of the new employees of my department.

Miscellaneous-Printing and stationery subscriptions to commercial papers, flags, dating stamps, locks, instruments, etc., for various ports of entry, express charges on samples, stationery and forms, legal expenses, premiums on guarantee bonds and uniforms for customs officers, $87,500.


George Taylor: Will the minister refer to page F-42 of the Auditor General's Report? He will there find an item of $827 paid W. G. Charleson-a name that comes up frequently in our public accounts-for a lot of goods. Were these goods purchased by tender? I find an item of 24J dozen of padlocks amounting to $250.50, or equal to $10.33 a dozen.


William Paterson: These are all purchases made at different times during the year and tenders are not asked. The locks are for bonded warehouses, and have to be a special kind of padlock, which cannot be opened by the ordinary key. The purchasing officer is one who has been in the department for 30 years and in whom we have full confidence, and he has certified to the price as reasonable.


John Dowsley Reid: I suppose the minister has a patronage list the same as the other departments?


William Paterson: Oh, very little.


John Dowsley Reid: We find in all these items the same names cropping up as appears in the patronage list of the other departments. The hon. gentleman takes the ground that becauses he has the certificate of his purchasing officer the prices are reasonable. Well, when we complained of the excessive prices in the Public Accounts Committee last year we had the minister pleading that it was an outrage to insinuate that any of their officials would certify to prices which were not absolutely correct. The result of the investigation, however, made by the commission appointed by the government themselves has proved that such certificates are not at all to be relied on, and this man Charleson is one of those who charged prices much higher than are charged private individuals for the same goods. Although the Minister of Customs does not require to purchase as many supplies as some of the other ministers, he is just as guilty as the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) who is smiling now over the way in which he administered his department, and which enabled him to distribute among his friends hundreds of thousands of dollars robbed from the people, a fact which he must have known because it was brought to his attention by members on this side.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the Minister of Customs say that he still keeps a patronage list after the disclosures made by the Cassels' Commission ?


William Paterson: We have very little in the way of patronage. I have no personal knowledge of the particular item in question, but I am informed that these are largely goods bought at different periods. These locks have to be made with keys different from other padlocks, and we have to make a special arrangement for their manufacture. However, as the question has been raised, I shall look into the matter tomorrow.


George Taylor: Will the hon. minister as-'certain what kind of kettles were bought at $1.75 ?


William Paterson: I am told that they are for testing tea in the laboratory.


George Taylor: You can get the very best copper kettles at $1.25 and we are paying $1.75.


William Paterson: There is 50 cents to be accounted for.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is not quite enough to ask us to accept the statement that because these prices have been certified to by an experienced officer they are therefor all right, because when we examined into the purchases for the ice-breaker ' Montcalm ' and found cups and saucers charged at over $1 a piece, and the prices certified to as fair and reasonable we ascertained afterwards that these charges were simply robbery. When we look through the Auditor General's account and see the large number of supplies purchased from the same firm, Charleson & Co., who supplied these locks, and many of them charged at exorbitant prices, according to the judgment of those in the .trade, we are justified in coming to the conclusion that there is something wrong. We are justified in concluding that there is something wrong and in asking that in view of the recent disclosures of the evils of the patronage system, the minister shall abandon the use of the patronage list in making purchases for his department. Charleson is on the patronage list and is able to sell goods to the department, but time after time we know that goods have been supplied by him above the market price.


William Paterson: For the little purchases we have to make in my department, I do not think we could adopt any other plan than our present one. I could not have more confidence in any purchasing agent than I have in our present one, and to advertise for the articles would cost five times what they are worth.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: My question is, will the goods be purchased without resorting to the patronage list, will instructions be given to the purchasing agent to buy where he can get the goods at the lowest price?


William Paterson: I will look into the matter.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is a question of principle, not of a few items here; it is a question of the interest of the country.


William Paterson: I admit that the interest of the country is supreme, but it is not in the interest of the country to go advertising1 for a few hundred dollars' worth of goods bought during the year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not want him to advertise.


William Paterson: These purchases can all be investigated before the Public Accounts Committee.


George Taylor: The minister says he has a purchasing agent who has been in the service 30 years and who is perfectly honest. The rule has been that this agent has been told to go to Charleson's and purchase say tea kettles. Charleson says the price is $1.75, but at another store it would be $1.20. If the minister has allowed rake offs of 50 per cent on tea kettles that is not working in the interest of the country.


William Paterson: I hope he does not think I got a rake off. I did not know that anything was bought from Charleson. Certainly it was not done under my instructions. The commissioner hears what has been said and I have no doubt that he will investigate it in the morning; I will myself if I can think of it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not think that is going far enough. Some of the other ministers without being asked have undertaken to
abolish the patronage list, and surely it is not too much to ask the hon. minister to do so.


William Paterson: You do not want to make me promise to adopt a new system1 until I find out whether it is best. Leave that to me.
Expenses of maintenance of revenue cruisers and preventive service, $30,000.


George Taylor: I think this jtem will have to stand, as we are referred to for the details to section 'O' of the Auditor General's Report, which we have not yet received.


William Paterson: I am sure my hon. friend (Mr. George Taylor) would not want this item to stand, particularly after the full discussion we have had. There is a decrease of $10,000. This steamer 'Constance ' is used in the customs preventive service in eastern waters. The Marine Department manage the vessel and we recoup them for what they do. The captain is our officer. And, as I have said, there is a decrease of $10,000. I hope the hon. gentleman will not ask that this item stand; in fact, I know he will not. Well, we will


Thomas Simpson Sproule: call that carried. This next amount is also one that will commend itself to the committee.
Amount to be paid to the Department of Justice to be disbursed by and accounted for to it for secret preventive service, $5,000.
This money is required for purposes which, possibly, we may not wish to disclose. The money is at the disposal of the Justice Department. The audit is a confidential one, in which, I think, the leader of the opposition shares.


George Taylor: We have no objection to that item. But to the previous item, if you will look at the Auditor General's Report, page F-43, immediately after the item of the steamer ' Constance,' appears certain charges for the steamer ' Arctic,' and we are referred to page F-37 of the Auditor General's Report of 1906-7. We have not had an opportunity yet to look that up. And the charge for the * Constance ' here is $25,078.54, for which no details are given. Therefore, I think the vote should be allowed to stand. It will only take a few moments to put it through when we have had an opportunity to see the next part of the Auditor General's Report if everything is right with these amounts for the ' Constance ' and the ' Arctic.'


William Paterson: I hope the hon. gentleman (Mr. George Taylor) will not press that, and that any hon. member on that side who has influence with him will get him to withdraw his objection. The expenditure on the ' Arctic,' so far as we are concerned, was to pay the expenses of sending a customs officer to assert Canada's sovereignty in northern waters by collecting customs dues from the American and Scotch whalers there.


Adam Brown Crosby: What revenue did he get?


William Paterson: Not much, it is true, but though it was only the hundredth part of what it cost to send the officer there, I am sure the House will agree that it was only proper to assert Canada's sovereignty in those waters.


George Taylor: I thought Captain Bernier did that by raising the flag?


William Paterson: So he did. But we sent a customs officer with him and when we send a customs officer it means something, for he gets the hard cash.


George Taylor: So far as I am concerned, if the minister, on some item of the Marine Department


Some hon. MEMBERS: On the supple-mentaries.


George Taylor: I understand that there are to be no supplementaries.


William Paterson: I am afraid we shall have some for this year, but I hope none for next year. I am ready to give the information at any time.


George Taylor: On some item of the Marine and Fisheries estimates, the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) will allow this item to be discussed.
Post Office Department-Salaries, $488,944-Contingencies, $65,755.


John Allister Currie: On what page of the Auditor General's Report are the expenditures for last year given?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The part in which these appear is not yet printed. But this is for the inside service only.


John Allister Currie: Let the item stand. Surely the Postmaster General is not going to ask us to pass this without the report?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not know what special questions may be asked with regard to this. I am confident I can give all ex planations to satisfy hon. members. If this were for the outside service I could understand that there might be some difficulty, but it is for the inside service-


John Dowsley Reid: I would remind the Postmaster General that there are many members who never saw the Auditor General's Report, and, of course, they would like to have an opportunity to study these details.


Robert Laird Borden: As a matter of course, the item cannot be pressed without the Auditor General's Report if any objection is taken.


William Paterson: Take Public Works.
Public Works Department-Salaries, $324,800.
Contingencies, $15,000.


William Pugsley: Previous to the coming into effect of the present Civil Service Act, there were only 36 employees of the Public Works Department on the Civil Service list, while there were about two hundred employed, the large majority of whom were not on the permanent list. Under the new law these are now brought into the Civil Service. If hon. members will refer to page 26 of the Estimates they will see the details. The number of officers to be provided for is 237, nearly all of whom were in the employ of the department previously.


George Taylor: Will the minister give us a list of the appointees of the Public Works Department during the last twelve months?


William Pugsley: I cannot do so to-night, but I should be glad to furnish it in answer to the inquiry made.
20J


George Taylor: Better bring down the information, and meantime let the item stand.


William Pugsley: I think I can give the explanation. We propose providing for one additional engineer and one chief draughtsman, amounting to $4,200. In addition, we provide for an additional clerk in the third division of subdivision A, amounting to $900. Then the statutory increases for 190910, for 196 employees, amount to $5,262.50. Then we think we do well to make provision for unforeseen additional appointments' or other changes to the extent of $5,000. Then there is the balance covering the differences between the annual increases in the salaries and the increases authorized by order in council dated May 5 and August 6 and August 31 of 1908, amounting to $8,958. I have a list of the [DOT] names of all those who were in the service when the Civil Service Act came into force, also of the 196 employees who have been brought under the Civil Service Act. I will read them to the hon. gentleman if he desires.


Robert Laird Borden: There is an enormous increase in the vote, and I would suggest that the minister put his explanations as fully as possible upon the ' Hansard,' and then we will let the item stand and take it up to-morrow when we can see the explanations.


William Pugsley: Won't the hon. gentleman let it go through to-night ? I will be glad to give information later on in a return.


Robert Laird Borden: I would be glad to accommodate the hon. gentleman, but I would prefer that he put his explanations fully upon the ' Hansard ' so that we can understand them.


William Pugsley: I do not wish unduly to press the item, but it is early in the evening. I think I have given quite a full explanation already. In addition I have here the names of all those who were in the temporary service and who were transferred to the permanent service by virtue of the Civil Service Act. Those names I need not read to-night, because they are all embodied in the order of classification which has been brought down to the House. The hon. gentleman will find there the names and present salaries, and also salaries under the reorganization.


Robert Laird Borden: Generally speaking, is the increased vote due to the fact that men are placed upon the regular permanent staff who have been paid out of many other votes of different characters in the public works estimates during previous years ?


William Pugsley: Yes. As an illustration, turn to the miscellaneous, and the hon. gen-

615
tleman will find that there are two votes alone showing substantial decreases. Take the miscellaneous vote on page 7 of the estimates. Last year there was a vote for the engineering branch of $185,000, this year we are only asking for $145,000. The reason is that the engineering staff resident in Ottawa was largely upon the temporary list, and they all go to the permanent list. In the same way, under the architectural branch, there was $65,000 last year, and we only ask for $25,000 this year. Then in the estimates of this year the temporary and non-professional branch at Ottawa amount-mg to a very large sum, is wiped out and that is what makes the difference and accounts in the largely increased amount for the Civil Service. Ihe amounts for temporary clerks are struck out altogether, and the amounts for engineering and architectural branch are reduced in the vicinity of $80,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Comparing this vote for 1909-10 with the vote last year covering the same items, in different forms, was there an increase or decrease, and for what amount ?


William Pugsley: The increase would be $25,000. That is made up by the salary of the deputy minister, increased by $1,000. We provide for an assistant deputy minister at $3,000, and we are providing for an additional engineer and a draughtsman $4,200 for both, also another third class clerk. We also provide $5,000 for other increases in the staff that may be found necessary during the coming year. Then the remaining $8,958 is made up by the differences between the annual increases in the salaries and the same increases which were made by orders in council of May 5 and August 6 and 31 last.


Robert Laird Borden: Could you tell us offhand how much of the increase is due in the first place to additional employees, in the second place, to statutory increases, and in the third place, to increases of any other character ?


William Pugsley: The new employees get statutory increases as well. I have just given them to my hon. friend.


Robert Laird Borden: What is contemplated by the provision of $5,000 P


William Pugsley: It is contemplated possibly there may be some additions to the staff required, some additional architects, and possibly some addition to the cement branch, and in the clerical staff as well. The work in the department is increasing. One might suppose from the reduction in the estimates that the work was not increasing. But I want to tell the committee that the work goes on just the same. Under the estimates provided last year the architectural branch and the engineering Mr PUGSLEY.
branch still go on making their plans and specifications, because we do not understand that the work provided for last session is being dropped, it is merely postponed. All the necessary work will have to go on in order to fulfil the policy adopted by parliament last session.


George Taylor: The minister has not given the figures as they are stated on page 26. He says there is an increase of 2 in the first division, and 1 in the third division. But if he will look at the second division, there were fifty-eight temporaries and eleven permanent, and he is asking for seventy-five, an increase of six in the second division. He has not stated that to the committee at all but the figures are here before us.


William Pugsley: That would be included in the $5,000. I say that amount is for possible increases. There are a number who are not actually in the employ of the department now, but I have put in $5,000 for the purpose of covering that.


George Taylor: The hon. gentleman estimates 75 at $98,000.


William Pugsley: As against 69 before.


George Taylor: That increased six over last year and then my hon. friend is asking for an extra $5,000 so that he may appoint more.


William Pugsley: In making up the $28,000 I have put in $5,000 as the possible amount which may be required for these additional clerks.


George Taylor: My hon. friend is asking for 9 and there is a reduction of 2 in one of the items in the third division. There are 43 outside and 4 permanent, making 47. take 2 from your 9 new appointments and it leaves an increase in the stall of 7 in the face of a falling revenue. Then I want that information because I am informed that just before the Civil Service Act took effect there was a large number added to the staff.


William Pugsley: There were no additions to the staff just before the Civil Service Act came into force.


George Taylor: There were a number of employees added to the force; I do not know whether you call it the staff or not. Then I want the names of the new appointees.


William Pugsley: I think my hon. friend is entirely in error. Possibly he may have in his mind that some additional labourers may have been employed, but there were no additions to the staff just before the Civil Service Act came into force.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Does the transfer from the outside to the inside service mean a change of occupation or residence?

61ff
PUGSLEY. No. In the Public Works Department there was an organization of what was known as the temporary non-professional class. Away back in the time of Sir Hector Langevin this system was adopted. The number of those who were in the civil service was very small as compared with the temporary appointments. That system was carried right on until the Civil Service Act came into force on the 1st September and which brought all these into the permanent service. It does not mean any change in the employment at all and they have been brought in at the salaries which they had been receiving before the 1st September.


Robert Laird Borden: I think we will take the minister's statement and look it over, and possibly it may obviate any further discussion. Let the item stand and we will look over the statement.
Item allowed to stand.


William Pugsley: What item shall we take


Robert Laird Borden: I think we had better adjourn now.


William Pugsley: It is very early to ad-.journ. Had we not better take up public buildings chargeable to capital?
Ottawa Astronomical (Observatory-additional buildings, etc., $14,000.


Mr PUGSLEY.: This vote of $14,000 is asked to make provision for the construe-tion of a residence for the chief astronomer and also to complete coelostat house and standardizing hut in connection with the astronomical observatory. The proposed building to be occupied by the chief astronomer is to be a brick building with a stone toundation two and a half stories in height. The residence of the chief astronomer will cost about $16,000. As a great deal of the work of the chief astronomer has to be done at night it is necessary that he should have his residence close to the observatory. The vote of last year was $23,000, and we are now asking for $14,000 to finish the work.


George Taylor: Has the contract been let?


William Pugsley: The contract for the residence has not been let.


George Taylor: Has the $23,000 been expended?


William Pugsley: Not all. There was a contract for a coelostat hut and standardizing hut at $13,900, besides which there was the cost of heating, electric wiring, etc.


George Taylor: I thought that $23,000 was voted for the new building under contract?
. Mr. PUGSLEY. It was voted for the standardizing hut and the new coelostat
house, the contract for which was $13,900, heating apparatus $1,000, electric wiring, $500, etc.


George Taylor: To whom was the contract for the building let?


William Pugsley: To Messrs. John O'Leary
and M. J. Whelan, of Ottawa, the lowest tenderers. Messrs Doran & Devlin were the lowest tenderers for the residence.


George Taylor: Were public tenders asked for the residence ?


William Pugsley: Yes, and five tenders received'.


Mr. STAPLES.: Where is this residence going to be located?


William Pugsley: Close to the observatory.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Is it the policy of the government to erect residences for the chief clerks?


William Pugsley: This is a residence for the chief astronomer.


William D. Staples: What salary does he get?


William Pugsley: I do not know at this moment; he is an officer of the Department of the Interior. It is my duty as Minister of Public Works to provide the necessary accommodation for the chief astronomer.


John Dowsley Reid: Were there only two tenders for this building?


William Pugsley: For the coelostat house and standardizing hut. These were the lowest tenderers.


William D. Staples: I think the minister should be able to give us the salary that the chief astronomer is getting. If he is getting a large salary why should the people of Canada furnish him with a $15,000 residence? We have had instances in this House where the government have built residences for people in the service who are receiving enormous salaries. A great many of the people who pay the money have to live in small houses and paying a man a salary such as I am told the chief astronomer gets and furnishing him with a $15,000 residence is exacting more from the poor labouring classes of this country than should be exacted by any government.


William Pugsley: Ordinarily speaking my hon friend would be entirely right. The government does not, as a rule, provide residences for its employees, but my hon. friend will see that to enable the chief astronomer to perform his work properly it is necessary that he shall be at night constantly at the observatory. The observatory is two or three miles from Ottawa and it would be very inconvenient for him to reside in Ottawa. I resisted the pressure for a considerable time, but on urgent representations made to me I felt we would have to erect a residence for Mr. King.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Is there any diminution in his salary in consideration of his getting this house free of rent.


William Pugsley: Not that I am aware of.


John Dowsley Reid: What is the amount of the tender for this residence?


William Pugsley: The lowest tender was $12,300.


William D. Staples: Are we to understand that $15,000 will complete this residence? My experience is that these buildings cost twice their estimated cost.


William Pugsley: This contract is for the building alone and then there will be the heating and wiring, and I assume from the information I have that $3,000 or $4,000
additional will be necessary.


William D. Staples: Is it essential that the chief astronomer should have a residence for his family close to the observatory. Even though he has to work at night, he is not any worse off than any others in that respect, and I don't see why it is not possible to provide him with suitable quarters which will not cost anything like this enormous amount. Why should we build such an expensive residence for a high paid official when the poor labouring classes of the country have to live in huts ?


William Pugsley: I hesitated, just as my hon. friend (Mr. Staples) would have done were he in my position, to build this residence, but there was no house close to the observatory which he could get and it would be unreasonable to ask him to build one himself. It was brought to my notice that a good many years ago a residence was erected by the Conservative govern. ment on the experimental farm_ for Dr. Saunders and for some other officials.


William D. Staples: What did it cost?


William Pugsley: It is a very fine residence and making allowance for difference in cost of material and labour it would be quite as expensive as this one.


William D. Staples: The whole policy of the government seems to be to give advantages to the highly paid officials, while withholding from under-paid officials who do the greater portion of the work, that consideration to which they are entitled. I know men who are working in the Civil Service in this city for $40 and $45 a month and who are expected to rear their families on this miserable pay. But when we come to the highly paid officials the policy of the government is to increase their emoluments by leaps and bounds.


William Pugsley: In view of the fact, that, instead of adopting the report of the commission to give a percentage on salaries which would be an advantage to the highly paid officials the government proposes Mr. PUGSLEY.
to give a flat increase of $150 to each civil servant, the criticism of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Staples) is hardly just.


George Taylor: This building is to be erected right under the eyes of the Department of Public Works in Ottawa with their immense staff and yet they pay Mr. John Sharp as clerk of works for 143 days at $4 per day.


William Pugsley: Mr. Sharp is one of the staff of the Public Works Department and his services in this case are properly chargeable to that building.


William Wright: I voice my protest against putting $20,000 into a building for the accommodation of any civil servant in Ottawa. I think a $10,000 house to be good enough for any man we employ.


George Taylor: But that is not a patch on it, for if the hon. gentleman looks at the Auditor General's Report he will find the government paid to the Office Specialty Company, (a pet company here in Ottawa established to get business from the government) $5,970 for library fittings for this building.


William Pugsley: That is for the observatory itself and not for this residence.


George Taylor: The item says here: 'For fitting library steel cases, gallery and stairs, and bevelling below the gallery, $5,970.' I want to draw attention to another item on the same page. E. P. McGrath & Co. have supplied 182 lineal feet oak for transit house at 15c. per lineal foot; two inside doors with fan lights, and two pine door frames with fan light and oak door, with locks, &c., supplied and set up, $132.15.' Just fancy $61 per frame door with a fan light in it. Were these bought by tender?
Mr, PUGSLEY. My hon. friend will see that the first item is for fittings for the library, steel cases, gallery and stairs and panelling below the gallery, less the amount of $970 paid the previous year. In the laboratory there is a library because there must be various works which are of great importance to the chief astronomer. There must also be records of his observations from night to night, which must be preserved, and it is not improper that they should be kept in steel fittings so as to make the inside of the building as fire proof as possible. Then the stairway from the bottom to the upper gallery must be of iron, as they are in all large libraries. This was let by tender. There are only two firms which make these fittings in Canada, and tenders were received from the two.


John Allister Currie: Is there a library also provided in the residence?


William Pugsley: Not that I am aware of.


George Taylor: Will there be a man employed in that building as caretaker?
_ Mr. PUGSLEY. I don't propose to furnish a caretaker.


Mr. BLAIN.: Are the two firms from which the hon. gentleman asked tenders on the patronage list?


William Pugsley: There are only two firms in Canada where these goods can be got. One is in Ottawa, and the other is in a city in western Ontario. Before purchasing, a very careful examination was made of the fittings made in the United States, and used generally in the public offices in Washington and the different state capitals, and the chief architect ascertained that the prices asked us were fair and reasonable.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: In view of the strong condemnation of the patronage list by the Civil Service Commission, does the hon. gentleman propose to abolish it ?


William Pugsley: I have given instructions to abolish it as far as possible, and' invite public tenders. I am now considering the establishing of a purchasing department, as the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has done, in accordance with the report of the Civil Service Commission, but that organization will take a little time and the person in charge of that branch will have to be thoroughly experienced and reliable.


George Taylor: How comes it that the hon. minister paid $2.50 per barrel for 85 barrels of cement bought from Kirby & Co., when he could buy that cement at Hull for $1.80?


William Pugsley: That was but a small
quantity and no tenders were called for.


George Taylor: You could purchase it by retail at $1.65. I see the familiar name of Chas. Patton down for four fire extinguishers at $15 a piece, or two more than last year.


William Pugsley: Last year the order may have been a large one and $15 is a reasonable price, for they are very good articles.


John Allister Currie: Does this item include the furnishings for that house as well as the building?


William Pugsley: No.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: What is the necessity for such a large house? Has the gentleman a large family or does he expect to, or are other gentlemen going to live with him?


Richard Blain: Does the minister propose to furnish the house?


William Pugsley: I have no intention to ask for such a vote. That might properly he done by Dr. King himself.
Mr. BLAIN Does the minister think a residence of this cost is required?


William Pugsley: I will be perfectly frank. When the plans and estimate were first presented to me I said I thought the house was too expensive and asked the chief architect to cut it down and this has been done.


Richard Blain: What will the total cost be?


William Pugsley: The lowest tender is a little over $12,000 and with the heating, wiring and plumbing it will likely cost somewhere between $15,000 and $16,000.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Has the work started yet?


William Pugsley: No.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Personally I cannot allow this item to go without a very strong protest. I can see no pressing necessity for a public building of this kind when hundreds of buildings are required all through Canada that are not provided for in the estimates. In North Ontario, for instance, the minister, the day after the issue of the writ, sent an officer of the department to Uxbridge to get options on lots for a post office to cost $8,000. The options were for sixty days and the urgent public necessity for a building of that kind was strongly urged. The people there are in need of that building far more than this gentleman is of a residence; that post office will serve from 3,000 to 5,000 people while this serves only one, and I would suggest that this appropriation should be dropped and one for the Uxbridge post office substituted. I must strongly protest against this large item when there are other more urgent and pressing claims.


Richard Blain: Was any vote passed last session for the erection of this residence?


William Pugsley: There was a vote for additional buildings in connection with the observatory and I explained to the House that it was contemplated to errect a coelo-stat house and other buildings and a residence for the chief astronomer.


George Taylor: Does this Mr. Sharpe get $4 a day all the year?


William Pugsley: Yes, he is employed permanently.


George Taylor: That is $1,460 a year?


William Pugsley: And he earns every dollar of it.


George Taylor: Who purchased the 85 barrels of cement at $2.50 and who paid $106 for two pine door frames and a fanlight in the two doors? Who ordered these and certified to the accounts?


William Pugsley: They would be purchased under the direction of the chief archi-

tect who is responsible for the purchase and also the price.


George Taylor: Who else tendered for the work awarded to the Office Specialty Company?


William Pugsley: 1 cannot tell whether the other concern tendered or not, but prices were asked from both companies.


Mr. WALLACE.: Where is the Office Specialty Company situated?


William Pugsley: At Newmarket.


Thomas George Wallace: In what county is that ?


William Pugsley: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would know better than I do.


Thomas George Wallace: I thought it might be in New York.


Mr. J. D. TAYLOR.: I could suggest a use for this money, which, I think, would be much more in the public interest than building a handsome residence in Ottawa for this already well-treated official. I desire to present the claims of the city of Chilliwack, in the constituency I have the honour to represent. I have been looking through these estimates to see what provision was made for the public building in Chilliwack promised by a minister of the Crown, who has disappeared for the time being, but who did us the honour to visit us during the election. He promised that, if the government was sustained, we should have a handsome public building for post office and customs purposes erected in Chilliwack. Now we are told that an era of economy has set in, and we cannot have the buiiding that was promised. But when we examine the estimates, we find that economy is only in spots, and the high spots struck by this era of economy are those that have the good fortune to be represented by members of the opposition who will stand up for the rights of the people, and that the expenditures to provide the comforts of civilization are centred around the seat of government in Ottawa. As an hon. friend near me remarks, we all had to buck these promises. It is time to register our protest in the most solemn way. I think it is due to this House that we should have some explanation from the government as to why they have gone back in this most heartless manner upon the promise made by their defeated colleague to the people of Chilliwack.


William Pugsley: The question the hon. member (Mr. J. D. Taylor) has asked is a very proper one. It was a matter of very great regret to me to be obliged to postpone for the time the consideration of a post office building at Chilliwack. An appropriation was made last session and the necessary steps were taken towards securing a site, but tenders were not called for because Mr. PUGSLEY.
there was delay in acquiring a site. But I would say this, in justice to myself and as an explanation to our friends on both sides, that when the time arrived when, by reason of declining revenues, we had to make a reduction, in the public interest as we thought, in the expenditures, we found there would be great difficulty In discriminating amongst the public works which had been provided for last session, for all seemed to have very considerable merit. I could say to my own conscience that I have not asked for a vote for a single public work in any part of Canada which could not be justified on public grounds. What we did was this : We drew the line sharply between public works in respect of which tenders had been called, or which had been undertaken by day's work and those in regard to which no tenders had been called. In doing this an enormous reduction was made in my estimates, something over $8,000,000. I desire to say to our friends on this side of the House that nothing has occurred in my public life that has given me greater regret than to be obliged to postpone the building of wharfs, public buildings and other public works in the various constituencies throughout Canada to which parliament was pledged last session. I wish to express, in the most sincere manner, thanks to our friends in parliament who have yielded to our views and have acquiesced cheerfully in the determination, upon grounds of economy, to postpone-I trust for only a short time

the construction of these public works. I may say to my hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. J. D. Taylor) that Chilliwack does not stand in a different position from many other places throughout the Dominion. We have not discriminated between our supporters and opponents, but have treated all alike, acting upon one principle, and postponing the construction of these public works. We have also felt it necessary to postpone some for which tenders had been called.
. Mr. GEO. TAYLOR. What about the minister's promise ? We do not mind a promise made by an ordinary candidate, but, when a minister makes a promise, that pledges the government.


William Pugsley: What minister ?


James Davis Taylor: I was just about to remind the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pugslev) of the facts. During the campaign in Chilliwack, the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Templeman), the minister who represents the province of British Columbia, on his responsibility as a minister, and expecting that his statement would be taken as that of an honourable man at par, told the people that if they and others would assist, and if the government were returned to power, a most substantial government building would be constructed in Chilli-

wack. I submit that conditions have not changed since the tenth day of October, when the Minister of Inland Revenue upon the stage of the theatre in Chilliwack, made that promise, and that the government is in honour bound to carry out this pledge, even thdugh the people of that riding did by a very substantial majority return the present member instead of the gentleman put forward by the government of the day.


William Pugsley: Was any statement made as to when this building was to be commenced? The hon. gentleman (Mr. J. D. Taylor) must have patience.


James Davis Taylor: As we do not seem to be very busy, and as time is not pressing, I would like to inform the committee of something that did occur at that time. We were discussing at Chilliwack a matter of very pressing importance for British Columbia, the matter of better terms


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The hon. gentleman (Mr. J. D. Taylor) is departing from the resolution if he is going to discuss the question of better terms.


James Davis Taylor: Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to the debate all evening, and have heard a large variety of topics discussed, but have not heard anybody called down yet for being out of order. I do not think I am going further astray than those who have preceded me. In answer to the minister who has asked the question, I would like to explain the circumstances which occurred at this meeting in Chilliwack. We were discussing the question of better terms. In answer to our argument that we were not receiving from this government the terms we had a right to expect, we were told by the Minister of Inland Revenue that the province of British Columbia was about to receive better terms from the government at Ottawa. But, he stated, instead of giving this money to be squandered by the McBride government, they were spreading it over the province in the shape of appropriations for government works of all kinds. Why, he said, we have given you a substantial public building in every place of any importance in the province; we have purchased in Chilliwack a valuable site, and we intend to erect a first-class building upon it. Of course we all understood, every reasonable man would understand, the minister to mean that having purchased a site he intended to proceed immediately with the erection of that building. I submit that'it was not businesslike on the part of this government to buy an expensive site in the city of Chilliwack, promising the people that if this government were returned they would erect this building, and then, after the government had been returned, to turn around and say: We find that the finances are so straitened
we have no money with which to erect a building, and we propose to allow the lot to stand idle and take the money we intended to expend in Chilliwack and with it erect a palatial residence at the city of Ottawa for a highly paid official of this government. I submit that is not the proper way in which this government should treat the people of British Columbia.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. PATERSON moved the adjournment of the House.


George Taylor: What business do you propose to take up to-morrow?


William Paterson: I did not ask the Prime Minister, but I suppose we will go on with the estimates, probably Civil Government and Public Works.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.20 a.m. Friday.
[Stage Direction]
Fbiday, February 5, 1909.