1910-01-26

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GERVAIS presented the second report of the Committee on Debates as follows:
Your committee recommend that Mr. E. L. Desaulniers be appointed to fill the vacancy on the staff of translators of the official report of the debates caused by the death of R. Lafer-riere and that the said E. L. Desaulniers be paid the minimum salary of ibe first division, subdivision ' B.'
H.	GERVAIS, Chairman.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. MACKENZIE KING (Minister of Labour) presented the second report of the committee to whom was referred Bill (No. 21) respecting the hours of labour on public works as follows:
Your committee recommend that leave be granted to them to employ the services of a specialist to assist the committee in its researches into legislation respecting hours of labour existing in other countries.
Mr. KING moved that the report be concurred in.
Mr. FOSTER.: I think the report had better be read again; I could not get it.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Explain.


Mr. KING.: The suggestion is that the committee have power to obtain a specialist to assist it in its researches into the

legislation existing in other countries respecting hours of labour on public works. There is a great deal of legislation of a nature somewhat similar to that proposed in the eight hour Bill enacted in other countries and this is to enable the committee to retain some person to go through that legislation and report upon it.


Mr. SPROULE.: What kind of a specialist would he be who would do that kind of work?


George Gerald King: The intention of the committee was to retain some gentleman associated with one of the ' universities. Professor Skelton of Queen's university is the person desired by the committee as he has given a good deal of attention to this subject.


George Eulas Foster: It seems to me that this is rather unusual, and we have not heard anything so far to show us that it is necessary. What in the world do you want done? You want some man to go to work and look into this legislation as it exists in other countries as to hours of labour and make a precis of it. Why in the world do you need a high class specialist to do that? If, after you find out what other countries have done as to hours of labour and the trend of legislation, the committee wants somebody to advise it as to the. results of such legislation then I could see where a specialist would come in. But we do not know that there is any disease, we do not know that at present any medicine is needed, we do not know anything about it, and all this specialist is supposed to do is to make a precis of the legislation in other countries on, the subject of hours of labour. I think it is not necessary to have a specialist. It seems to me that any level headed clerk can do that sort of business and do it as well as any specialist can. The specialist's work comes in after you have a collation of what exists and when you vrant evidence as to the results of that. Then, a specialist, who has made a study of the question, has travelled and has the experience, would be a very great benefit to the committee. I would not be opposed to having the very best wTe can get in that respect but it does not seem to me that the time has arrived for a specialist.


George Gerald King: The committee has already gone over the preliminary ground mentioned by my hon. friend and it is precisely with the view of having the results of that legislation collated for the committee that the employment of this specialist is suggested.


Mr. BLAIN.: I agree with my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster). It seems to me that when we have a large labour bureau that is costing this country a great
deal of money, and as my hon. friend the Minister of Labour himself has been devoting his time for some years to the condition of legislation in other countries with the view of perfecting the labour legislation of this country, the minister and the bureau should be in possession at this moment, without any extra expense to the country, of all the legislation that it would be possible for any expert, I do not care, who the gentleman may be, to procure and would also be able to give the results. It rather suggests that somebody wants a situation.
I do not know who it may be, I have nobody in my mind at all, but I do not think it is in the interests of Canada that we should be farming out from time to time certain work that should be and is performed in the department at a very large cost to this country. I am quite willing that money should be reasonably expended in order that we may have the best information possible in the interests of the country but it seems to me that the effect of this report is to give to some outside person to do, what the department should do itself.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is certainly a departure from the practice in the past, and no doubt the reasons may be quite sufficient, but in the meantime I would ask my hon. friend to withdraw the motion so that the House may have an opportunity to look into it.
Motion withdrawn.



FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 123) respecting the Central Canada Manufacturers Mutual Fire Insurance Company.-Mr. D. A. Gordon.
Bill (No. 124) respecting the Eastern Canada Manufacturers Mutual Fire Insurance Company.-Mr. D. A. Gordon.


Mr. STANFIELD:: What supplies, and cost of same, were furnished the pole lights at Bass river, Mass-town and Little Dyke, Colchester county, for the years 1907, 1908 and 1909 respectively?


Wilfrid Laurier: The supplies furnished the three lights indicated included oil, lamp accessories, paint, cleaning material, &c. The agent of the Department of Marine and Fisheries at Halifax, advises that the cost of such supplies furnished were as per following
table:
1907	1908	1909
Bass River	$34 09 $50 36 $47 29
Masstown	 19 07 20 97 16 82
Little Dyke	 18 74 20 99 28 83
The light at Bass river is a tower light, not a pole light.


GRENFELL WHEAT ELEVATOR.
Mr. W. M. MARTIN:: 1.	Has the subject of the accident at an elevator at Grenfell last fall, by which an operator fell into a bin and lost his life, been brought to the attention of the government? If so, to what department were the representations made, and by whom ?
2.	What was the substance of these representations, and what action did the government take?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: 1.	Yes. Representations were made to the Department of Trade and Commerce by the Hon. Walter Scott, premier of Saskatchewan, and Charles C. Castle, warehouse commissioner, Winnipeg.
2.	The department was requested to examine the existing statutes to ascertain whether any legislation was required to empower the warehouse commissioner to act in the matter; and further that the Dominion government enact the necessary legislation to require licensed elevators to take out accident insurance covering their employees. It was also stated that there was some doubt as to provincial or federal jurisdiction in the matter. The subject was referred to the Department of Justice, which department replied that the Minister of Justice was of opinion that such legislation should be left to the provincial legislators to enact.


PENDER ISLAND CANAL.
Mr. BARNARD:: 1.	What was the cost of the Pender Island Canal?
2.	What was the depth of the canal when
completed?	'
3.	What is the present depth at low water?
4.	What is the length of the canal?
5.	What was the tonnage passing through the canal during the past year?
6.	What saving of distance is effected by vessels using the canal in lieu of passing around South Pender, island?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY:: 1. $10,000.
2 and 3. Depth of channel when completed and present depth, 10 feet at low tide.
4.	1,000 feet.
5.	No records are kept of the tonnage passing through the channel; the resident engineer reports that it was used by the mail boat in a tri-weekly delivery of mails, from Sidney to the islands, and also by small boats trading between Browning harbour and Sidney.
6.	From Sidney to Browning harbour, five miles; from Bedwell bay to Browning harbour, seven miles.


LABOURERS ON LACHINE CANAL.
Mr. VERVILLE:: 1.	What are the names of the labourers who are employed and who will be paid out of the


Wilfrid Laurier: $3,100 mentioned in the answer of January 17, 1910?
2.	On what kind of work will they be employed from now until the end of the fiscal year ?
3.	Who is the chief electrician on the La-chine canal, and what are his duties?
4.	What are the duties of T. Evers, employed on the Lachine canal, and what is the form of expenses allowed to him?


Hon. GEO. GRAHAM:: 1.	The names of the labourers employed at the present time for urgent and necessary work, are as follows: (Conditions may arise that necessitate, in the interest of the department, the employing of a few more labourers on the roads):
Damase Gratton, road foreman western division; W. Bergevin; Aid. Filion; J. Forest; J. B. Sauriol; W. O'Leary.
J.	P. Evers, foreman eastern division; E. Riley; J. Donaldson; J. McNamara; P. Murphy; J. Murphy; W. Gauthier; Geo. Yon; A. Larivee; J. B. Tremblay.
Maintenance of government yards, M. Fitzpatrick; F. Riley; J. Harding.
2.	Labourers will be employed along the entire line of the canal where required during the balance of fiscal year, repairing roads, removal of snow on and off bridges, opening ditches, cleaning sidewalks, spreading ashes, maintenance of government yards, shops and stores and other necessary works in connection with government reserve lands.
3.	There are two electrical power houses on the Lachine canal, Mr. Julien Brunet, is chief electrician of the eastern division power house, Mill street, Montreal, and Mr. James Innes is chief electrician of the western division power house at Cote St. Paul, both Julien Brunet and James Innes have charge individually of their respective division and power house.
4.	T. Evers is employed as clerk or secretary in the office of the superintendent and also as telephone electrician in charge of the repairs of the telephone instruments of the Lachine private telephone system. T. Evers has a monthly allowance of $15 for conveyance in connection with this work, the same as is allowed to electricians Brunet and Innes.


'WHIG' PUBLISHING COMPANY.
Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	lias the * Whig ' Publishing Company been paid any money for printing and advertising by or for any departments of this government other than Militia and Defence and Marine and Fisheries since 1896?
2.	If so, what amount have been paid to the said ' Whig ' Publishing Company in each year from 1896 to the present time?


Wilfrid Laurier: This should be the subject of a return.


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


REPORT OF SWINE COMMISSION.
Mr. ARMSTRONG:: 1.	Has the Swine Commission made its report? If not, why not?
2.	When did the commission return, what countries did they visit and make investigations in?
3.	Why did the commission not investigate conditions in Canada before going abroad ?


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER:: 1.	The commission has made its report, which is now in type and has been once proof read by the secretary.
2.	The commission returned at the end of August after having made investigations in Great Britain, Ireland, Denmark, and to a slight extent in Holland.
3.	The commission, being composed of men actually engaged in the rearing and marketing of swine, were, from their own experience, sufficiently acquainted with conditions in Canada to enable them to examine intelligently conditions in other countries, having in view the lessons that would be useful to Canadian swine raisers.


CENSUS OF 1911.
Mr. ARMSTRONG:: 1.	When does the government commence taking the census?
2.	Will the work be carried on in a similar way to that adopted in 1900? If not, what is the nature of the improvement suggested?
3.	What is the estimated cost of taking the census and the time required to complete same ?


Mr. FISHER:: 1.	In June, 1911.
2.	Yes.
3.	Estimates not made yet.


QUARANTINE BOAT, HALIFAX.
Mr. CROSBY:: 1.	Has the government made any arrangements or let a contract for the construction of a boat for the quarantine service at Halifax?
2.	If so, were tenders asked for, and how, from whom were tenders received, what are the names and amount of each tender, what is the amount of the tender accepted, and when will the boat be delivered at Halifax, ready for service?


Mr. FISHER:: 
HALIFAX HARBOUR MASTER.
Mr. CROSBY:: 1.	Has the Minister of Marine and Fisheries received any official notice from. Halifax of the death of the harbour master at that port?
2.	If so, has any appointment been made to fill the vacancy?
3.	Has the minister received any letter or recommendation from any person or persons or mercantile board or board of trade? If so, what is the nature of the recommendation or requests?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: 1.	The Department of Marine and Fisheries was advised of the death of the harbour master at Halifax, on the 19th December last.
2.	No appointment has been made. Captain Neil Hall, port warden of Halifax, is acting as harbour master temporarily.
3.	The council of the Halifax Board of Trade recommended to the department that a man of thorough nautical experience should be appointed.



QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-MR. LAKE.

Mr. R. S. LAKE (Qu'Appelle).: Before the notices of motion are called I desire to rise to a question of privilege. It has reference to an answer given on Monday by the Prime Minister to a question standing in my name. This is the first opportunity I have had of speaking to this question of privilege. The Prime Minister's answer was given at a moment when I was absent from the House. During the course of it he took occasion to say that the citation made by me of a report appearing in the ' Globe ', of a speech the right hon. gentleman had made at Toronto, was not a correct reproduction of the ' Globe ' report. He said further it was garbled and omitted an important part of a sentence, though he added that he was quite sure that the misquotation was unintentional on my part.
Let me say that the question as it ap-

peared in the orders of the day was not a correct reproduction of the question as I handed it in to the Clerk of the House. The Prime Minister is well aware that questions are not always printed exactly as they are handed in, and I should have thought it more consistent with his dignity that before casting such a reflection on an hon. member of thi3 House, as that implied in his answer, he would either have refrained from dealing with the matter until the member was present and had had an opportunity of explaining any possible discrepancy, or would at least" have looked at the question in its original form in the member's handwriting.
Had he done so he would have found that I had made two quotations of two separate and complete sentences exactly as they appeared in the ' Globe ' and that I had made the necessary quotation marks to show that they were separate quotations.
The Prime Minister in his reply made a full statement of the ' Globe ' report, which he says is substantially correct. According to that very statement it would appear that the Prime Minister has made a misstatement of fact in his answer and founded his whole argument upon it. He states that an important part of a sentence is omitted. That is not the case. No part of any sentence, whether important or unimportant was omitted. A whole sentence was omitted deliberately, because I had no fault to find with it and had no question to ask in respect of it. It stated in effect that the people of Canada are the loyal subjects of His Majesty. Surely the Prime Minister does not seriously suggest that it was necessary for me to ask whether the government held the same views as himself in that respect. I take it for granted and I would consider it a reflection to ask such a question.
The other two sentences which I quoted and which the Prime Minister now endorses and implies to be the views of his government in regard to our relations to the Throne contain views which I believe to be unconstitutional and contrary to the facts. It was in respect of these two statements, and of them alone, that I asked my question as I believed it to be of the highest importance that the country should understand the attitude of the government regarding them.
I have nothing further to say at present other that to express my astonishment and regret that the Prime Minister in an apparently carefully prepared statement should have made an incorrect statement of fact and founded upon it an argument that would reflect upon a member of this House.


Wilfrid Laurier: May I also be permitted as a question of privilege to answer my hon. friend just one word. If he Mr. LAKE.
has read my answer, and evidently he has, he knows that I acquitted him of any intention of misquoting. He now say3 that he put his question correctly and the only blame he puts on me is that I did not look at the question as he handed it to the clerk. I assumed that the clerk had put it on the notice paper correctly. The notice paper was before the House for three or four days and nobody took objection to it, not even my hon. friend (Mr. Lake). Therefore I took the question as it was printed in the Order Paper and I do not think any one will find fault with me for doing that. I have only to say that I think my hon. friend is hardly fair. I told him in the House that I knew he was incapable of making a garbled statement. What more could he expect from me?


Richard Stuart Lake: May I say that I have been very busy and had not seen the printed question. Had I been present in the House I would undoubtedly, as I have done on many occasions, corrected the question in putting it to the government.


Wilfrid Laurier: If the question was put in my hon. friend's absence he should not blame me, let him blame some of his friends who put this question for him.



PARTY PATRONAGE.

George Eulas Foster: That in the opinion of this House the prevailing system of party patronage constitutes a menace to honest and efficient government, incites to great waste of resources and extravagance of expenditures, tends inevitably to corrupt and lower the tone of public morals, and should forthwith be eliminated from our federal administration.
He said: I do not make any apology for introducing this resolution even though it may be said to be an academic one. I have not very much love for simply academic resolutions which have no practical relation to legislation or to our system of public life; but I do not think it would be an unmixed evil if in this parliament we were to devote a little more attention to the theory and give a little more time to the discussion of the principles involved in the administration of our public affairs. But the question I am bringing to the attention of the House is not a purely academic one, because it is intimately and practically connected with the government of the country that it has every day and every hour an influence, not only upon special lines of governmental administration, but upon the public life of the country. Fortunately during the last few years, this question has been attracting the attention of the more thoughtful people of Canada. We have seen and heard a great deal of discussion on the results that flow

from the adoption of a principle different from the one advocated in this resolution. This question has excited a great deal more attention in the country of late years than it did formerly. I do not wish to elaborate that statement but simply to give a few examples which prove it. I do not know that I could do better than give three examples, as specimens of others that might be cited in very large numbers. So far as my remarks this afternoon may go, I shall endeavour to confine myself strictly to principles, although the temptation is great to bring to the support of those principles the many examples which illustrate them. However, I shall leave that to be done by each individual member, if not openly and publicly in the House, at least in his own mind; and from his own observations, I am sure every hon. member can furnish examples illustrative of some of the facts I intend to present. The first statement 1 shall read will be the motion moved by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) and on which a vote was taken in this House:
That in making appointments to public offices, and particularly to those of a representative nature, party services should not alone be considered, but selections should be made with regard to capacity and personal character.
Yeas, 43 (Cons.)
Nays, 70 (Libs.)
You will notice that this deals with but a fraction of the patronage system, and that it is a very reasonable and moderate presentation of theory as opposed to the present practice. I shall next read an opinion broadly distributed throughout this country. How much support it has in the party opposite, I am not going to say, but it is a statement of what is demanded from the present government:



THE LIBERAL DOCTRINE.

[Stage Direction]
The rank and file of the Liberal party will acclaim a plain statement of the need for a closer loyalty of the department to this accepted principle of party government-all patronage should go to the friends of the party. Every departure from this is an act of disloyalty to the followers and supporters of the party.
No cabinet minister nor any supporter of the Liberal party can assault this position and be loyal to his party.
Every new appointment, every power of patronage, belongs by right of ' system and precedent to the members of the Liberal party.
To appease a political foe by gifts of patronage is a sign of cowardice, or even worse.
In the initial appointment or in the awarding of a government contract, it is expected that the party in power shall be loyal to its friends. Without such loyalty the party becomes disorganized.-Ottawa Free Press, Lib.
This is taken from the Ottawa ' Free Press.' This may be an extreme statement of the view of the writer of this article, and
an extreme statement of the view taken by the party as a whole; but I read it because it shows very precisely the ultimate and extreme position that can be taken by the adherents and supporters of the party patronage system.	*
Then I take, as an example of the utterances of church conferences, the following:
That the sordid system of patronage unfortunately obtaining in this country is not only folly from the party point of view, with which as such this conference has nothing to do, but that it is contrary to public policy and an offence against the people inasmuch as it proceeds on the assumption that the party in power is justified in administering the affairs of the country to the advantage of that section of the electors who have assisted in returning it, whereas, according to any true view such party should regard itself as a trustee for the whole people.
That was a resolution unanimously adopted by the Methodist conference. As a fourth extract, I beg to leave to read the statement of a newspaper, which, according to the view one takes, may be independent or may be a strictly party paper, for, as one reads its pages, it is sometimes the one and some times the other. Probably on the whole the independent view is the one which obtains. I refer to the Montreal ' Witness.' In an article on the report of Mr. Justice Cassels dealing with the evils that flow from the patronage system, it has the following:
The saving of a million or so of the people's money in each of the departments would be the very least part of the public gain by a change which would eliminate these corrupt dealings. Far more important is the fearful demoralization of public servants that inevitably develops under it, and which those who seek dealings with the departments tell us, with what truth we do not know, is found throughout the service.
But even the demoralization of the public servants is not the worst. Worse far is the example set and the lesson taught to the whole nation, and the general contempt for government which the common knowledge of these things breeds. Judge Cassels did not advise an investigation similar to his own into the other departments. It was not his business to do so, and he had not any evidence on which to base such advice. But when, in advising an independent purchasing agency, he says: ' Are there no other departments of government which could be dealt with in the same manner ? ' he comes as near as he may to such a suggestion. Surely it is time for a clean sweep. That ministers are capable of making this sweep themselves is fully proved by the history of the department that has been the subject of the inquiry. That the system of judical inquiry should be made general, and probably in some shape permanent, is the natural deduction from all the conditions, and this last is practically advised.
These four statements show in brief the position which is taken by the large divi-
[Stage Direction]
sions of those who express public opinion in this country. So I say that the question is attracting renewed and constantly increasing interest. It is no longer an academic question in this country, I hope it is eminently a practical question, and I hope the question will not get out of the sphere of discussion until this country, in the beginning of the twentieth century, of its twentieth century, shall purge its public life clean and clear from the patronage system and the evils that come therefrom.
This patronage system which has existed since confederation, and under all governments, and exists to-day, is the lineal and distinct descendant of the old kingly monopolies of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. What the king did in farming out great monopolies, and taking revenues for himself, and gains therefrom, dividing them amongst favourites, who thereafter became beneficiaries, is being done under the patronage system. Now substitute for the king of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the Prime Minister of the twentieth century ; substitute for the immediate favourites to whom the king made these grants of monopolies, the ministers of the cabinet selected by the Prime Minister, and you will have the first two of the many links in a chain that binds the whole system together. The premier and his selected councillors make up the ministry, that is the first; after	that
comes the caucus and its elected components; after that comes the local candidate in his district, with his circle of party supporters; and lower down in the scale comes the district committee with their control of the petty patronage which has to be dispensed within the purview of their own jurisdiction. That makes a complete chain, extending from the representative of the king, under the old idea, and down to the base of the system. This is a wonderfully concentrated and correlated system. There is not a section of this country from one end to the other which is not under its influence, and which to-day is not throbbing and pulsating with the stimulus-whether it be good or bad, I am not saying just now, though I shall later-with the stimulus derived from the party patronage system. The old kingly monopolies and what was knit thereto, were powerful and strong; this is an infinitely more powerful one because of the wider distribution of the roots that it sends down in all directions and everywhere, and because of its numberless ramifications.
But it is more powerful from another consideration. The kingly monopoly was raised up before the people in lurid light, but had for its backing no such powerful association as the people behind it. But the patronage system, on the lines that I have tried to explain just now, becomes Mr. FOSTER.
infinitely more powerful and dangerous, because it hides its enormities by the fiction that it is the adjunct of party government exercised by the people and for the people, and is one of the instrumentalities of a governmnt so organized and so conducted. That is what gives it its power and tends to its continuance, and that is one of the shields that must be stripped from it before eventually the people throw it off their shoulders. Hitherto we have looked upon the patronage evil in bits and shreds; we have seen a manifestation of it here and talked about, we have discovered a manifestation of it elsewhere and have discussed it; I think we would gain a new view perhaps if we attempted to put it in one great mass before our view, and the view of this House and the country. Let me try for a moment to do that. The soldier, as you will acknowledge, Mr. Speaker, though he is a picturesque object with his uniform, and his erect stature, and his military facings, is not impressive, that is, he is not so impressive as when all the soldiers of the army are gathered into regiments and battalions, and the mighty sweep and force of the united host is presented to the view. So with reference to'this patronage. Take a feature of it in the city of St. John and elaborate it, Heaven knows it is bad enough; take a bit of it in Vancouver and elaborate it, and you will see some of it; but you have not yet got what we may only get when we hold the whole beastly system up to the inspection and reprobation of this country.
Let us look at the Civil Service of the country. I cannot say by the book, but I suppose there are probably between 8,000 and 10,000 members of the Civil Service, inside and outside. This Civil Service is constantly enlarging, its numbers are constantly growing. Every day, almost, some vacancy occurs, and every day, almost, some appointment to fill a vacancy is made. And so in new appointments, and in appointments to fill vacancies, you have a large and constantly increasing draft from the outside into the inside of the service. But that does not show the extent of it. Every civil servant has his family, has his relatives, has his friends outside his relatives; and whatever interest he may have in the patronage system, whatever it does or promises for him, it creates an interest which is distributed more or less over his family, his relatives and his friends, and binds them with him in the objects and for the purposes that he looks upon as being advantageous and useful, either actual or possible to himself.
Now, with reference to the Civil Service, until September, 1908, this was absolutely true, that no man entered it, no man got preferment in it, no man felt safe within it, unless he either got the entrance by virtue

of party influence, or looked after his preferment and his permanent position by keeping on good terms with the party influence as represented by the nearest access of that influence to himself. Since September, 1908, a measurable advance has been made, and a portion of the Civil Service has, to a certain extent, been cut loose and put into a more or less independent position in that respect. It still remains true that the vast mass of the Civil Service is in the position that I have just mentioned.
But the Civil Service is but a small portion of the entire service of the country. Outside of it you have great numbers of public employees. Take, for instance, the Intercolonial railway. The yearly pay-roll of that railway is about $500,000, and the number of persons employed and paid is now close up to 10,000 persons. When you take 10,000 persons with their families, their relatives, their connections and friends, you see what an element you have in' the consideration of this question of the influence of party patronage. Then, there is the post office. You have scattered throughout this country 12,000 keepers of post offices of high and low degree-taking the degree to mean the salary and functions that they enjoy and perform. There is also a brigade of some 600 mail clerks, though Tailway mail clerks do form a portion of the service. Then you come to the Customs and Inland Revenue Departments, and you find a widespread and heavily manned organization outside of those who form the regular Civil Service of these two departments. Take also the Department of Interior, with its immigration branch, its lands branch, its Indians branch, and you have a widely distributed force, large in numbers and great in influence, which is affected by and interested in this matter which I am discussing to-day. The Department of Marine and Fisheries is a widely extended one outside of its permanent Civil Service employees. There is an army of 800 employees at one place alone, Sorel. The department's dredging fleet is manned by 500 to 600 employees. Its steamers have an employment roll of 500 persons. And the fisheries inspectors, the marine agents, the lighthouse keepers, the buoy keepers, and all the dispensers and adherents of this immense service constitute an army the exact size of which I do not know, but which is very large, and, as I have said, widely extended. Then you come to the Department of Agriculture. Ahy one who compares the condition of this department ten or fifteen years ago with its condition to-day and sums up the result must see how this service has ramified in various directions in all parts of the country. To-day it has a very large number of employees, some permanent and some so called temporary. I do not know the number, nor can I give you a statement of the salaries paid. I am simply making the point now that these employees are numerous, and, of course, must be costly. The Department of Public Works, outside the ranks of its regular civil servants of inside and outside employees, has under its charge a large number of men. And even outside the men it employs and pays out of the public treasury, it is a vast dispensary of patronage. In the course of the year some $10,000,000 or $12,000,000 of public money is paid out by this department on the basis of tender and contract, or otherwise, and every one of these expenditures has to be supervised. There are foremen, there are inspectors, there are a multitude of persons engaged in one way or another; and, patronage having full force as it has in that ' department, shows up greatly and in Wide extension. Without going further into detail, I may state in brief that all these together make up a multitude which no man on the spur of the moment can exactly number. I think it will be found that there are not much less than 30,000 employees of one kind or another in all these lines that I have enumerated. Add to these the regular service and you have a vast army of employees. And with reference to all of them, with the simple exception of the Civil Service at Ottawa, it is absolutely true that no man enters into that employment unless he utters the party shibboleth, and no man remains in that employment unless he either keeps a mighty quiet tongue-if he happened to go to work before the existing government took office, whatever that government may be-and no man gets along unless he continues to utter the party shibboleth and keep in touch and well within the good will of the party.
But even that is not all of it. We have in this country a number of commissions. And, of late years, commissions have enjoyed a growing era, so to speak. We heard yesterday how stones grow. Without going into the question as to how the growth takes place in such hard formations as that, there is not the least doubt that there is a vast growth in commissions1-commissions permanent and commissions temporary, commissions stationary and commissions travelling, commissions made up of several and commissions made up of one; but commissions there are in plenty and constantly increasing. For example, you have the Transcontinental Railway Commission, made up, in the first place, of five-or is it six?-king pins. These are the main men. But when we look beyond these king pins and the salaries they get, we have only begun to size up this commission. See the
[Stage Direction]
clerks they have; see the engineers they have; see the supervisors they have; see the inspectors they have. And follow it up: within the last four or five years of its existence, this commission has dispensed about $58,000,000 of the people's money. And all this organization is permeated from top to bottom with the idea of party patronage. On the basis of that idea they were created. The men who formed the commission took products of party patronage as their raw material. And, the commission being constituted of the dust of party patronage, well ribbed and fitted up, everything which emanates from that commission is of the same nature. Every clerk of high or low degree, every supervisor, every engineer,- every man who has anything to do in the mighty series of transactions carried on by the commission qualifies for his work upon the basis of party patronage. Every man must speak the party shibboleth, must do his duty to the party -as many of them know to their great cost-and they must all keep in touch and in hearty sympathy with the party. There is another commission-the Railway Commission. It is a commission of a different order, but the same principle holds good. By virtue of the party patronage principle the members of that commission were first appointed, and by virtue of that they hold their positions. Aside from whatever excellencies they may have-I am not discussing that question-they could not get there unless they had earned their spurs by services to the party, or unless the party believed that they would get an equivalent compensation by their appointment. And so with an army, small in this respect, of employees under them; all is based and carried out upon the same principle of party patronage.
Well, the matter does not end there. We have a judiciary in this country. We have benches and courts of law from the highest tribunal at Ottawa down to the county and district courts in the various provinces. Is it too much to sav that within the lifetime of any party no single man gets a seat upon the bench who does not get it because he belongs to the party which has the appointment and because he has thus earned his spurs? That does, not mean to say at all in no case do they ever have all the qualifications that a good judge ought to have, but it is undeniably true that many of them enter through the gate of party exigency rather than by reason of merit, experience and the degree in which they are versed in the law. Take a lawyer who goes up to a certain stage in his profession, not a very advanced one, jerk him out into political life, throw him about in political life for fifteen or twenty years, Mr. FOSTER.
perhaps holding cabinet positions and otherwise, and all that time out of his office, away from the administration of the law and from the prosecution of the deep and grave studies of the law; do you in that way fit him to sit upon the bench? No one would argue that for an instant. It must be a disadvantage. But if you look over the list, if you scan the roster, you will find that very many who sit upon the bench to-day have come up through that school which nobody will for a moment assert is the best school through which they should come. To-day the judiciary is appointed on the line of party patronage and the inevitable tendency is some time, somewhere, to make mighty poor appointments because the exigencies of party demand that such and such a one be rewarded. If a man would stand up and controvert that opinion I will put up to him the other part of the question: Does it help to make a better judge that he should enter upon his duties through the party door? Nobody will attempt to assert the affirmative of that proposition.
Well, that does not end it. We have a Senate. As a boy at school and a student at the university and after I left the uni versity-my experience compares with that of others who have gone through the same course-what a high and reverential ideal we had imbibed and possessed in our student days of the Senates of the olden times. The Senate! What was the ideal?-men of irreproachable life, men of wonderfully great experience, men of age, because of the idea that wisdom and experience and age naturally go together. Our ideas of the senates of the old world and our ideas of what ought to be the senates of the new world were projected upon a high and lofty plane. Alas, as we grew up, came out) into the life of this practical world of ours and some day found ourselves un against a real senate in the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth century, our ideals, I am afraid, received a very great setback.
Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


George Eulas Foster: To-day I ani afraid that even the Prime Minister has absolutely abandoned all that he worshipped in his younger days. To-day my hon. friend stands in the position of having confessed to this House, after having deplored the evil, that he has sought to find a remedy, but that it is not within his resources to find a remedy and that therefore no remedy is forthcoming.


Wilfrid Laurier: Shall we hear the confession of my hon. friend now?


George Eulas Foster: Well, I to-day am! not in the mood for making confessions. What I desire to do to-day is to make a plea for what I consider would be a better state of

things and my concluding plea would be that the Prime Minister, the powerful minister of a victorious party and of a powerful party, will join hands with the men on this side of the House and see if a better ideal cannot be reached. Our senate of the olden day did embody some of those ideals that I have spoken of. Sometimes we know that distance lends enchantment to the view, and one whom we see through the glass of history sometimes bulks larger than a man, may be equally strong, that we do not see through the. glass of history, but come face to face and eye to eye with. All the same, making that allowance. I think that our older senate did have more of the elements of the ideal senate than the senate of to-day. It is true, is it not, Mr. Speaker, that every appointment to the Senate is a creature of the Prime Minister? I mean the word 'creature' in its proper sense-the creation of the Prime Minister-and the matter would not be so deplorably bad if the Prime Minister, when he creates a senator, would sometimes use fresh material. The trouble with him is that he takes old and powdered and decayed material and makes his creations sometimes out of that. Is it too much to say that the Senate, as it is at present projected by the Prime Minister, is, to a very large extent, used as a hospital for the incapables and incurables of the party in power, fortunately, or unfortunately, I am not sure which-for the time being I shall say fortunately-relieved by some men of great power and of large representative interests. But am I quite right in saying that it is a fortunate thing? The other element so far predominates that may be it is unfortunate that there are examples such as I have alluded to which may be pointed to to make it possible to keep longer in this country a senate based upon the power of appointing as it has been exercised in the last ten or fifteen years. _If there were no redeeming representatives in it to-day we might get into a better position and have a higher standard to place ourselves upon all the sooner. But I do say and I do not think that anyone in this House will contradict me that there is absolutely no doubt that the Senate is not what it ought to be and that it is not, is due to the system of patronage or party appointment that is in vogue.
That, I think, is a statement that we can all subscribe to. To-day, every man who goes into the Senate has to kiss the shoe of the Prime Minister-that much he has to do, what else he has to do deponent in this case saith not.
And now I come to the House of Commons, and for the moment address myself to my own colleagues, not with any desire of passing judgment on the 78
House of Commons; each man here shall be his own judge. The only thing I venture to do is to ask the members of this House to do as I myself do, to ask themselves certain questions, to ponder over the answer and then conclude, each in his own mind, whether things might not be better than they are. How far is the representation in this House based upon the calm unbiased judgment of the electorate of the country, uninfluenced except by the unpurchasable views of the electors, uninfluenced except, in addition to that, by the relative wisdom and weight of the party policies and the party platforms? Or, how far has it been due to the spoils of office past, present and prospective? Now, that is a question that any man can ask himself, and I am not at all afraid to leave that question with every member of this House, and I am not afraid to venture the assertion that he can find an answer to that in no other way than one that is condemnatory of the patronage system and the patronage evil. How far that has been the case each member can answer for himself. How far each member is here solely for his country's good, to sacrifice, to labour that his views of citizenship and policy and good government shall prevail; how far he is here looking to prospective office and emolument it is not for me to judge-every man can go before his own conscience in that respect. It is a little significant, however, that in the last 10 or 12 years 100 appointments of various kinds have been made, either of members of parliament or of defeated candidates, which though on the same principle as has been carried out under all governments from confederation until to-day, is in degree very much larger and greater to-day. That statement I think no one will deny. Certain it is that the spoils play their part in tempting the legislator. He may prove superior to it, he often does; I wish I could say that he always does, and always will. I hold, and I think I have said it before, that the majority of the legislators of the country have done their duty in legislative halls, basing that view on an historical glance at the records they have left in the legislation of the country. To my mind they have done their duty well, remarkably well for a new and young country. But I again ask the assent of every man in the House to this general proposition:	That they would have done their
duty far better if there had been none of the virus and poison of the spoils and of the patronage system at work neutralizing their best efforts in many respects, and preventing them from doing their best work.
I do not want to be extreme in this, but that last proposition is one that I think can not be denied.
Now, we will go to another part of the organism of our country: the press. Its



members do not have seats on the floor of the House, but they have elevated seats just above us, and they overlook us, and down upon us. No man has a higher idea of the purpose and profession and work of the press than I have. In one respect I think it is true to. say that the nress is the eye, and the ear, and the voice of the nation. As the eye of this nation it should be eagle strong to descry in the distance any approaching danger, to penetrate the gloom of any present error, and to catch the vision of the future good and mirror it so that the people of this country may look upon it and come to love it. As the ear of this country it should be sentient to the lowest plaint of every wrong whether it is individual, or social, or national. It should be sensitive to the faintest whispers of hope and desire from every quarter; it should be sensitive to every cry for quick relief from existing abuses. As the voice of the nation it should be strong and unceasing to translate, from its elevated point of view, what it sees and what it hears, and to convey it to the nation; to sound the bugle call to arms, to denounce every evil thing, and to summon high hope and inspiration to the aid of the forces of right in the country. I am not going to say whether the press does this, or does it not, but I am going to say that that is an ideal which the press cherishes, and it is not absolved from following that ideal by any remarks such as that made by the Prime Minister just now. that the press would have a mighty hard job catching up to it. Mr. Speaker, the man that has done anything worth a groat in his life has done it because he has been trying to catch up to his ideals. The man who has no ideals does nothing worthy of his country. The man who does well in ordinary lines of life is the man who has high ideals and who is everlastingly trying to embody them in his life's work. I would be very sorry, by a turn of the lip or by the utterance -of one single light word to dim the ideal of any young man in this country coming up to the light of the 20th century; I would rather help him to pitch it higher and encourage him to embody it to the full. Now, Sir, it is for the press of the country to answer this question, not for me-to what extent does party patronage dim the vision of the press, dull its hearing, stifle its voice, or worse yet, bring its \oice into the defence of what is bad and sometimes into the advocacy of what is bad. Does that ever happen-it is not for me to answer, it is for the press to answer for itself.
I believe that the great newspaper fraternity in this country has its high ideals, that it is striving, as far as possible, to reach them, and that it is gaining ground every day in the essential principle of a high and lofty and well-toned press, strik-Mr. FOSTER.
ing abuses because they are abuses and inciting to what is good and right because it is good and right. Certainly a press which is shackled is not freedom's friend, and no party does any good to the press of this country which ties it or influences it by patronage of any kind. In so far as patronage creeps into the work of the press, it vitiates that work and takes away from the people a guiding friend and a valuable adviser.
Then we have a country. Theoretically its domain, its franchises, are a sacred entail to the six and half or seven millions of people who inhabit this Dominion, and what is far more important, to the generations which will succeed them until far off time, how far none of us know, but that it shall be far distant all of us hope. These resources are to be husbanded for them and for their descendants to these latest generations. The revenues and taxes of a country which theoretically are properly to be expended with a sole regard for their good and that of their countless recurring generations, should be so gathered and so expended by sworn and high-minded trustees. And so they are by sworn trustees. Every man who enters a government takes an oath that he will, as a trustee for the people of Canada, so administer their affairs, and every man who takes up office under that government takes an oath or enters into an obligation binding him first of all to the service of his country, ami last of all, it should be, to the service of his party or to the service of an individual. The government of a country in its ideal sense is to be based on the principles of aptness and fitness, of economy, of scrupulous integrity, and it is to be carried on w'ith clearness of vision and with nobleness of motive. Under the best possible system this ideal is hard to realize. The cynical man says: Out with you, you are entirely impossible and inconsistent with thp ways of a world which will never conform to your ideals. There, again, I take issue and plead for the ideal, and to my mind the statesman never gets so old that he ought not to renew his ideals from time to time and nerve himself to the better embodiment and the truer carrying out of those ideals. Does our patronage system help to make it easier to govern a country on these principles and to carry out those ideals? There is a constant temptation, there is a constant pressure, there is a constant relaxation of fibre, moral and mental. There is the inevitable giving way in part, m sections sometimes, with lamentable effects, and there is the consequent lowering tone of public life and of public administration in the country. Does this massed, constant, persistent degrading force tend to honestv of government, the purity of administration, the elevation of public

life in this young nation of ours, in this the most important era of its existence, in this its formative period? That is a question we may well ask and strive to answer.
Let me ask attention to another thought. To this vast and complicated mechanism there is added the money power. Some say that money is the root of all evil. Well, it is the root of a mighty lot of good, too, and comfort and the like of that, but I suppose the inordinate love of money may be the root of a great deal of evil. Into the mass of that complicated administrative system you inject the power of money. We spent last year 1112,000,000. Of that, may be $30,000,000 went without the impulse and stimulus or the virus of the patronage system, went to pay the interest on our debt- and thank Heaven not much can creep into that-and for other statutory purposes that do not come within influence of the vicious evils of patronage. But it is safe to say that $80,000,000 of that were spent under the patronage system; $80,000,000 or $90,000,000 or $100,000,000 will be spent this year and as much or more next year. Mass it together and it is a tremendous expenditure. We are wise if we put such guards about that expenditure, even to the cutting off of our vices of government to the very root, as will direct that money properly and make its force felt upon the objective point without too much electricity being drawn off in the passage. That amount was expended. How are these expenditures managed? I ask the Prime Minister himself, who has arrived at the years of experience and has had a long career, who has met a vast number of men and has observed things in a vast variety of circumstances in this country, I ask him the one question: In the expenditure of that $80,000,000 do business methods control? That is a simple question. I do not think it answers that question to say that a government never can do what a man can do in his own business. That is true, but a government must carry out in the execution oi its business every proper economy that an honest, straight and intelligent business man will carry out in his. There may be diversity in the employment of the money, but the principles of the conduct of business are immutably the same all the way through.
Do we have business principles applied to the expenditure of this <$80,000,000, or do we not? I do not want to belabour that argument, what is the use of beating a corpse. We acknowledge it. Why then do we not change it? Take the whole system from the time that the tender is asked for until the work is completed, and everywhere it is hampered, it is checked, it is made extravagant, it is made costly, it is made often corrupt by the effect of the patronage which meets it at every turn and calls for its toll out of every part of 781
the transaction, from the contractor down through all the multitudinous supervisors and foreman and supply givers. The patronage system is there and it performs its one function, which is to make all works more costly, which is often to cause the erection of unnecessary works at exaggerated cost, and which is always to vitiate in some form or another.
I do not need to carry out that argument any further. The Cassels' commission and the commission which preceded it show how the thing works. Our public accounts have shown it and so have our discussions in thi3 House and so have the observations of every member of this House. I do not think there is a member of this House who, in unrestrained conversation, going over the matter, will not make this admission. So that when you add to this immense personal mechanism the money element, you have a thing of very great force which plagues the legislators and plunders the country. Does it not plague the legislator? The most anxious hours my right hon. friend has had, the majority of the anxieties he has had, have not arisen from great questions of state or public policy, but from the miserable attempt to serve both party and country at the same time and make the two if possible jibe together. It comes from the more paltry and miserable demands arising out of all these petty questions of patronage which come up every hour of the day. Am I right or wrong? Almost 99-100ths of the work of the cabinet council and ministers is work made for them, difficulties raised for them, knots to be untied which have been tied for them, by this patronage system in one or other of its details. I have been there and I know it and I am talking to men who are there now and who know it, and those men will not gainsay the statement I have made. They may take some exception as to the relative proportions, but as to the facts in the great mass they cannot take any exception.
I wish it did not go further than this, but it does. It beclouds the great issues. We have great questions to solve. Not only has the legislator his part to do-[DOT] which he cannot do well because he has so much of this other business-but this country has its part to do, which it is precluded from doing well because paltry questions of patronage arise and cloud the issues and prevent the elector giving his mind to the great questions and deciding on them. If we could eliminate these questions of patronage, great good would be accomplished. Take the last election in Great Britain not yet ended. It is warmly contested, it is marked by fervour of declamation even by physical force, but in that election there has not been from top to bottom any thought or fight for a single office. The

question who is to be game warden or dock loader or lock-keeper has not intruded itt self in one single instance. The electors have fought the contest out as intelligently as they could, but at least they have fought it out on a question of tariff and free trade, the budget and the lords, home rule, socialism, the navy and other questions of that kind. What would have been the state of things over there if, added to all that, they had all the petty patronage involved in the expenditure of hundreds of millions of pounds to fight out in the general elections? These things are mixed and mingled with our elections and they becloud and vitiate the results. The machinery by which the government is selected is to that degree vitiated and to that extent the administration is weakened. It is weakened by the fact that its attention is monopolized by these matters of patronage and the like to the detriment of important business. Here is where the vital weakness comes in and every government is an illustration of it. Inefficiency, extravagance and corruption creep in everywhere and in every instance the system i3 at the root of the evil. It is not always what is right', but what is expedient that is looked to, and the measure of expediency in the main is how shall it affect our party. The first thing should be what are the interests of the *countrv, and then how can our party be putin line with the interests of the country. What is the position to-day. The question is: How much can we do for the country provided we first make the party solid? Not what is proper, but what is available, not what i3 economical, but what is as economical as it can be made, and at the Bamet time always leave a little dripping for the men who put us where we are.
What defence is there for a system of this kind and why should it continue to exist? I have asked thousands of people and the only answer I ever got was this, that you could not keep the party organized and you could not keep the party joined together unless you had that cement. Well, let me state this, and I believe it to be true, that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, the death of a political party takes place because of the party patronage and the corruption and entanglements that spring from it. Few are the instances where a great policy defeats a party. Numberless are the instances where weakness gradually increasing comes to sap and undermine the power of a party and the government and forces it to give place to another. The cement of patronage is not necessary to keep a party together. I have instanced the	case of Great Britain.
An old member of the British cabinet said to me that in his long experience in public life he had never yet been asked for an office. What a heaven it would be for Mr. FOSTER.
legislators in Canada-I have several of them in my eye now-if they could get into public life and remain in public life and never be pestered with such an adornment as the patronage system tacked on to their political career. In Great Britain to-day you have not the patronage system, but did you ever see a country in which the party organization was more virile, better cemented, more sturdily capable of standing on its own feet than is the case in Great Britain? What is happening in Great Britain to-day? The first elections came on and one side had an enormous advantage. Then came the time for other constituencies to vote. And the people of those constituencies said: Yes, the Liberals are in for another term; but it does not make a bit of difference to us whether we are marching up to defeat or whether we are going on to victory; we are fighting an issue and we fight it to the end. And they fought it, and gained, and gained under an averse majority of the earlier part of the contest, under me knowledge that they could not form a government. That is a splendid tribute to an electorate which fights issues and is not fighting for plunder. In Canada everybody knows that we could not stand that for a single moment. We could not allow a system which put on the elections in certain parts of the country and got their majority, and, through that majority, influence the great mass of the electors yet to be polled. We would say it was unfair, that it was impracticable because of the influence, that the ins, when they wield the patronage system, exert upon the public fortunes of the country. So, I say, it is not necessary to have a patronage system in ordeT to keep the party together. The atmosphere would be infinitely purer, the tone of public life would be infinitely better, if we had this thing purged entirely from the life of the country. We should then have better issues and fight them out on stronger grounds, and, I believe, come to better conclusions and make more progress.
The next question, and the last, is: Can it be removed? The easiest thing in the world. I have been surprised to find how easy it is, in theory. There are some considerations which make it easy. If my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) would rise in his place to-day and say that he believes in the principles of the views I have stated and in the general application of the principles I have enunciated; if he would declare that it would be better if these principles prevailed in the administration of the country, and that he proposed, so far as his government was concerned, to apply these principles-if he should say that, who would oppose him? Would the ministers of the gospel and all the church
2449	JANUARY 26, 1910	2450
forces send deputations here to-morrow in feverish anxiety to say to him:	'For
heaven's sake, don't abolish the patronage system; the cause of Christianity could not flourish if the patronage system were abolished.' Would they do that, Mr. Prime Minister? No; but, from every church court in this country there would come up a cry of thankfulness and praise; there is no doubt about that. The bankers, the business men, the solid yeomanry of the *country, would they send up deputations to-morrow and declare: 'We cannot get along nearly so well; we cannot exist; please do not do that, Prime Minister.' Not one of them. Then, who would do it? Out of seven millions of people in Canada, how many share in the rake-offs? You have one Merwin; and you Have 6,999,999 who have to contribute to Merwin's rake-off. Bunch together all the men who get something out of the patronage system and you have only a little bit of a measly, mean section of the country. On the other side, you haye nineteen-twentieths at least of the people who never wish for and never participate in any drippings or droppings of this kind. The amazing thing is, that when the disparity is so great the infinitesimally small number should still impose itself upon the mass. If to-morrow, the first minister would take his resolution and carry it into effect, I could pledge him that this side of the House would give him support, and we could make the state of things in Canada immeasurably superior to that which now exists.
Now, I have said all I had to say. I have talked of general principles; I have abstained from citing examples


Mr. LOGGIE.: How about Merwin?


George Eulas Foster: If the hon. member wants to know about Merwin


Mr TALBOT.: We know all about that now.


George Eulas Foster: I think you do. We talked a moment about ideals; suppose we state something of what would be a fair ideal for a country and consider whether or not it is worth striving for, in this Canada's twentieth century, on the part of a country which has such a future before it and such immense resources on which to base its anticipations of that future: An ideal state of things when members will be elected on broad issues and personal merits; when the Senate vacancies will be filled on a basis of fitness and representative interest; when prospective judges will not have to earn their seats by party services; when civil servants wTill rely upon their merit and industry and character for their entrance into the service, for promotion in it and for_ permanency; when the public money will be
spent by the government absolutely as trustees for the people on the basis of trusteeship and that alone; when the country will be clad in that dignity of public life, that soundness of public moTals, that wise conduct of public resources which make for national character, national progress and national permanency. Such an ideal is surely well worth an honest and sturdy attempt at realization. To embody in our administration the principle I have tried to advocate would I believe tend greatly to that end.


Mr. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington).: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with the very greatest attention to the remarks which the hon. member from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) has seen fit to address to you, in support of the resolution^ which he has submitted. The language which the hon. member has seen fit to use in framing his resolution has something of an old-time flavour and the remarks which he has seen fit to address to you in support of that resolution have something of the old-time ring. In this House this question, in one form or another, has become a sort of a hardy annual, or perhaps I should say a sort of hardy perennial, which the hon. member for North Toronto, by his eloquence, by his vivid imagination, can cause to blossom forth, either in the bleakest midwinter or in the mildest mid-summer, according to whether the session in the particular year be held early or late. Now, my hon. friend is always most pointed and most expressive in the language which he uses, whether that language be used in debate in this House, or be employed in framing a resolution, and in this respect the present resolution, I think, is no exception to the hon. member's usual custom. It comes before us as an ear-marked resolution, if I may use the expression; and I think the officer of this House who is charged with the pre paration of the order paper, might safely have omitted all reference to the name of that hon. gentleman in connection with this resolution, for the very nature of the language used would indicate its parentage beyond peradventure. When we find such extravagant language in a resolution as is to be found in this one, such language as ' a menace to honest government,' ' great waste and extravagance,' * inevitable corruption,' &c., &c., the authorship of such language is placed beyond doubt, beyond even reasonable conjecture. Now, Mr. Speaker, having regard to the semi-judicial manner in which my hon. friend has seen fit to discuss the resolution though drawn in somewhat extravagant language, in the first place, if I may offer my own opinion, I would say that in form the resolution is somewhat objectionable; perhaps I might also add, coming as it does from my hon. friend from North Toronto, that it is per-

haps a little lacking in good taste. While not desiring to occupy the House at any length upon a discussion of the mere question of form, I cannot refrain from pointing out, before discussing the substance of the resolution, that in form it is nothing short of a direct motion of censure upon the administration, notwithstanding how high and noble, how unpartisan may have been my hon. friend's motives in bringing the general question up for discussion in this House. In thus speaking, of course, I am giving only my own opinion of the matter. I do not know what view the government may take of the motion; but as a humble supporter of the government, I think it my duty to point out that the motion as now framed, the language emnloyed in framing it, constitute a direct censure of the government, upon the business methods of the government employed in its various departments, charging as it does, alleging as it does, that the present patronage system constitutes a menace to honesty that the present system incites to great waste and extravagance, tends inevitably to corrupt and lower the tone of public morals. This motion premises, takes for granted, the existence of this deplorable condition of affairs in the public service of this country. I think the hon. member, by the language he has used, has invited the defeat of his own motion. No self respecting government could accept such a motion, notwithstanding my hon. friend's disclaimer of partisan motives in bringing it forward. I think two or three years ago, in this House, I had occasion to class myself as one of the admirers of my hon. friend who sits on your left hand in this House, Mr. Speaker, one of his few admirers it may be, and I have not yet quite lost admiration for him, notwithstanding that at times I have been somewhat wearied by his extravagant and reckless expressions, notwithstanding that at times I have been somewhat bewildered as to his attitude upon various matters which he brings up for discussion in this House. At the present moment I am in real doubt as to that hon. member's sincerity upon this very question. One is inclined sometimes to look beneath the finished and polished diction, to look under the surface, to search for an ulterior motive; and in-the present instance I am in real doubt as to whether the hon. member's motives in bringing forward this resolution are in reality the betterment or improvement of the public service, or whether he was not actuated by the fact that, such a resolution as this would give him an opportunity to launch one of those embittered, one of those partisan attacks upon the administration so well suited to my hon. friend's training, practice and temperament. If his motive was really the improvement of the public ser-Mr. GUTHRIE.
vice, then I think I can 'safely inform him that he has gone a very bad way about it in placing on the order paper a motion couched in language which may be said to be highly insinuating, if not offensive, a motion which invites its own defeat. If, on the other hand, his object was merely to obtain an opportunity for the delivery of a mortal thrust, a solar plexus blow at the administration, then I think I can inform my hon. friend that he has equally failed in that object. His thrust has fallen far short, his blow has been misdirected, I think probably he has used, in delivering his blow, one of those weapons so well described a few days ago by my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark), as a weapon with a very blunt point and a very sharp handle. In the discussion of this question, I do not think the government need have any misgiving as to where the wound or injury will be found. Now, I do not desire to occupy the House any longer in pointing out what to my mind, is the utter impossibility of any government accepting this resolution without admitting its own incapacity, its own inability, its own unworthiness. I think I can assure my hon. friend that the government and every member of this House are at all times open to suggestions for the betterment or improvement of the public service, I think I could go further and assure him that any suggestion which he has seen fit to make during the course of his remarks of a practical nature for the improvement of the public service, will receive the most careful consideration of the government and of every member of the House.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I propose briefly to justify the present or prevailing system for the transaction of public business in this country, and to justify to a very large extent, at all events, the present method and mode of appointments to public office. I say that the present or prevailing system, while it is certainly not perfect or infallible, while I would not suggest that it is a system which is not open to abuse, not open to irregularity, I say it is the best system which has existed in this country under any government, either before or since confederation. I desire to make plain the fact that in addressing myself to the present system-this motion is directed against the prevailing or present system, not against any past system-it is the present system that I propose to justify so far as I am able to do so, not as a perfect system, but as the best system which has yet been devised.
My hon. friend from North Toronto and myself have certain common grounds of agreement with regard to this question, and we have many erounds of disagreement, but there is one ground upon which, I think, we will both agree, and that is

since confederation, at all events up to the year 1896, when there was a change in the administration, there did exist in this country a patronage system, better known as the spoils system, a system founded on the principle that to the victors belong the spoils. Perhaps beyond the year 1896 my hon. friend and I cannot agree. He certainly has spoken to-day under the impression that that system has been continued in full force, vigour and effect to the present time. I take issue with him in that respect. But we are at one in our ideas with regard to the existence of that system from the time of confederation down until the year 1896, and I do not know any hon. member sitting in this House at the present time who would be better able to give to the House a clear idea of what that system really was, how baneful and iniquitous it was and how disastrous it was in its operation as regards the welfare of this country, than the hon. member for North Toronto, who has just addressed the House. That system, which was introduced at confederation, or perhaps before confederation, was, as I have said, purely and simply the spoils system as it had existed in the United States, a system based on the principle that all government favour, all government office, must go to the political friend and political supporter, a system which, in so far as one's political friends were concerned, was an inclusive system and in so far as the public and political opponents were concerned, an exclusive system. I do not know that in its inception away back in the year 1867 it did have such a baneful effect as it had in later years. That was only during the formative period, one might say. At confederation, I think I am correct in saying, we started out perhaps with the idea that we would not have a political patronage system at all, but in two or three years the government, under the leadership of Sir John Macdonald, abandoned these early ideals and adopted a patronage system applicable both to government contracts and supplies of goods to the government and to appointments to public office. That system was certainly continued by the Mackenzie administration. They went out of power in 1878, but if I remember correctly, or if my information is correct, during the last years of the Mackenzie administration a number of appointments were made, some before the government retired and some shortly after it had retired which were promptly annulled, promptly set aside, when the Conservative administration took power. There was a great outcry in the country, there was a good deal of indignation at what was regarded as the rather high handed procedure of the late Sir John Macdonald, and I suppose that in order to appease public sentiment the government of that day appointed a Civil Service Commission to inquire into the whole system and formulate some rules, some policy which should in future be adopted with regard to the appointments of officials, with the view, I submit, of endeavouring to do away with the so-called party patronage system. Well that commission met. That commission made a report in the year 1882 in favour of the appointment of a Board of Oivil Service Commissioners for the purpose of taking the appointment of public officials out of the hands of the government, or, at all events, of taking it away from party influence. That commission reported in favour of a system of competitive examination. It made several other useful suggestions and among other things it framed a Civil Service Act. Now, the Conservative government was in power from 1878 to 1896. I hope I am well within the mark when I say that they entirely disregarded the suggestions or recommendations which their own commission had made in their report in the year 1882. I judge from the finding of the Civil Service Commission which was appointed in 1892 that while a Civil Service Act was passed in 1882 the amendments which were enacted from year to year were so enacted with the object of doing away with any restrictions which were in the original Act of 1882 as recommended by the commission which Sir John Macdonald's government had appointed. The commission of 1892 found as follows:
This Act, although not going so far in its provisions as was recommended by the commission, has been amended from year to year, with one exception from the time of its being placed on the statute-book until the year 1899, and so far as the commissioners have been able to observe, the amendments in general have trended in the direction Of the relaxation of the provisions of the original Act, and the consequent prevention of its intention from being carried out.
So that after appointing their commission, after receiving its report containing its recommendations, they deliberately set about year after year, until the year 1889, to relax all the restrictions which their own commission had seen fit to impose. Following that came another commission in the year 1892. That commission was granted full powers of inquiry-just as full, complete and ample powers of inquiry as were granted to the commission appointed by the present government in the year 1907. That commission of 1892 took a great deal of evidence, made a very prolonged investigation and subsequently made a report, and in that report they made a number of excellent suggestions, such as a permanent civil service, removing the Civil Service from political influences, taking from it political appointments, competitive examination, a Board of Civil Service Commissioners, and the like. The year 1892 passed and the Con-

servative administration did nothing, 1893 passed and nothing was done, 1894, 1895, and half of 1896 passed and nothing was done, not a single action taken-only a few unimportant amendments proposed by the present Senator Costisran which, I believe, never went into effect and were never passed by the House.
Now, the hon. member for North Toronto was a prominent member of the Conservative administration during a large portion of the time to which I have alluded. I am unable to find in the public records, I am unable to find in any records to which I have had access, that on any occasion my hon. friend from North Toronto, sitting as minister presiding over the departments oveT which at various times he did preside,' at any time took any steps or any action to consolidate or put into legislation those ideals which he has expressed in the House to-day with regard to the question of political appointment to the public service. But political appointment is only one branch of the spoils system as introduced at confederation and as pursued, managed and brought to perfection during the eighteen years of Conservative rule between 1878 and 1896. Perhaps it was one of the least of the features of the spoils system as it then existed. The spoils system under the Conservatives had as its cardinal principle that where public money was to be spent it must be spent among political supporters. There existed in every department of the Conservative administration what was known as a patronage list, kept under lock and key, and upon it was- the name of each government supporter, each true Conservative, with whom the government desired to deal in order that when public money was expended it should reach the pocket of the government supporters to the exclusion of others. In addition to that, they had their middlemen and their commissions and their paid agents. They had all these things during these eighteen years of Conservative rule, all these things which have been so elaborately condemned to-day by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster). Now, was the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) a party to that? Did he go through the whole course of this patronage system from the time he became minister in 1885 until the resignation of the Conservative government in 1896? I say he did. I say he knew of that unjust and iniquitous system being in full operation in the very department over which he presided, and it was a more iniquitous and a more unfair system than has ever existed in Canada since. The tender system in these Conservative days was a perfect farce; it was the semblance of a tender system without the substance. I believe I can prove from documents which I have before me that while the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) was Minister of Marine he knew, Mr. GUTHRIE.
he ought to have known anyway, what was going on in his own department. I believe I can show that notwithstanding warnings to my hon. friend from the Auditor General, from his own deputy minister, from his own purchasing agents, he persisted in the course of party patronage which gave ail the public money spent in his department to his own political friends and supporters. It is a curious thing to listen at this late date to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) delivering a very able.speech from the ideal standpoint as to what this administration should do and as to the form of business administration which Canada should enjoy. I ask my hon. friend the question: Has he any wonder that I, publicly calling myself one of his political admirers, should be somewhat bewildered at the devious course he has seen fit to take during his long experience in public life? I propose to place before the House in concrete form some evidence to support my contention as to the mode of tendering which was in vogue under the Conservative administration. I have only a few of the records, which I take from a return brought down to the House two years ago, and there are only a few because as is well known the records of the Marine and Fisheries Department prior to 1887 were destroyed in the western block tire. The records are, therefore, not nearly as complete as I would like, hut such as they are, I propose to read a few of them. Here is a letter dated the 23rd of April, 1891-that was after my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) ceased to be minister and when Sir Charles H. Tupper was minister, addressed to Mr. J. U. Gregory, purchasing agent of the Marine and Fisheries Department at Quebec, and signed by the deputy minister of the department:
'I have to request you to invite tenders from a number of friends of the government in the trade for the provisions required during the coming season. Ask them their prices of provisions for. the season, and send their tenders here, mentioning all the different articles you require in the different branches of provisions.
(Signed) WM. SMITH.
I read the following dated 24th of April, 1891, addressed to J. H. Harding, Esq., agent of the Marine and Fisheries Department, St. John. New Brunswick, and signed by Wm. Smith, deputy minister:
'Referring to the matter of provisions required the coming season, I have to reauest you to invite tenders from a number of friends of the government in this trade, and ask them for prices for provisions and send their tenders here, mentioning all the different articles you require in the different branches of provisions.
(Signed) WM. SMITH.
Then on the 4th of May of the same year, 1891, the following letter appears addressed

to the Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries, Ottawa, from Mr. Gregory, the agent at Quebec:
Sir,-In conformity with your instructions of the 23r<l ult., I have the honour to report that I called upon all the friends of the government in the trade to send in tenders for the provisions required during the coming season, and to better carry out your orders, I consulted the Hon. Thomas Mc-Greevy and Mr. Chateauvert that I might not commit any error in calling upon the tradesmen in question/
I merely read that to show how hidebound was the system. The agent of the Marine and Fisheries Department was not allowed to use his own discretion as to those who he imagined were Conservative supporters, but to protect himself he called upon two of the sitting members from the province of Quebec to verify his list. The next letter is dated Quebec, the 30th of May, 1891, and it is also from Mr. Gregory, addressed to the Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries:
'Sir,-Referring to your letter of the 27th inst., I have the honour to request that you will please return me the tenders I sent you that I may arrange them in the tabulated form you require. Regarding there being but two grocers, that is due to the fact that there being so few- of them friends of the administration. The same can also be said of dry goods merchants. Besides Lucas and Dion, I called uppn A- Grenier and A. Carvev. Both refused to tender, giving for reasons that they sold at cheap rates and would not make any reduction in their prices nor fix any rates. I will try to get one of them to do so if possible.'
What a farce. Does any one suppose these two men, both no doubt leading Conservatives in the city, did not know who were asked to tender? Why, it was a wide open door for any kind of collusion and dishonesty that any one had any desire to perpetrate on the government. The next letter is of date March 21, 1894, which brings it down near to the date of the general election, and it is addressed to J. U. Gregory, Quebec, and is from the Department of Marine and Fisheries:
'In reply to your letter of the 27th inst., relating to supplies for steamers, I have to inform you that so far as you have gone your action in inviting tenders for heavier staple supplies is approved. You should, however, consult with Mr. Hearn, M.P., as to who should be asked to tender and also inquire of him who he recommends for light supplies that may be ordered from time to time and that are not of sufficient importance to invite tenders for.'
I point out that there is a distinction in these letters, one formula was prescribed for the heavier purchases and the other for the light purchases, and there is good reason for this. The light purchases may be
termed emergency purchases; nobody knows when they will be required, or the quantities in which they will be required, but for the heavy staple purchases which recur annually the system adopted by the old Conservative administration was: We will not trust the agent to do that, but we ourselves will prepare the list of the persons from whom tenders will be asked. And the list is a very circumscribed one, the number is very limited, as I propose to show. In the case of grocery supplies in Quebec I think only two Conservatives were asked to tender for the annual supplies. That was the system of tender which was adopted not only in this department but, I am satisfied, in every other department of the Conservative administration which was a purchaser of goods in any quantity or to any extent. Was my hon. friend a party to it? Did he know about it? Did he administer that pernicious system? I have some public records which I shall lay before the House, in that respect, not all the records I would like to lay before the House, because, as I intimated, the great fire in the western block wiped the slate clear prior to 1887. The first document I submit in order to show the connection of my hon. friend with this iniquitous, this atrocious patronage system which the Conservatives operated in this country for eighteen years, is an extract from the evidence of Mr. Gregory, to be found in volume 8, page 3275, of the evidence taken by Mr. Justice Cassels when conducting his commission of inquiry. It is there stated:
I will produce you letters from tlie different ministers thanking me for the aid I gave them in carrying on the business, from the very first minister of the Marine and Fisheries Department, a Conservative: from the next minister, a Liberal; Mr. Albert Smith, Mr. McClennan, Mr. Pope, and even one from Foster-to the best of my knowledge, the celebrated Foster.
That is the evidence of Mr. Gregory taken from the official report. I have stated and I desire to state it again that my hon. friend while he did preside over the Department of Marine and Fisheries, was warned by the Auditor General that the system of purchasing supplies in that department was not a proper one. He .was warned by his deputy minister that it was an improper system, and by Mr. Gregory, his purchasing agent. I refer to the report of the Auditor General for 1886, and to a communication dated August 31, of that year, as follows:
Sir,-I was recently at Quebec and visited the office of your agent there. I find that the supplies purchased by Mr. Gregory are not obtained under contract, and the prices paid are apparently higher than those which are paid for the same kind of goods purchased for the marine hospital under contract. The difference probably arises from tenders be-

ing called for in the latter case and not in the former.
I beg to request that Mr. Gregory be instructed to call for tenders for all the principal supplies required by him.
That letter must have come in some way or other to the attention of my hon. friend while he was minister in control of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. Did he regard it? Did he carry out the suggestion? I may say not, as later documents will show.
I shall refer again to the report of the Cassels' Commission at volume 5, page 1394: This language, which I now quote, is the language of Mr. Watson, who was the counsel before the commission, and I do not submit it as evidence, but the documents to which he alludes I do submit. Mr. Watson says:
And the correspondence prior to that in the department, your lordship will recollect as a matter of history, was all destroyed in the lire that took place, so that there is really nothing beyond 1887 that is of record. I find they are all of this nature, and just as an illustration I run over a few of these to show your lordship the character of it.
On May 13, 1887, a letter was directed to the Hon. G. E. Foster, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries Department, saying:
My Dear Mr. Foster,-I beg to recommend that the firm of Powers & Co., machinists, Halifax, should be put on the list.
It did not say what list, just should be put on the list.

and receive a share of the work to be
done on all kinds of sheet metal work for steamships, lighthouses, etc.
Yours faithfully
(Signed) T. E. KENNY.
I believe at that time he was the sitting member for Halifax. The note on the foot says:
'Put this on the list.'
(Signed) G. E. FOSTER.
Another note-
Done, and letter written to Mr. Kenny.
That letter was written in 1887, a long time ago, my hon. friends may say, but I am only citing it to show that the system was a complete one, a hard and fast system. Conservatives only could supply goods, but in the first place they must be put on a preferred list at the recommendation of a leading Conservative. When they were placed on that list they were entitled to receive tender papers, to go through the form at least of tendering, and in the end to secure, no doubt, a large share of government money.
There is another letter from Charlottetown, P.E.I., on January 6, 1887, directed Mr. GUTHRIE.
again to my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster). This letter says:
I have to acknowledge your kind note of the 15th ult., and beg to say Mr. Lord has not carried out your instuctions. nor for some reason best known to himself will he do so without a peremptory order. As you will see by reference to the December invoices for supplies to the department here which, T have reason to believe, are very large. I regret to take up one moment of your valuable time, knowing it is occupied with much more momentous matters looking towards Washington, but to the party interests here it is of some little importance.
I am, sir,
Yours respectfully,



W. E. DAWSON,

[Stage Direction]
The note on that letter addressed to my hon. friend is:
Ask Mr. Lord if he has followed out the minister's instructions as to patronage, and why Mr. Dawson has not yet received any order.
This shows that according to the minister's view of the system which then existed, the order should go to Mr. Lord, although the amount spoken of was a large amount, or the order to be given was a large order.
I turn now to a letter written by Mr. Gregory in 1887. I am not very positive at what time my hon. friend was transferred from the Department of Marine and Fisheries to some other department, but I think he was there when this letter was written. It is a letter from Mr. Gregory to the deputy minister, as follows:
October 13, 1887.
Sir,-Referring to your letter of the 11th inst., calling my attention and asking explanation about prices of hay, etc., I have to call your attention to my letter of the 15th Februarv, 1887, and several others on the same subject, supplies. It has long been my humble opinion, and I have no reason yet to change it, that all supplies, of whatsoever nature or kind, should be thrown freely open to public competition and given to the party whose tender would prove most advantageous at fixed prices for one or more years. As the matter has heretofore stood I am ordered to purchase from certain parties who owe this fact entirely to powerful influence: prices, it is true, are fixed for most articles, but it has become the opinion of traders that none but certain friends can get the patronage, whatever political party is in power, Liberal or Conservative. The result is very little competition.
This letter was signed by Mr. Gregory and was evidently laid before the deputy minister. The deputy minister also made a similar recommendation to the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), who was in charge of that department at that date and who disregarded that, as he had disregarded the intimation from the Auditor General.

On January 31, 1887, a telegram was sent addressed to Wm. Smith, Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
I wish that as usual, paint, powder, oils, drugs, common stationery for lighthouses, groceries, hardware aDd dry goods be purchased in Quebec, also provisions at once.
(Sgd.) HECTOR L. LANGEVIN.
On the 5th of February, 1887, a somewhat guarded letter was written by Mr. Foster, to the deputy minister at St. John. He says:
In the matter of Sir Hector's telegram, saying to continue purchase of material for lighthouses as usual in Quebec, keeping the amount purchased small. It is not necessary now to lay in a heavy stock. Stationery must be got at the stationery office. Not necessary to buy paints and oils for lighthouses at present.
This was followed by a telegram from Rothesay, dated February 10, 1887, addressed to Mr. W. Smith:
Continue usual patronage, Baudet and Chinic, Quebec, with conditions as per letter sent concerning Sir Hector's request. Inform Caron.
(Sgd.) G. E. FOSTER.
These letters show that the whole system was one recognized by every branch of the government. We have here recommendations by the then Minister of Public Works, Sir Hector Langevin. We have also a former minister, Sir Adolphe Caron, associated with the system. I think, therefore, I may fairly say that the system, in all its heinousness and iniquity, was recognized as the basic principle for the transaction of general business by the Conservative administration of those days. I submit another note dated 21st April, 1887, a memo marked 'pressing for the minister' :
Please inform me what plan you decide upon Gregory, purchasing supplies as he does not like to purchase now without authority. The best plan in the public interest is to advertise openly for tenders and let all get a chance to state prices for the principal articles.
(Sgd.) WILLIAM SMITH.
The next is a memo for the Minister of Marine and Fisheries relating to the purchase of supplies at Quebec:
Mr. McGreevy has handed in the accompanying list of names, whom he recommends should receive patronage at Quebec in the purchase of supplies. With reference to the first list marked for tenders he recommends that tenders should be asked from the different parties mentioned therein when any articles are required.
With reference to the second list he recommends that these persons should be employed if their services are required or that supplies should be purchased from them without tender. as it would be difficult to make contracts
for these articles mentioned in the second list.
(Sgd.) WILLIAM SMITH.
April 22, 1887.
This is marked 'minister approves' and signed W. S. 20th April, 1887.
That approval was given to Mr. Mc-Greevy's list after the Auditor General's letter had been sent the minister and after the agent at Quebec and the deputy minister had reported against the system. Mr. Thomas McGreevy simply sent to the department a list of Conservative supporters and said: Here is the list of those who are to be asked to tender for the larger contracts, and here is a list of those from whom you are to buy the smaller amounts; and the minister marked on that list 'approved' and that minister is my hon. friend the member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster).
Mr. THOBURN.: Might I put a question on behalf of the new _members of this House? Are we to take it for granted that the reading of these letters, written by men who are dead and gone years ago, justifies the deplorable patronage system of the present day?


Hugh Guthrie: I trust my hon. friend from Lanark (Mr. Thoburn) will remain and listen to the balance of my remarks because I think he will very fairly get from them justification for any system which exists to-day.


Mr. CROCKET.: Can the hon. gentleman, cite any case from the records showing that the Conservative government was buying thousands of dollars of hardware from dentists or letting contracts for masonry work and carpentering to managers of railways?


Hugh Guthrie: 1 do not know that I can find any cases precisely similar to the ones mentioned by my hon. friend, but I have some that come so near them that I think he will admit the principle is the same. The svstem was by no means discontinued when the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) went into another department-I think the Department of Finance. In the Department of Marine and Fisheries he was succeeded by Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper, and there can be no doubt that while the iniquitous system flourished to the fullest extent, under the administration of my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster), it still continued to flourish to the same extent under his successor. Let me quote another instance from page 1295 of Vol. V of the reports of the Cassels Commission. There I find a letter dated 17th March, 1892, saying:
Sir Adolphe Caron recommends the name of Mr. Samuel J. Shaw, hardware merchant,

Quebec, to be placed on the patronage list of the department.
This is signed by C. H. Tupper, who was then Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and underneath his signature are the words 'inform agent', signed by the deputy minister.
On the 8th of March, 1892, there is a letter to Mr. Gregory:
I have to instruct you to place the name of Mr. S. J. Shaw, hardware merchant of Quebec, on the list of those entitled to receive the patronage of the department.
That is signed Wm. Smith, deputy minister. Here is a letter written in May, 1892:


Mr.  H. F.@: McDougall, M.P., recommends that the North Sydney ' Herald ' receive such advertisements of the department as concern Cape Breton Island, Antigonish and Guysbor-ough.
(Sgd.) C. H. TUPPER.
The note to that is:
Mr. Alexander keep this in mind.
(Sgd.) WM. SMITH, Deputy Minister.
I find another letter dated 26th January, 1895, coming to the close of the Conservative regime, addressed to the Hon. John Costi-gan, then the minister of that department:
My Dear Colleague,-I beg to recommend Mr. Octave Plant, tinsmith, 160 St. Johns street, Quebec, as worthy of getting a portion of the patronage of the Marine Department at Quebec. He has always been an ardent supporter of the party.
There is a note at the end of the letter saying: 'That shall be done.'
I submit another document taken from the file, included in the returns to the House, marked, ' provision for steamers.' I submit this to show that right until the eve of the general elections of 1896, this system continued in full force. A few weeks before that general election I find the following memorandum marked ' provisions for steamers:
Last year tenders were initiated by letter for fresh and salt meat, fresh and salt fish, flour, barley, rice, apples and vegetables. Smaller articles than groceries were obtained without tender at the lowest possible prices.
This plan worked well.
Mr. Turcotte, M.P., has recommended Napoleon Moffet at Quebec for supplying groceries. Mr. Moffet can have an opportunity of tendering for provisions and staple or heavy articles.
As to small supplies, Mr. Gregory can order a share from Mr. Moffet, if approved.
(Sgd.) WM. SMITH.
In the margin there i3 the following note:
Carry this out again. Explain to Mr. Turcotte.
(Sgd.) C. H. T.


Hugh Guthrie: And in the margin beneath there is still another note:
Yes, but ask Mr. Gregory to consult Mr. Hearne, M.P., as well.
(Sgd.) C. H. T
This last letter regarding Sir Hibbert Tupper's administration, is the one I referred to a moment ago, dated 20th, 1896,. when he was Solicitor General:
Liberal-Conservative Committee Rooms, Pictou, April 28, 1896.
My Dear Sir Hibbert,-The central committee would direct your attention to the rumour that the steamship ' Stanley ' may go again this year to Charlottetown to be fitted out, and would ask you to use your influence to hold her at Pictou and have her fitted out here this year.
Yours sincerely,
(Sgd.) J. A. GORDON,
Secretary.
Then there is beneath that letter this note:
Please prevent this. In my day this work was done at Pictou. It should not go to a Grit county now.
(Sgd.) C. H. T.
That is the principle upon which the business of the administration was carried on. And what did it lead to? I have here such a cumbrous file of documents relating to this matter that I cannot hope to place all before the House. Perhaps if I quote a few that will be sufficient. For instance, I submit a letter dated 6th April, 1896-almost at the time of the change of government. This is addressed to Hon. John Costigan, now senator, who at that time presided over the department.
My Dear Costigan,-I troubled you last year about a small contract for paints in favour of J. P. Dodds & Co. They received a small share of your department's patronage. It is but natural that they look for an increase of business with you as they lead the trade here. As I told you last year, Mr. Taylor, who is actually in possession of the whole concern, is one of us in the most intimate sense of the words good, donator, sterling and honest. He will never deceive your department. I am invited every week, I may say, to send recommendations to you for friends. The present is, as you know, the sole exception to my uniform answer of refusal, because I attach a great importance to it.
Yours truly,



ARTHUR GAUVREAU.

[Stage Direction]
Further on in the documents you find that contracts for paints and oils were awarded and went to J. P. Dodds & Company, just as requested by Mr. Gauvreau.
I find a striking instance of the employment of the middle-man and a man who, I think, was not in the trade. I refer to this because of the question asked me by my hon. friend from York, New Brunswick,

(Mr. Crocket). It is a long story, but there are parts which, at all events, I can lay before the House to some advantage. It is in connection with a man, probably well known to my hon. friend, Mr. J. H. Hamilton. Mr. Hamilton lived, I think, at St. John. He was at one time in the dry goods business, but quit the firm of which he had been a member and subsequently became a middle-man as between the government and another firm. Positive instructions were given time and again, by a very prominent man in New Brunswick-none other than Mr. J. Douglas Hazen-to send orders through Mr. Hamilton. I will talk about this Hamilton transaction just for a lew moments. The first document I submit is the following:
Ottawa, March 8, 1892.
Hon. C. H.: Tupper,
Minister of Marine and Fisheries,
In case your department at St. John find it necessary to purchase any dry goods there, 1 beg to recommend that a fair share be given to Messrs. Welsh, Hunter & Hamilton, who are staunch and loyal friends of yours.
Yours faithfully,



J. DOUGLAS HAZEN.

[Stage Direction]
The next document is as follows:
March 18, 1892.
J. H. Harding, Esq.,
Agent of Marine, St. John, N.B.
Sir,-I have to inform you that Mr. J. D. Hazen, M.P., has recommended that a fail-share of the patronage of the department in the purchase of dry goods required by your agency be given to Messrs. Welsh, Hunter & Hamilton, of St. John, N.B.
I am sir, your obedient servant,

Oswald Smith Crocket: Does the hon. member say that this firm were not in the trade?


Hugh Guthrie: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Crocket) will allow me, he will see what I am coming to. I say he was not in the trade when he got the order.


Oswald Smith Crocket: That firm was in the trade.


Hugh Guthrie: The hon. member will see from the letters I shall quote that what I say is accurate. The next letter is one from Mr. J. Douglas Hazen addressed to Hon. C. H. Tupper, and dated January 3, 1893:
Yours of 31st ulto., with memo concerning the purchase of dry goods in St. John duly received. It says that Mr. Harding has been directed to purchase supplies in St. John for the North Shore of N.B. when required instead of buying them in Newcastle and some of them might be purchased from Welsh, Hunter & Hamilton, before any tenders are invited. Is it asking too much to request you to instruct your officer in St. John to purchase all of those supplies from Welsh, Hunter & Hamilton; provided they will supply them at reasonable prices. I am satisfied
they will do so. I would suggest in the future that you decide upon what is a fair price to pay for cottons, flannels, towelling and duck required at the lighthouses-
That becomes important in view of further correspondence.
-and divides the purchases at the price you determine upon between Macaulay Brothers & Company, and Welsh, Hunter and Hamilton, This arrangement will be very satisfactory, and I am satisfied the interests of the department will not suffer.
Yours faithfully,



J. D. HAZEN.

[Stage Direction]
The next letter is dated February 14th, 1893, and is addressed to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries:
You wrote me on the 20th instant that, acting upon my recommendation, you had instructed your agent at St. John to purchase drygoods, supplies, to as great an extent, as possible from Welsh, Hunter and Hamilton at St. John. Since then a change has taken place in the firm, and I now request that you wire direct your agent to purchase from Geo. H. McKay, giving the order to James H. Hamilton, who is now associated with him.
Yours faithfully,

[Stage Direction]
The following letter dated 17th February, 1893, from William Smith to J. H. Harding also appears:
You are now instructed to purchase the supplies from Mr. Geo. H. McKay, giving the order to Janies H. Hamilton, who is associated with Mr. McICay.
Now, how did this employment of Mr. Hamilton work out? I am not going to read all the intervening letters between 1893 and 1895; there are many of them but they are all pretty much to the same effect. But in 1895, Mr. P. Harty, inspector of the Marine and Fisheries Department made an inspection, and in his report he said:
While on this inspection tour I obtained samples of grey cotton, cotton ticking, grey flannel and linen towelling purchased for the season's supplies, which samples are hereto attached. The prices charged are excessive and the quality of goods obtained are not of the best kind. The goods were supplied by Mr. J. H. Hamilton, St. John, I believe he is not in the business but procures the goods from wholesale houses, I presume, in the city.
And in the same report very unfavourable comment is made concerning another firm, Messrs. J. A. Estey & Company, who had been placed upon the patronage list also at the request of Mr. J. Douglas Hazen for the supply of soaps to the department. And, notwithstanding the adverse report of their own inspectors in May, 1895, in subsequent years further orders were as regularly sent as before to Mr. Hamilton and to Messrs. Estey & Company at the
[Stage Direction]
request of Mr. Hazen. I have here about a hundred letters relating to these matters, but it is not necessary to place more of them on the records of the House. But here is a letter with regard to the meat supply in New Brunswick. I read this because there seems to have been a real kick by some Conservatives in regard to the supply of meat. First there is a letter addressed by Hon. Charles Hibbert Tup-per to J. Douglas Hazen, dated 28th December, 1892, stating that at his request, Mr. McGonnigle had been placed on the patronage list. Then there is a long letter addressed to Mr. Costigan, dated May 14th, 1892, which I will read. The letter is addressed to the Hon. John Costigan, acting Minister of Marine, Ottawa, and is dated May 12th, 1893:
I wish to say that I have been engaged in the fresh meat and grocery business for over twenty years, I have had the honour of meeting you on two occasions, though perhaps you cannot recall me now. I have supported the Liberal-Conservative party since 1878, from conviction. Immediately after that election, Sir Leonard Tilley instructed the Department of Public Works and the Fisheries to give me a proportional share of the supplies required for government vessels.
Later on I was recommended by C. E. Everett and Hon. Geo. E. Foster. I have got very little in the past, in proportion to what others got, through the efforts of the wire pulling here, and there are none among them more deserving than myself from a party standpoint. I wish to inform your honour that the Marine Department has asked the friends of the party in the meat business to tender for the supplies. Messrs. Dean & O'Neal, two very selfish gentlemen, cut the price down, so that there is nothing in it, and there they have recourse to furnishing an inferior article. I was side-tracked last year on one-half cent per pound, and I have put in a tender this year for 8 cents for beef, which is a very moderate price. I have not heard whether my tender was lowest or not. If those men go below that, they will resort to boodling, as they have done in the past, by cutting the better portions of the beef off and sending the inferior. I did not anticipate anything like that when I tendered, though it was done to my own knowledge.
My main object in troubling you with this communication is to inform you how the matter of supply is regarded by those who tender, including myself, that is that the meat supply should be equally divided amongst us, by the department here. It would be better for all concerned to give more general satisfaction. I cherish the hope that your honour will favourably consider that view.
I am your obedient servant,
(Signed) TIMOTHY DONOVAN.
Bo the matter went on in St. John in regard to the meat supply. But Mr. Donovan was a hard man evidently to satisfy.
Hugh Guthrie: On June 9, 1903, another letter is addressed to the Hon. Mr. Costigan:
I beg leave to acknowledge the receipt of your kind favour of May 29th in reply to mine with reference to supplying the steamer * Lansdowne ' with fresh meat and provisions. At the time I wrote you the tenders for the supply were not received, but have been since, and the tender of Thomas Dean, for six and a half cents per pound for beef has been accepted. Mr. Dean's acquisition to the party is of very recent date. He and all belonging to him were Liberals. He has a brother-in-law in King's county who votes for Mr. Foster, and by that means he was asked to tender for the supply. The first year his figure was 10 cents per lb. and he said he could not do it less. Mr. Godsoe and myself got it that year, our figures were 9 cents. He dropped six and a half cents per pound and yet no change in the price of beef. The others and myself are put out at that price, for beef fit to be furnished to that vessel rates here from 7 cents to 81 cents. About half the beef that Mr. Dean furnished on her first trip was returned by the captain. I saw it, and it was the class of meat that would be furnished to the almshouse or to the Kingston penitentiary under contract.


Mr. HUGHES.: He is a Liberal.


Hugh Guthrie: Not according to_ Mr. Hazen, he was put on at Mr. Hazen's request. Further, he says:
This spring I furnished a small portion of supplies to the ' Curlew ' while she was being repaired, but when she was going away Mr. Dean got the supply of it. I have spoken to the city members, Messrs. Hazen and McLeod. Mr. Hazen asked me what would be done in the matter, and I said to divide the supply equally between us at 8 cents. Mr. Hazen said that would be his view and would write you with a view to having it done.
I have the honour to be,
Your obedient servant, (Sgd.) TIMOTHY DONOVAN.
That letter is addressed to the Hon. John Costigan, at that time Minister of Marine and Fisheries in the Conservative administration. I do not know the politics of any of these men, I assume they were at that time pretty straight.


Mr. DANIEL.: I may say to the hon. gentleman that several of the names he has mentioned as seeking patronage at that time from the Conservative government are now obtaining the same patronage from the Liberal party, and are Liberals.


Hugh Guthrie: If they are, they are obtaining it by fairer means. Then Mr. Dean mu3t have been asked to explain, and his explanation is as follows:
St. John, June 24, 1893.
Sir,-Yours of the 22nd to hand regarding meat supplied by me on June 3. My man sent some beef through mistake that did not belong to me. When I found the mistake I

had it corrected. About meat, on the 15th the carcass of beef weighed 600 lbs., so yon see it could not be so thin as represented. There are many of my friends who like a larger margin on their goods than I do, and I think in all probability through them the comnlaints are raised. About the cut meat the day I sent it was a day when fresh quarters of beef are not to be had. Some of our lukewarm Conservatives who modestly sold themselves for a part of the steamers supplies feel quite sore.
Yours very trulv,
(Sgd.) T. DEAN.
Then comes a further letter to Mr. Donovan, after a great many letters seem to have passed between Mr .Costigan and Mr. Hazen. Here is a letter addressed to Mr. Hazen, I do not know how it got on the files. It is dated St. John, West End, March 2, 1896, and is signed by Timothy Donovan:
Dear Friend,-I received a note from the agent of the minister of marine here statins, that the department had agreed to allow 7 cents per lb. for all kinds of fresh meat furnished to government steamers. I wish to say that is a starvation price, no good meat can be furnished at that price.
Later on:
I asked that the department allow 9 cents for all meats which is a fair price, $1.50 per barrel for potatoes, and 60 cents a bushel for all other vegetables, price paid last year, and to divide the trips equally among the friends by giving to each one what the boat would want for the trip. That will give satisfaction all round. If vou will please suggest to the minister the advisability of carrying out the above you will please all the friends here, and I will bless you with the only blessing J can give, the full power of my larynx and energetic hustling at the polls.
Faithfully yours,
(Sgd.) TIMOTHY DONOVAN
And so the letters go, fifty or a hundred more, which I do not need to read to the House. My only object is to show to what extent the evil of patronage had permeated the whole business system of the late Conservative administration, and how that evil patronage system existed under the very eye, - and management, and control of my hon. friend from North Toronto, and he never raised his voice in protest. Now, Sir, it is well known that when the change of government took place in 1896, there were conditions existing in Canada which called for treatment at the hands of the in-coming administration. I do not say that the government may not be open to some criticism for having neglected, during a number of years, the question of patronage, and the mode in which goods were supplied to the government. They carried out the old Conservative system far too long, in my estimation. But this may be offered, I take it, by way of excuse, by way of palliation, that the system was inherited by
them, they did not make it, they did not inaugurate it, it was there, operated by the Conservatives. They had before them the report of the Civil Service Commission of 1892 saying that, so far as the commissioners were able to find, the business was being fairly well conducted, the officials were performing their duties; and two departments in particular, the Marine and Fisheries Department and the Militia Department. which subsequently came in for some vigorous treatment, were specially mentioned by the commissioners in 1892 as being well conducted. The government, having a great many very important measures to deal with, might well overlook the question of patronage, for a few years, at all events. The government had, in the first place, to look after the condition of the country-trade stagnant and declining, markets cut off and new markets to'be sought, tariffs to be revised, the gold excitement in the west to be provided for, the South African war, the construction of the Transcontinental railway, the establishment of the two new provinces-these were works of great magnitude which the government had to undertake, and for some years no doubt the government did allow the old Conservative system to remain in the various departments in connection with the transaction of public business. There is this also to be said, that the government, by its own motion, unasked by any one, undertook to remedy the defect, and after having found a remedy, has been the first government, so far as I have been able to find, in Canada that ever applied a remedy with any idea of effecting a cure.
In the spring of 1907 the government certainly became aware there were irregularities, that there was wrong-doing in connection with some of the departments. Whether that knowledge was gained by the government on account of disclosures in the Public Accounts Committee or not I cannot say, but certainly it is that in the month of May, 1907, the government, of its own motion, appointed a commission of investigation, not only into the circumstances of the Civil Service, but also to look into the methods adopted by the various departments. The powers given to the commissioners were of the widest, just as full and wide as were the powers given to the commission of 1892, but there is this difference between the two commissions. The commission of 1892 deliberately refused to examine into the business transactions of the various departments, stating in the first page of their report that they refused to do so, while the commission of 1907 deliberately set about such an examination, and I think it is wrell that they did set about it. During the following year the commission reported that certain abuses existed. I need not go over them; they

are all familiar to the hon. members of this House. That commission made certain specific recommendations, many of which recommendations have since been carried into effect. Some of the recommendations it made I may refer.to briefly. In the first place, it made suggestions as to the mode of dealing with estimates by committees of the House of Commons, proposing that the English system be adopted. I believe that that question is one which in all probability will come up at a very early date. It is a question which should come up because I am satisfied that a better system could be adopted with regard to estimates and the expenditure of money, not in the departments, but in this House and in the committees of this House. A second recommendation was that stringent measures should be taken to suppress those abuses which they found existed in one or two of the departments and to punish the offenders. The government has taken action in that regard. It introduced an amendment to the Criminal Code to meet the views of the commissioners, amendments similar to those to be found in the English Act called ' An Act for the prevention of corruption ' passed in 1906 by the imperial House. The next recommendation of the commissioners was for the removal of the Civil Service from political influences. The first step ever taken in this country in this regard was taken by this government within the last year or eighteen months. The commission recommended the appointment of a Civil Service Board. That has been established, the inside service has been placed under that board and I for one look forward to the day, and at no distant time, when, I believe, that Act will be made applicable to the major portion of the outside service. That commission further recommended the abolition of the patronage lists in the various departments.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Has that been carried out?	' !


Hugh Guthrie: Yes. I am going to say that in so far as it is possible to carry out the recommendation in that respect It has been carried out and there i3 no patronage list, either under the name of a patronage list or under any other name, existing today 'in any department of the present government.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I would like to hear a minister say that.


Hugh Guthrie: Perhaps you will hear that too. All the recommendations of a practical kind that could be carried out have been carried out by the government. We have now just such a service, just such a business administration as this commission suggested. But, further than that, we had the report of Mr. Justice Cassels. His recommenda-Mr. GUTHRIE.
tions were largely a reiteration of the suggestions of the previous commission with one addition. Mr. Justice Cassels suggested that in addition to the other recommendations the government should establish a purchasing board which should purchase all the supplies of the different departments of the government. That board has not been constituted. That recommendation has not been carried out. It may be in the future, but another system has been instituted, and one which I think is giving entire satisfaction, or has, at all events, given entire satisfaction up to the present time. That is the appointment of responsible persons to act as purchasing agents in each of the great purchasing or spending, departments. Whether a board of three, or four, or five individuals with authority to make all the purchases would be better than one, two or three individual purchasing agents for the various departments is a matter upon which there may be two opinions. Personally I prefer the form adopted by the government and to-day in the Department of Railways and Canals you will find that every five cents worth of goods purchased in that department, the largest spending department in the administration, is purchased through a single man, Mr. Lavoie, the purchasing agent. What is the principle adopted? Let me say, in the first place, that about a year ago positive instructions were given for the abolition of the patronage list. I can only take the word of Mr. Lavoie, who appears to be a most upright and intelligent man and he assures me, and other officials assure me on their honour, that no such thing exists in that department to-day, and that no favour is shown to Liberal or Conservative with respect to any purchase that may be made. That is the principle upon which purchases are made and the only purchases which are not made in that way in the great department of Railways and Canals are what might be termed emergency purchases, because you cannot devise a system which can provide, in the case of a broken lock or a broken pane of glass, that you shall go out and get competitive prices.


John Waterhouse Daniel: How about advertising in the newspapers?


Hugh Guthrie: I am coming to that, too, and I think I will be able to satisfy my hon. friend upon that. But, in so far as the supplies required in that department are concerned, the money expended for supplies is all expended under a system of public tender. There was a recommendation which I am going to place before the House which has been fully carried out, except in one particular, a recommendation by Mr. Butler, who until recently was a very able officer of the present government. He stated on the 27th Novem-

ber, 1908, about eighteen months ago, in a letter addressed to Mr. Pottinger, the general manager of the Intercolonial railway:
Ottawa, Out., November 27, 1908.
Sir, Ike question of purchasing supplies for the works under your control has been receiving the careful attention of the honourable tho minister, and he has decided that the so-called patronage list, which, so far as this department is concerned, has hitherto embraced a large list of responsible firms that have been recommended to the government, should be revised to the end that the officers in charge shall have in their possession a full list of reputable manufacturers, wholesale merchants and representatives of foreign houses, from whom quotations may be secured on any supplies required for the public service.
You will be good enough to make up a list of firms from the list you now have, and that of any other firms of good standing, irrespective of politics, who will hereafter be asked for bids on any material that may be needed for each kind or class of supplies you have been in the habit of buying, to cover all the requirements of the several departments.
All large contracts will, as heretofore, be dealt with by public tender and advertisement, either through certain newspapers, by poster, or by circular letter, as may be found most suitable, having regard to the cost of the work and expense of advertising.
This is a portion that I ask the House to note:
In dealing with large quantities of supplies, such as are involved in the store tenders of the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island railways, I am inclined to think it is desirable that tenders should be called for bv public advertisement in such newspapers as will likely reach the parties interested, or in the Official Gazette, so as to get the greatest competition possible.
If you have a limited patronage list in existence, anywhere in your service, it is to be done away with, and supplies of a suitable quality are to be secured at the best prices possible, irrespective of any political consideration.
I am, yours faithfully.
(Sgd.) M. J. BUTLER.
Deputy Minister and Chief Engineer.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What is the date of that?


Hugh Guthrie: November 27, 1908. That is the system that has been utilized since these instructions were issued by the Deputy Minister of the Department of Railways and Canals. I have a few samples of the manner of proceeding. One of the largest purchases by the department is certainly in the matter of hardware. How is that gone about? In the first place, the hardware requisition is not made out in Ottawa, but it comes from Moncton, stating what hardware will be required


Mr. CROSBY.: The hon. gentleman has made great assertions here, and I would ask 79



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
him can he give us some case where the government or the country has suffered on account of the patronage system under the Conservatives. He has shown that the patronage system existed, but I want him to show me a case which will show that the government suffered by paying a high price for any article.
Hugh Guthrie: Does the hon. member mean in recent years.


Adam Brown Crosby: I don't mean recent years. I know about that myself.


Hugh Guthrie: Then I would refer the hon. member to the debates of the session of 1891, and the proceedings before the Public Accounts Committee.


Adam Brown Crosby: If the hon. gentleman has the evidence before him I would ask him to name one single instance.


Hugh Guthrie: I could, for example, mention the Langevin Block and the Curran Bridge.


Adam Brown Crosby: That was tender and contract and not patronage.


Hugh Guthrie: I have only a short while more to speak before six o'clock, and I cannot go into every instance of this kind that happened under the Conservative government. I have mentioned one or two cases to the hon. member and I have referred him to the documents where he can get further information if he wants to. In calling for tenders for hardware the requisition comes from Moncton, where the list is made, it is revised there, it is again revised in Ottawa by the deputy minister, and it then goes to the purchasing agent, who has a general knowledge of the requirements of the department, and of the prices of the various articles. The call for tenders is not published in the newspapers. It has been thought by the various officers of the department that a better system than newspaper publication is to ask for tenders, send the specifications to every reputable dealer whose name appears in the directories, and that includes practically every man in the trade from western Ontario to the sea. I believe dealers living west of Ontario are not notified because probably freight rates would prohibit them from competing. The order for hardware is a very large one and there are a great many people in Canada engaged in manufacturing and wholesaling and retailing the different articles required. The hardware specification was directed last year to about 360 prominent firms. I have a list here which I have not time to read, but it can be analysed by any one who wishes to. I notice that there are on the list about 60 firms in the city of Montreal, nine or ten in Halifax, 20 or 25 in St. John.



EDITION.

John Waterhouse Daniel: Please read these for St. John?


Hugh Guthrie: The St. John list includes: J. & D. R. Burpee, T, McAvity & Sons, The James Robertson Co., Robertson, Foster, & Smith, Estey & Co., James Pender & Co., the Josiah Fowler Co., the Barrie. Supply Co., the Maritime Art Glass Co., Campbell Brothers, the Portland Rolling Mills Co., Linton & Sinclair Co., the Imperial Oil Co., the Canadian Oil Co., Ltd., Gandy & Allison, the Maritime Nail Co., the Canadian Fairbanks Co., the McClary Manufacturing Co., D. Campbell & Co. Scattered through the list there are one or two more but the names are not collected under the heads of cities, and so I cannot give them.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Then I may inform the hon. gentleman that the largest hardware firm in the city of St. John is not mentioned.


Hugh Guthrie: Perhaps it is mentioned in some other part of the list.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Mr. W. H. Thorne & Co.


Hugh Guthrie: I think I have come across the name of W. H. Thorne & Co., whether in the hardware schedule or in some of the others. But at all events when you take about 360 representative hardware firms from western Ontario to Halifax you have about covered the whole ground, and every one of these firms is sent a printed specification and a form of tender and notification is given them that they are entitled to tender for the whole or any part of the list.


George Eulas Foster: Is the paper which the hon. gentleman has in his hands a return brought down to parliament?


Hugh Guthrie: No. It is the result of an inquiry of mine to the purchasing agent asking for the names of the firms who were asked to tender for the goods last year.


George Eulas Foster: The hon. gentleman will have no objection to place it on the table of the House?


Hugh Guthrie: Not the slightest.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Did I understand the hon. gentleman to say this list was furnished to the purchasing agent or to Mr. Pot-tinger from Ottawa?


Hugh Guthrie: As I understand it the purchasing agent at Ottawa goes to the directories and compiles a list of all the leading firms in these particular trades, irrespective entirely of politics or the dictation of any individual.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I thought I heard the hon. gentleman say that the list which was formerly in vogue at Ottawa had been passed down to Mr. Pottinger with instructions to add to it.


Hugh Guthrie: 


Hugh Guthrie: No. I think my hon. friend has reference to the letter of Mr. Butler to Mr. Pottinger saying that if he had such a list he was to add to it the names of all reputable firms. I submit that this list brings into full force and effect all the advantageous points in connection with the tender system. It may be argued that the tenders should be advertised in the public press and Mr. Butler has suggested in his letter to Mr. Pottinger that they might as an alternative be published in the ' Canada Gazette,' but the people do not look for such advertisements in the ' Canada Gazette,' at the present time, and I do not think that course would be of much use. But if it became known throughout Canada that such advertisements would appear in the ' Canada Gazette,' then I suppose prominent business men and contractors might search its columns. Now, I take the next item, the item of lumber.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Does the hon. gentleman know if any tenders have been called for under the new system he has referred to?


Hugh Guthrie: After the abolition of the patronage list I understand that specifications were forwarded to all the names on this list. I am informed by Mr. Lavoie, and I believe what he says, that in every case the lowest tender was accepted irrespective altogether of the political leanings of the tenderer.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I do not think there is a Conservative amongst the whole lot of the names the hon. gentleman read from the city of St. John.


Hugh Guthrie: I am assured by a friend from the province of New Brunswick that this is a thoroughly representative list of the hardware and oil men of the city, and so in regard to Montreal, and so in regard to Toronto. I know more about Toronto than I do about St. John, and I know that on this Toronto list there appear the names of Rice, Lewis & Co., Samuel Benjamin & Co., Howland & Sons, and others, many of whom are Conservatives.


George Eulas Foster: Would the hon. member read the names on that list from Halifax?


Hugh Guthrie: The names from Halifax are: A. N. Bell & Co., Austin Brothers, Wm. Robertson & Son, Cragg Brothers & Co., Kelly's Ltd., J. E. Albro, W. B. Arthur. These are all that are grouped together in the list but there may be others here and there. At all events I will lay the list on the table and my hon. friend can see.


Adam Brown Crosby: Is that the new list you are reading from?


Hugh Guthrie: This is the last list upon which tenders were asked as I understand.


Adam Brown Crosby: Will you read the list before that?	_


Hugh Guthrie: I have not got it.


Adam Brown Crosby: I wish you would read it.


Hugh Guthrie: Well, if I have not got it I cannot read it, and I have had enough papers to bring here without thinking of bringing every paper which the hon gentleman might think of asking for. At any rate, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Crosby) should not suggest wrong-doing; if he has anything to say let him say it.


Adam Brown Crosby: I would ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Guthrie)-


Hugh Guthrie: I must appeal for order. I want to get through and I have been delayed.


Adam Brown Crosby: If my hon. friend cannot answer the question he may go on.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Hugh Guthrie: I now take up the question of lumber. This is also a very large item in connection with the Department of Railways and Canals. The advertisements for lumber supplies are given in the following way:	Half sheet posters calling for
tenders accompanied by specifications are conspicuously posted at every station on the Intercolonial railway between Montreal and Halifax, and at every station in Prince Edward Island. In the province of Quebec, whole sheet posters printed in English and French, are posted and also the specifications.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is that done in the case of hardware?


Hugh Guthrie: I think not. That specification and notice is likewise mailed to over 200 prominent lumber dealers throughout eastern Canada. The list of lumber dealers who were asked to tender in regard to the last purchases of lumber embraced something over 200 names. I am not familiar with the names or political leanings of the firms who were asked to tender, but I shall lay the list on the table. This list, I believe, has been prepared likewise directly on the instructions of Mr. Lavoie without any dictation from anybody, without any patronage list and without the slightest reference to the political leanings of the parties to whom invitations to tender have been sent. When these tenders are received they are kept sealed in accordance with the order in council passed a year ago last December. They are opened in the presence of the minister and one other chief official, or, in the absence of the minister, in the presence of two chief officials of the department in accordance with order in council. In every instance the lowest tender has been accepted, irrespective of what the 79i
politics of the tenderer might be. But there is this to be said, that the quality and quantity must be up to standard in every instance. This lumber, as received, is all inspected before it goes into stock. That inspector's report goes to Mr. Lavoie, the purchasing agent, and it is checked over with his list. The result is that the purchasing agent in Ottawa can tell you precisely the condition of stores as regards hardware, lumber, ties, or any other commodity in which the railway deals at his office in Ottawa up to two or three days before the time when he is asked for the information. In the case of lumber, the inspector is Mr. Wm. Powell, a brother of Mr. H. M. Powell, formerly a Conservative member of this House. He has seen this list, but I do not know whether or not he has taken any exception to it. That is the mode in which every dollar's worth of lumber used by the department was purchased last year.
In regard to the purchase of ties, the purchasing agent is in sole control of the situation. He receives his requisition as in the former case, he goes over his requisitions carefully, draws his advertisements and specification and the advertisement for ties is posted in every railway station on the Intercolonial railway, just as in the case of lumber. I do not think it appears in any newspaper. Again, it is sent to a large number of individual lumbermen and contractors, accompanied of course by the specification. When the ties are received, they are all inspected as to quality and quantity before they are accepted. In each instance the lowest tender is accepted, and perhaps as one evidence of the way the system is working out, I may say that, out of a large number of tenders received and accepted last year, 41,000 ties were supplied by tender by Mr. F. W. Sumner, at Moncton, th.e Conservative candidate at the last general election, he being the lowest tenderer. I merely state that to show that the system now in force is to ask all parties to tender if they desire.
A somewhat different course is pursued with regard to the purchase of machinery. That is rendered necessary on account of the quality of goods required. Some machinery can only be purchased from single firms, some is covered by patent and can only be made by certain firms; but any ordinary machinery is purchased by direct appeal to the manufacturer. No middleman is employed. Manufacturers' agents are consulted, of course, that is done in regard to every trade, but the appeal or invitation to tender is sent direct to the firm. The specification accompanies the invitation, and I have here a list of machinery manufacturers who were asked to tender for the machinery purchased last year. That list embraces from 75 to 100 names.

covering practically the continent of America, not being confined to the Dominion of Canada.
Tenders for bar iron and steel are treated a little differently again, the specification being made out according to requisition received in Moncton and the leading firms in the production of bar iron all being asked to tender. There are nine on the list, I do not know their political leanings. These nine firms were all asked for prices on bar iron and the lowest tender was accepted. So with the tenders for paints and colours, brushes and brooms and rubber goods, all of which I shall lay on the table.
My hon. friend from New Brunswick asked whether some professional man in Moncton was supplying hardware to the government. I think he has reference to supplies of the Canadian Gutta Percha Company.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I refer to Dr. Murray.


Hugh Guthrie: Supplied by Dr. Murray. Last year the purchases ran something like $12,000. If the hon. member will turn up the Auditor General's Report, he will find in the items included in the list of purchases that the purchases from Dr. Murray consisted of the manufacture of rubber and gutta nercha and the largest amount of them were hose. It happens that Dr. Murray is the agent for the Canadian Gutta Percha Company for the province of New Brunswick. The tender was received direct from Dr. Murray. His was the lowest tender received and he obtained the order. He advertises himself and states he is the agent oi the Canadian Gutta-Percha Company for New Brunswick, and I believe that in all its parts that is a thoroughly Conservative company. That is the explanation I have received in regard to these purchases, and I may tell my hon. friend, although he is a member of the legal profession, that if he wishes to tender for hardware or oil and is the lowest tenderer he will undoubtedly receive the order, just as Mr. Murray did.


Oswald Smith Crocket: You can count me out.


Hugh Guthrie: I submit also the list of those who were asked to tender for cement, including, I think, all the cement firms in Canada. So for fencing, including, I fancy, all the manufacturers in Canada, so for tinware, so for passenger coach wheels, so for axles, fire brick, oak lumber, hard pine lumber and electric wiring. The supply of coal, I think, is about the onlv other large order for goods which the Department of Railways and Canals give. That supply is dealt with on a different principle. I do not know that it is altogether a correct one but it is a fair one. Coal mining is one of the native Mr. GUTHRIE.
industries of the maritime provinces, and it is the desire of the government to give all a fair share of the patronage. Instead of calling for tenders the government arbitrarily fixes the price of coal at so much per ton and divides its orders among the different companies, and those companies which will not contract at that fixed price do not receive the order. As a rule, however, the orders are distributed among all the collieries in the maritime provinces. But leaving out coal and taking all the other large purchases of that department, they are all controlled by a single man. If there be any wrong-doing or abuse or irregularity, you can put your finger on the responsible party, Mr. Lavoie, the purchasing agent.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I thought the hon. gentleman said the government fixed the price. Does he mean the government or the Intercolonial Railway Commission?


Hugh Guthrie: I fancy the department fixes it.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What is the price?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not know the prices down there, but writh the exception of coal everything is bought on a system of fair and open competiton. There is no patronage list, no spoils system. The virus condemned by my hon. friend from North Toronto has not entered into that department at all events. I would ask hon. gentlemen opposite if they can suggest any improved system. Any improvement which they can offer will be warmly welcomed, I am sure, by the government, and my hon. friend who presides over the Department of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham).


Oswald Smith Crocket: Does that system apply to any other department?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes. It is argued that a purchasing board can do better than a purchasing agent. In England they have a purchasing board. The system is a good one, but it is the most expensive in any part of the world. It may be fairly argued that an individual, trained in a department, knowing its requirements, year by year becoming more familiar with the amounts required and the prices-it may be fairly argued that such an individual can do better in the interests of the department, can judge better what is required, and what prices should be paid, than any three or four gentlemen constituting a board. I think that is the view the government takes because the various departments are having each its own purchasing agent. Under the British system there is tremendous waste. There is an annual sale of the government surplus goods-goods purchased far in excess of the requirements. And I am not now talking of war or naval supplies,

which are always purchased in excess of requirements, but of general supplies. The British government has each year a large supply of excess stores which will not keep and has to auction these off, and goods which cost $2 or $3 a pound have been actually sold at three pence a pound. That is a statement which has been made to me by an English official. It may be that a better system can be devised than the one we are following. If so let us have it. Let me turn to the Marine and Fisheries Department, which came so much under fire. In that department there is no patronage list whatever. That list was abolished, as Mr. Justice Cassels mentions in his report, about October, 1908. Furthermore, the instructions of the minister are that no patronage list shall be permitted to exist; that all goods shall be bought in the open market. The department advertises in the newspapers, except in the case of small supplies which cannot be bought by tender. These small supplies, which are called emergency supplies, are purchased by the agent in the open market, at what he considers a fair price; and if he be an honest man, he will get the lowest price. You have to trust some one. All the lighthouse supplies, fog signal service and ship supplies are now purchased after advertising for tenders in the newspapers, and the contracts given to the lowest tenderers.


Mr. LALOR.: Is that advertising done in the same way?


Hugh Guthrie: I intend touching upon that if I can get time. If anything goes wrong in the present system, who is responsible? Mr. Doutre, the purchasing agent, says that he is, and I certainly think he would be. A more intelligent, capable officer it would be hard to find. He has been a long time in the department, he knows offhand the market prices of the goods he has to deal with and he cannot be fooled, though of course he might be particeps criminis, but nothing short of actual dishonesty can cause loss to the department as at present managed.
The Department of Justice controls all the supplies for the various penitentiaries of Canada. The patronage list in that department, if it ever existed, has been abolished, and it has its purchasing agent. This is the first year that system has been put in force, and we do not know what the result will be, but the department has done away with the political pull and is making its purchases in the open market. The same can be said of the Department of the Interior. That is not a large purchasing department, but the Indian branch of it does make considerable purchases. Every dollar's worth purchased by that branch, except in the case of the very distant reserves, is purchased after advertising in the newspaper for tenders. The goods purchased are principally agricultural implements, provisions, clothing and cattle. In the case of some of the reserves, which are very distant there are but two companies which can tender-Revillon Bros., and the Hudson Bay Company, and one or the other gets the contract. But in the case of the nearer reserves there are publie advertisements and there is no patronage list, and the lowest tenderer gets the order. If hon. members opposite can suggest a better system, let them do so. I was greatly-disappointed when I found that the hon, member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) after condemning the system as vigorously as he did, after showing what evil results might follow, suggested no improvement, no way out of the difficulty. The right hon. the Prime Minister asked him what he would do but he made no suggestion. I think that the government may well be congratulated on the advance they have made in the past two or three years and the alacrity and courage they have shown in acting on the recommendations of the two commissions. Other commissions were issued from time \o time-one in 1880, one, a commission of ministers of the Crown, in 1889 or 1890, and another in 1892. All these commissions made their recommendations and suggestions; and, no doubt, had these been carried out at the time it would have done immeasurable good. But every one of them was neglected, the abuses were allowed to continue until they culminated in the revelations in the Public Accounts Committee of this House in 1891. This government has been, at all events courageous it may be at the price of political support and in the face of political friends. It has adopted a new system, as I have shown; and the patronage system as it existed until two years ago exist no longer in the various departments of this government. We all know that difficulties exist-and how to remedy them I do not know-in the outside service in regard to political appointments. How can these be remedied? I trust that the Civil Service Act will be extended in the near future to the outside service. But even then, as the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) has pointed out, there will still be some 15,000 to 20,000 people to whom it will not apply- the dav labourer, the casual employee, and all these men may well be classed as belonging to a patronage system. But how are you going to overcome that? I do not know the remedy, and the hon. member for North Toronto has not suggested it. But what the House should do under present circumstances is not to condemn the course adopted by the government as this motion proposes; not to sav that the present system 'constitutes a menace to honest

and efficient government', as the resolution says; not to say that the present system 'incites too great waste of the resources and extravagance of expenditures', as the resolution says; or that it 'tends inevitably to corrupt and lower the tone of public morals', as the resolution says. Every step the government has taken has been taken in the direction of improving the service, of stopping the waste where there was waste, and of raising, not lowering, public morals. And I trust that in their future efforts-and their efforts will continue no doubt-they will have the support from my hon. friend from North Toronto and other hon. members on that side of the House which they are entitled to expect. We have not a perfect system-no one says we have. There are a great many points yet to be covered. There is, for instance, the question of newspaper advertising. And let me tell you that it is not correct to say that the advertisements of this government appear only in the Liberal press. For instance, take the advertisements for contracts on the Intercolonial. How does the government proceed? At Moncton, there was a twelve-engine house to be built. Advertisements were posted, at every station, of course, but advertisements also were put in nine or ten newspapers, and at the very top of the list, and receiving the highest price is the Halifax 'Herald'. That cannot be classed as a government supporter. I have seen government advertisements again and again in other Conservative newspapers. At the same time I admit that the rule is very largely to give the printing patronage to the newspapers supporting the government. I do not know how long that will continue, but there is more justification for this than for buying goods at fictitious prices or under fictitious tenders from) vour friends, which was the system up to 1896. It is but natural to dislike giving favours to * press that, day after day, misrepresents your public accounts and makes charges against your government, many of them unfounded. It is human nature-you do not like to pamper such a press. There may be some sort of justification for having a patronage list so far as this matter is concerned. So long as publicity can be sufficiently obtained through the Liberal newspapers, I would say let the advertising be given to the Liberal newspapers. But when publicity cannot be gained in this way, then resort to the Conservative newspapers or to the ' Canada Gazette ' which ever you like. But the resolution sufcT-mitted by the hon. member for North Toronto condemns the present government and the prevailing system, and I submit this should not be done. Instead of con-Mr. GUTHRIE.
demning we should commend the government for what they have been able to do; instead of denouncing the system we should congratulate the government for having made advance, distinct and I trust permanent advance, in improving the whole business administration of the various departments. And, with that view, I conclude my remarks by apologizing for the great length of time I have occupied, and by moving, seconded by Mr. Tolmie:
That all the words after the word ' that ' in the said resolution be struck out, and the following substituted in place thereof:- This House approves the rapid advance made by the government toward the elimination of the system of party patronage which has been in operation under every administration since confederation, and views with satisfaction the policy now in force of making all important purchases by public competition and tender.


Mr. MARTIN BURRELL (Yale-Cariboo).: Mr. Speaker, this being Wednesday, a day on which, under the rules, the House adjourns at six o'clock, we have only about five minutes to consider this question further. I am not aware whether the object of the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) in the course of his interminable remarks on the history of the government purchases prior to 1896 and going back to 1878, was to kill time or to kill the discussion. But it is clearly impossible to discuss the matter now, and I suppose that, following the usual order, this will go to the bottom of the paper and so we shall not hear of it again this session. This makes it impossible for a member on this side to reply. It is so obvious that the party patronage system has permeated the body politic that any man has only to look about him to be aware of that fact. Yet, directly we approach the question from this side of the House and try to put it in such a way that men of all parties can deal with it, there is a hyper-sensitiveness at once shown that a personal attack is made on hon. gentlemen opposite, and they immediately shield themselves behind the walls of party. I conceive that it is our business to help a discussion of this kind if we can by lifting the whole discussion to a higher level than before. It is a most singular thing for the hon. member for South Wellington to quote documents-interminable documents-to the effect that the spoils system existed prior to 1896, but that it was abolished by the present government when it came into power in that year. The hon. gentleman states that in 1892 the Royal Commission on the Civil Service recommended certain things which the Conservative party deliberately refused to adopt. This is a strange argument in view of the fact that the trend of our criticism is directed to this government in connec-

lion with this very matter of the Civil Service when party patronage had eaten the heart out of the departments for thirteen or fourteen years. I have only to refer to the report of the commission for 1908 and to quote two short statements from that report to reply to what the hon. member (Mr. Guthrie) has stated. These commissioners, appointed by the present government said:
The public service, the commissioners believe, not only at Ottawa, but elsewhere throughout the dominion has fallen back during the last fifteen years.
And then, at page 26, there is the following:
It has been pointed out in the most simple way that this practice had been followed^ by everybody and it could not be altered. I our commissioners, however, consider that, while the practice was alwavs bad, yet through the great development of the country the extent was not so great as to become serious until of recent years.
The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat said that the whole thing was' a farce. Well, if it was a farce when it went on from 1878 to 1896, how much greater has the farce been even according to the words of their own commissioners, from 1896 down to the present time. If the Conservatives chastised the people with whips, the hon. gentlemen opposite since they have been in authority, have chastised the people with scorpions. I would recommend to the right hon. gentleman who sometimes leads this party the words of a friend of his in the old country, and I think they may very well be applied to his career since 1896. John Morley said, ' He who begins life by stifling convictions is in a fair way for ending it without any convictions to stifle.5 It being now six o'clock, I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At six o'clock, the House adjourned.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, January 27, 1910.