1910-12-09

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LEWIS moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 40) to amend the Criminal Act respecting homicide while hunting. He said:	The Bill is similar to the one I introduced Some two sessions ago. Since then the necessity for the legislation has become greater. During last fall's hunting season, 113 persons were killed in the states bordering on Canada and 94 injured. In my opinion, since homicide is a crime, the man who, while indulging in the sport and pleasure of hunting, does not take sufficient precaution to make sure that what he is shooting at is not a human being, should be punished when his lack of care leads to the loss of human life or injury. The man who does not give the benefit of the doubt to a human being, when he is not quite certain that what he is aiming at is a wild
Mr. TEMPLEMAN.: animal, and who, through his neglect, kills or injures a fellow man is a criminal. The poor trapper or habitant who shoots a deer by mistake which turns out to be a cow moose, has his goods and chattels taken from him; but if it be a human being that he has shot by mistake, he is allowed to go free without even a preliminary investigation. I ask that this Bill and others of a similar nature should be referred to a committee. I do not say that the Bill is one which will cover all the circumstances that may arise, but I do urge that the matter should be taken up by a committee of legal and expert men, and I have no doubt that they will succeed in devising a measure which will cover the case.


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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LEWIS moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 41) respecting wireless telegraphy on ships. He said: "The Bill is modelled almost exactly on the one I introduced last year and which was sent to a committee. But the committee, while in favour of the principle of the Bill, thought it was premature. The circumstances now, however, are more imperative and demand that we should have a law of this kind. The United States government and the Canadian government have instituted wireless .telegraph stations all over the lakes and on the eastern and western sea-boards. It is possible that this Bill, which is modelled on the English measure, may not suit the circumstances and exigencies in this country, but I ask that it be referred to a committee of marine men who will draft a measure acceptable to all parties. I have in my hand an account of a large number of cases within the last two years in which this mysterious and invisible agency called from the deep the assistance of men. I refer to the 'Republic,' off the coast of New York, thp ' Ohio,' off the coast of Alaska, and also on August 11, 1910, to a ship which was on fire in Lake Michigan, all which made their predicament known by the wireless. Then there was the rudderless Clyde liner ' Iroquois ' which drifted about helpless until rescued through help summoned by the wireless. Let me read this despatch from the city of Chicago:
Chicago, March 29.-Passenger steamers on the Great Lakes are to be equipped this season with wireless telegraph apparatus to be operated by the United Wireless Telegraph Company. Contracts were closed here to-day with the steamship companies, and stations have been established to be ready by the opening of navigation at Chicago, Detroit, the Soo, Mackinac and all the principal lake ports.
Every passenger boat, capable of carrying more than fifty passengers should be equip-

ped with this wonderful agency for the preservation of human life.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

Hon.   WM@: TEMPLEMAN (Minister of Mines) moved that the House go into committee on Tuesday next to consider the following proposed resolution:-
Resolved, that it is expedient (a) to regulate the manufacture, importation, storage, handling, testing and use of explosive material of every description ; (b) to grant licenses to factories and magazines for the manufacture and storage of explosives and to provide for the inspection thereof and the payment of fees for such licenses; (c) to make inquiries into the cause of explosions, and of accidents caused by explosives; (d) to provide for the appointment of inspectors and other officers required for the administration of the Act, and the payment of the salaries thereof; (e) to authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations for carrying out the purposes of the Act; and (f) to provide for the imposition of penalties in contravention thereof.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been informed of the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. G. H. PERLEY (Argenteuil).: I desire to say a few words on the subject of questions asked and answered in the House and the way in which the new rule concerning them is being interpreted. There are two points to which I wish to refer. In the first place, answers to questions appeared in ' Hansard ' on Wednesday last in two places. Those answered orally appeared in the first part of ' Hansard ' in the place in which answers to questions always appear; those answered in writing are at the end of ' Hansard.' It seems to me that it would be far better if these answers to questions, whether made orally or in writing, appeared in order in one part of ' Hansard,' as they have always done. The second point is that on Friday last certain questions were answered in writing, and, of course, under the method adopted, they appeared at the end of ' Hansard.' I submit that it would be far better if we had the written answers to questions appearing only on those days on which we reach questions in customary order on the Order Paper. That is, on Mondays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, questions are the first order on the Paper, and we naturally look for them on those days. Answers put in writing do not appear in ' Hansard ' in the order in which they were on the Order
Paper. The rule has not been altered, except that certain questions are allowed to be answered in writing and not orally, and I submit that the intention of the rule as worded is that the answers to questions should appear in ' Hansard ' exactly the same as they always have done, and also that whether given orally or in writing they should appear in the order in which they stand on the Order Paper. The object of the new rule, as I understand it, was purely to save time. In order to make that rule welcome to the members of the House it must be made as easy and convenient as possible. Members have always been in the habit of looking at the first part of ' Hansard ' of Monday, Wednesday and Thursday for answers to questions, and the answers should appear on those days, as they have always done. And they should not be printed in ' Hansard ' in the order in which the written answers happen to come in, but in the order given on the Order Paper. Thus, for instance, if I have a question numbered 16 on the Order Paper, I ought to be able to learn, by looking at the relative place in ' Hansard ' whether it has been answered or not.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister).: I interpret the rule exactly as my hon. friend (Mr. Perley) does, and think that if his suggestions are followed great confusion will be avoided.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria and HalibuT-ton).: I. would suggest, also, that when a question is answered in writing, a copy should be sent to the gentleman who asks the question, and also a copy laid on the table.


Wilfrid Laurier: I see no objection to that.



PRIVILEGE-MR. LENNOX.

Mr. H. LENNOX (South Simcoe).: Mr. Speaker, when we were discussing the question of an enlarged system of inquiry by the Public Accounts Committee the other day, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) on a number of occasions-


Mr. SPEAKER.: Had not that better come up on going into supply?


Haughton Lennox: I am rising to a question of privilege. I am proposing to point out that my memory and that of the Minister of Public Works do not tally on certain points. In referring to what affects myself I would call attention particularly to pages 865 and 866 of Unrevised ' Hansard.' The minister is replying to something that I interjected, including, amongst other things, the question of obstruction :-


Mr. PUGSLEY.: My hon. friend, I am sure, is not serious, when he says that I ever helped to block the committee.


Haughton Lennox: Does tlie minister forget tlie sub-target gun case where a lawyer of the government party was chairman and where prominent lawyers of the government party were engaged in the matter, where a minister was assisting, and two other ministers of the Crown were assisting as well. It was about as glaring a case, as barefaced a case of blocking, as ever occurred in any deliberative assembly.


William Pugsley: I can tell my hon. friend that he is entirely mistaken. I have a very good memory, and I know my hon. friend is just as wrong as the hon. member for Peel was, when he said that there was an investigation last year into the lighting of the building occupied by the Minister of Labour; my hon. friend from Simcoe is just as much in error in what he says. So far as X recollect, I had nothing in the world to do with the investigation of the gun target case.	_


Haughton Lennox: My recollection is otherwise.
And I added that I would look into the matter, which is not recorded. Now, it was a very notable occasion on which this matter referred to came up. Taking up the public record, the report of the Public Accounts Committee for the session 1907-8, part 2, and referring to the proceedings of Friday, January 31, 1908, we find that the matter before the committee was the subtarget gun machine, and that H. H. Wick-wire was being examined by the Hon. Mr. Foster. The particular matter in discussion is not material, but it will be found stated at page 856 and again at page 857. Mr. Foster is asking questions which are objected to by Mr. Macdonald, Mr. Maclean and other members of the committee. The chairman rules against Mr. Foster's contention, as reported on page 857. The acting chairman (Mr. Carvell) says:-
I will rule that you have not any right to ask that question.
The chairman then goes on at some considerable length to set out his resolutions, and says :
It is now open to any member of the committee to appeal against my ruling if he feels so inclined.
Following some discussion Mr. Foster says :
Yeas and nays.


The CHAIRMAN.: Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained? Tlie yeas have it.


Hon. Mr. FOSTER..: No. Let the yeas and navs be taken.
On a division the Chair was sustained by 28 yeas to 9 nays.
Then follows :


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I declare the decision of the Chair sustained.


George Eulas Foster: I move that the proceedings upon which this decision lias been rendered and the decision itself, be reported to the House.


Mr. MacLEAN (Lunenburg).: When?


Haughton Lennox: 


George Eulas Foster: Forthwith, in the usual manner.


Mr. JOHNSTON.: A gentleman who has retired to a better position, to a department where they have no conscience.


Alexander Johnston: Is the inquiry disposed of?


George Eulas Foster: The inquiry is not disposed of.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: It has been moved by Mr. Foster, seconded by Mr. Northrup that the question submitted to the witness, the decision in regard thereto, the reasons given by the Chair, and the appeal from the Chair's decision be reported to the House forthwith.
Argument followed, which is not recorded but which I shall get from the newspapers.
Hon. Mr. PUGSLEY moved, seconded by Mr. Gervais: That the meeting now adjourn and that the subject be discussed at a later sitting.
Motion to adjourn carried.
The committee adjourned.
That proves the point pretty conclusively. When the hon. member says that he has a good memory, he may have a good memory, I am not saying he has not, but if he had a good memory he should not have contradicted me the other day when I undertook to say, on a matter that I knew thoroughly well, that among the chief blockers was my hon. friend. It says there that an argument intervened and as it is of importance to show that this was no ordinary occasion, that it was an occasion which, unless a gentleman was peculiarly indifferent to insinuations against his honour as a professional man and as a public man, he would be likely to remember, I shall read from the Montreal ' Herald ', a Liberal newspaper :
Stormy scenes in Public Accounts.
The chairman had difficulty in preserving order in the committee.
Ottawa, Feby. 1.-Last evening's session of the Public Accounts Committee was one of the stormiest in recent years, and sometimes the babel was so great, half a dozen members endeavouring to speak simultaneously, that the chairman, Mr. Carvell, had great difficulty in preserving order.
Then it points out that certain dredging contracts were np in the earlier part of the evening and the report proceeds :
Sub-targets again.
The sub-target company's dealings with the Department of Militia were next taken up, and Mr. Foster again attempted to examine Mr. Wickwire. Objection was taken by Messrs. Macdonald, McLean and others, who protested against Mr. Foster attempting to examine upon alleged copies of letters between Jewell and the witness.

Then follows further discussion and then comes the ruling that was spoken of so often the other day, and so well described by the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Smyth) :
Compliance with rules of evidence was insisted on, backed by the Minister of Public Works, and discussion of this point took up nearly an hour. Mr. Haughton Lennox remarked that the people were beginning to think there were too many lawyers in parliament.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Haughton Lennox: I quite agree with that statement, but there are lawyers and lawyers.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Haughton Lennox: And, before I have finished the reading of this, I shall point out that there is quite a distinction between lawyers and lawyers, and if hon. gentlemen on that side of the House can produce a farmer in the House of Commons who has more consistently and strenuously advocated the interests of the farming class than I have-


Haughton Lennox: Oh, yes, he was there, and very much in evidence as 1 remember, talking a great deal and talking in a way that did not commend itself to the public generally although it did to his supporters.
In the course of the discussion Mr. Pugsley referred to Mr. Lennox as a lawyer^ of repute, 'according to his own statement.'
' According to his own statement , that is not exactly according to the record, but it suits my point all right. v


William Pugsley: Is that why the hon. gentleman feels so badly?


Haughton Lennox: I am not feeling badly, I am feeling very comfortable indeed. I hope the minister is feeling as comfortable. I replied :
I'll take occasion to show the minister that not only am I a lawyer of repute, but that I know how to be true to my clients.


An hon. MEMBER.: What does that mean?


Haughton Lennox: I do not think the minister will ask what it means.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Haughton Lennox: Although I am a lawyer, trot him out right away. The report .proceeds :
The policy of the lawyers on the Liberal side was to stifle investigation.
What about that for a class of lawyers? That is one of the distinctions.


William Pugsley: Is that the chairman's ruling or a remark of the hon. gentleman?


Haughton Lennox: That was a remark of the hon. gentleman, myself, and I could not get the ruling of the Chair in my favour on that point any more than on any others.


William Pugsley: I do not wonder at that.


Haughton Lennox: But I think I will get a ruling of the public on that in my favour.


Mr. CARVELL.: They did not say that in October, 1908, by their votes.


Haughton Lennox: When I came to parliament I had a majority of 800. The next election I had a majority of something over 800. Then the county was gerrymandered and I was cut out of 400 votes by the gerrymander, yet I obtained a majority of about 1,500. The report proceeds :
In the course of the discussion Mr. Pugsley referred to Mr. Lennox.
Now there are lawyers and lawyers.


Mr. SMYTH (Algoma).: But Mr. Pugsley was not there.
Mr. Pugsley demanded an explanation.
Mr. Poster asked the witness if he had ever received a letter from Mr. Jewell, in which that gentleman had said he had seen the Minister of Militia. Mr. Foster was about to read a copy of this letter when he was stopped by the chairman, Mr. Carvell, who ruled that Mr. Foster could only quote from the original document, and not from a copy.
He had not the original with him, he could not quote from the original and so he could not quote at all.
Another long argument followed this ruling, and some of the members were anxious to adjourn.	,	,,	...
Mr. Emmerson objected to tlie committee sitting any longer, remarking to the chairman, ' It's after one o'clock.'


Mr. BENNETT.: ' Oh, lots of things happen after one o'clock.' ,	.	,	, .
The decision of the chair having been challenged, a division was taken, and the chairman's ruling was sustained by 28 to 9.
Mr. Foster then moved that the chairman's ruling be reported to the House.
Mr. Pugsley and others

The others not being of so much importance-
-objected to this course. Finally, Mr. Pugs-le.v moved that the committee adjourn, and this carried.
That is the way in which it is put by the reform journal. I looked up the columns of the ' Globe ' and the ' Globe ' is much to the same effect, although it hands out bouquets to the Minister of Public Works and damns the Conservatives as usual. Then, to show something of what actually happened, I will take a still



more reliable authority, the ' Mail and Empire and after that I will close. I want to point to this fact that if the minister has a memory on which he prides himself, it is singular that he did not give us the benefit of his memory the other day, honestly and candidly, because the discussion that went on that day in the committee was not such as to slip from the memory of a sensitive man.
STORMY SCENES IN COMMITTEE. Liberal Lawyers again resort to Obstruction Tactics.-Mr. Pugsley levels insult-Receives a retort that makes him wince- Sub-target Gun Contract under the Searchlight.
Ottawa, January 31.-The obstructive tactics of the Liberal lawyers, who are members of the Public Accounts Committee, in seeking to throttle inquiry into scandals connected with the management of government departments, this morning led to one of the most extraordinary and wildest scenes which ever took place before a committee of the House of Commons. At times the meeting was in a perfect uproar, a dozen members were on their feet at one time, shouting angrily across the room, whilst personalities of a particularly pointed character were freely exchanged. The Minister of Public Works and the exMinister of Railways were the subjects of two particularly cutting retorts.
The minister forgot.
A new feature in connection with the conduct of the proceedings was the fact which is now becoming apparent that Mr. Macdonald and Mr. MacLean, the Liberal members for Pictou and Lunenburg, respectively, are no longer to fulfil alone the role of arch-obstructionists. To-day Hon. Wm. Pugsley, Minister of Public Works, ex-Minister of Railways Emmerson, Honore Gervais, the French Liberal member for the St. James division of Montreal, came to the assistance of the other two, and between them they succeeded by their trivial objections in preventing evidence being taken.
Passing over a good deal of discussion that is recorded here, I find these sentences also, and this is a more correct version of what happened than even that which appears in the ' Herald,' as will be remembered by the gentlemen who were in the committee on that occasion.



THE STORM BURST.

[Stage Direction]
The discussion was getting more and more heated, but it was when Mr. Haughton Lennox, of South Simcoe, rose to demand fair play and to protest against the absurd objections raised by the legal stalwarts of the government, that the storm really burst. I am a lawyer myself, he remarked, and I say that there is a growing feeling in the country that there are too many lawyers in this House and on this committee.
A harmless remark that I made, casually referring to the fact that I was a lawyer and yet I could see that there were too Mr. LENNOX.
many lawyers in the House, but it was this that brought down the thunder of my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works and the insult that has been referred to.
' It's the same in any country in the world/ interrupted Mr. Gervais in broken English.
Warming to his subject, Mr. Lennox proceeded amidst much disorder and frequent interruptions to complain of the unfair tactics of the government supporters. He repeated that there were too many lawyers on the committee, and asserted that they came there simply to block investigation. While Mr. Lennox was still on his feet, Mr. Gervais rose and attempted to address the meeting but his voice was drowned by the laughter and shouts of the members.
William Pugsley: Does it say that Mr. Gervais' voice was drowned by laughter?


Haughton Lennox: Yes.


William Pugsley: Who was guilty of the laughter?


Haughton Lennox: I do not think any body was guilty, but I think it was our side that laughed. Now I come to what Mr. Gervais said:
Mr. Gervais went on to harangue the meeting. Acting Chairman Carvell was absolutely powerless, and the whole exhibition which Mr. Gervais was making became absolutely ludicrous. The meeting was convulsed. [DOT] When the Montreal member had subsided, Mr. Lennox remarked: ' Its because the gentlemen are hit that they will not keep quiet/
' I have never been hit by anybody/ exclaimed Mr. Gervais excitedly, and there was another outburst of laughter.
Mr. Lennox stuck to his guns and once more amidst intense disorder repeated his statement about the lawyers and their efforts to block investigation.
Now Mr. Pugsley.
Mr. Pugsley, in a brief period of space, explained what he considered should be admitted as evidence, and in the course of his remarks, cast a gratuitous insult at Mr. Lennox by saying: 'Mr. Lennox is a lawyer-so he tells us.'
So he tells us.
The Liberal members laughed, but Mr. Lennox waited until Mr. Pugsley had finished, and then made the Minister of Public Works wince with the following retort: 'The minister says I tell them I am a lawyer. I will one day take the opportunity of showing him that I am not only a lawyer, but I stand true to my clients/ (Uproar.)
Mr. Pugsley, to whom this remark was directly addressed, exclaimed: 'I think the hon. member should explain.'
Member struck below belt.
'I will explain nothing/ Mr. Lennox answered fiercely.


William Pugsley: Answers fiercely!


Haughton Lennox: Fiercely, it says. I think I am always very mild.


William Pugsley: And yet that is in the ' Mail and Empire


Haughton Lennox: Oh, yes, but they probably misunderstood my manner. However, I am willing to let that go.
'The minister strikes below the belt when he says the contemptible thing' he said a minute ago.' (Renewed disorder.)
1 made another remark on that occasion which was drowned in the disorder, and I do not think I need repeat it here. The minister who prides himself upon his memory questioned my position the other day, and made statements during the debate that did not at all agree with my memory of what had occurred. The minister may have a memory as good as he likes, hut the better his memory the less is it to his credit that he made such a statement the other day, because there are worse things to be possessed of than a bad memory. I have said all that is necessary upon this occasion, I say it with distinct emphasis because I have noticed the attitude that the minister has taken in many discussions in the House in which some personalities have been introduced, but this was not a personal attack and therefore I could not raise the question of privilege.


William Pugsley: Am I permitted, Mr. Speaker, to say a few words in reply to the hon. gentleman?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: It is a personal explanation, I take it?


William Pugsley: With your permission, Sir, I will do so. I think the official record of what took place before the Committee on Public Accounts confirms very strongly the statement which I made. It will be remembered that the hon. gentleman made the charge that I had taken part in obstructing an investigation of dhe subtarget gun case. I entirely repudiated that statement. I said that I had not in any way blocked the investigation and that' I had no recollection of being present. Now, I may say to my hon. friend, whether he chooses to believe me or not, that in making that statement I was perfectly sincere. I had no recollection of being present at an inquiry with reference to the sub-target gun, and my reason was that I have made a practice of not attending meetings of the Public Accounts Committee unless there is some matter up for investigation in connection with my own department, and then only in cases where the deputy minister informs me that my presence is required with respect to some special matter. Now, it appears that on that occasion to which my hon. friend refers the matter of dredging contracts had been up for consideration before the committee at that very sitting, 32i
and that was the reason why I was present, and not because there was any investigation of the question of sub-target guns. Now, I appeal to you whether anything that my hon. friend has read, even from the * Mail and Empire ', shows that I sought to obstruct the proceedings of the committee. It appears that I never said a word until after the chairman had given his decision, and then there appears to have been an uproar in the committee caused apparently by the fierce attitude of my hon. friend. Even the ' Mail ' says that he spoke fiercely, and when my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) who is usually so calm and moderate, gets so angry as to impress the reporter of the * Mail ' that he was fierce, there must have been something in it. The hon. gentleman admits that after the decision of the chairman, when Mr. Gervais was proceeding to make an argument, the gentlemen who are associated with my hon. friend tried to drown his voice with laughter. That must have been very rude; it must have been inexcusable, and I am surprised that my hon. friend should have been guilty of conduct of that kind. All I appear to have done was to insist as far as I could that this bear garden, which had evidently been brought into being by my hon. friend and others who were assisting him


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


William Pugsley: I think that is all right.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


William Pugsley: Is that objected to?


Haughton Lennox: It was a bear garden all right, but it was not brought into existence by my friends or by me.


William Pugsley: According to the report of the ' Mail and Empire,' my hon. friend and his associates would seem to have brought that bear garden into existence, and I being present-because the dredging contracts had been under discussion-thought that I was simply doing my duty in endeavouring to put an end to that bear garden, which certainly was not creditable to the committee or to those who took part in it.


George Eulas Foster: Will you allow me a question here?


William Pugsley: Certainly, I think my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) was present.


George Eulas Foster: Relying upon his exceedingly good memory, would the minister state to the House now whether he made that motion for the purpose of putting an end to the bear garden or for the sake of getting rid of my motion?
999	'


William Pugsley: I do not pretend to remember all that took place three years ago; I have something more important to attend to and to think of.


Haughton Lennox: Read the official report.


William Pugsley: This is what the official report says:
Mr. Chairman, it has been moved by Mr. Poster, seconded by Mr. Northrup, that the questions submitted to the witness and the decision with regard thereto, and the reasons given by the chair, and the appeal from the chair's decision be referred to the House forthwith.
Then an argument followed, and I do not remember that my hon. friend read anything which showed that I even took part in the argument.


Haughton Lennox: It says so.


William Pugsley: Well, it must have been a very moderate part.


Haughton Lennox: It says that you took a very ' bland ' part.


William Pugsley: Then the uproar took place, and I moved, seconded by Mr. Ger-vais that the meeting adjourn, and that the subject be discussed at a later sitting. I think, if the committee was in an uproar and if hon. gentlemen opposite were laughing at and ridiculing speakers as they were ridiculing Mr. Gervais, and as it wTas after one o'clock, and as the meeting had turned really into a bear garden, that it was not at all improper that I should move that the meeting adjourn, and that when, gentlemen opposite calmed down at a later sitting the matter might be considered. It does seem to me that my hon. friend has not made any point by bringing up this really unimportant matter. Let me say one word with regard to my hon. friend, whose relations to myself I would like to have as cordial as possible. The hon. gentleman thinks-and this appears to have been rankling in his bosom for some three years-that I insulted him upon that occasion, when I made the statement that he was a lawyer of repute and in his own estimation he was a good lawyer. That is about what I appear to have said. My hon. friend ought not to be insulted at that, because I presume that in the course of his life he has had many similar testimonials borne to his ability and experience as a lawyer.



LIGHTING OF WOODS BUILDING.

Mr. S. SHARPE (Ontario).: Before the orders of the day, I wish to call the attenV tion of the Minister of Public Works to an answer to a question which appeared in ' Hansard ' of December 5, page 814. This question was put-Mr. FOSTER,
1.	Was there any written contract between the government and the Imperial Realty Company (or James W. Woods, Esq.) in regard to the lighting of the Woods and the Canadian buildings?
2.	If so, is this written contract in existence?
The answer of the minister is:
1 and 2. The only thing in the form of a contract was an exchange of letters between the chief architect and Mr. J. W. Woods, which letters were, last session, produced before the Public Accounts Committee,
The Minister of Public Works must have inadvertently made that statement because we endeavoured to get that contract produced before the Public Accounts Committee and we could not possibly get it. The Deputy Minister of Public Works, Mr. Hunter, was in the witness box and he stated at page 204 of the evidence:-
It is not on record in the department, not that I have been able to find.
Q. Have you looked for it?-A. I have had others look and they told me they could not find it.
That contract was not produced. Then, in reference to the figures for 1908-9, with regard to the lighting of the Woods and Canadian buildings, the Minister of Public Works has inadvertently made two mistakes. There is a discrepancy of something like $3,000 between the figures he gave and the record in the Auditor General's Report. I would suggest, in order that the record be kept correct, that the question should be repeated and that he give the correct answer to it.


William Pugsley: The question was whether there was a written contract and the answer is:
The only thing in the form of a contract was an exchange of letters between the chief architect and Mr. J. W. Woods, which letters were, last session, produced before the Public Aocounts Committee.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: As a matter of fact they were not.


William Pugsley: This answer was prepared for me under the direction of the deputy minister. I was not present at the committee when the evidence was given and I will make inquiry with regard to that. The correspondence is no doubt in possession of the chief architect and can be seen.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: What about the figures.


William Pugsley: There also were prepared under the direction of the deputy minister, and I shall make inquiry as to the alleged inaccuracy.	[DOT]



INQUIRY FOR RETURN.

Mr. RHODES.: I am not yet in possession of a return which the House ordered on the 14th of March last. I have already spoken privately to the Minister of Marine about this matter.
Mr. BRODEUR- The hon. member was kind enough to call my attention to this matter privately, and I gave instructions to have it prepared as soon as possible.
I hope to have it in a few days.



SUPPLY-MILITIA DEPARTMENT RULES.

[Stage Direction]
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
["The hon. gentleman called my attention to the Auditor General's Report for the year 1908-9 and the hdn. gentleman stated to the House that my answer was not in accordance with the Auditor General's Report, but contained an amount $3,000 less. What I want to call the hon. gentleman's attention to is the fact that in the Auditor General's Report the additional $3,000 is shown to be for the lighting of the building during the previous fiscal year and for the Queen street building also."]
Mr. E. N. LEWIS. (West Hurra).: I bring to the attention of the Minister cf Militia a matter concerning which I have already spoken to him and which he suggested I should mention when the Militia department is under investigation. However, as straws show how the wind blows,
I consider it advisable to call his attention to the matter now. I do not think for a moment that the Minister of Militia is cognizant of, or has authorized the proceeding of which I am about to complain, because it is contrary to the democratic principles which in this country should prevail. It is in reference to a letter which I received last evening from the Department of Militia and Defence, with regard to members or other people who may have business with the department, the simplest way to bring the matter to the minister's attention is to read the letter:-
Department of Militia and Defence.
Ottawa, November 17, 1910. Dear Sir,-I am directed by the honourable the Minister to inclose a copy of regulations which have recently been passed, governing the admission of visitors to the Department of Militia and Defence during office hours, and which it is the intention to put into force on the 1st proximo, and to inclose, for your use, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2 of the regulations, a permanent pass for admission.
For many years a great deal of annoyance and interference with the public duties of the officials of the department have been caused by the unrestricted opportunities afforded the outside public to visit the employees upon private and personal matters and questions entirely foreign to the official duties imposed upon the working staff of the department, whose whole time belongs to the public. Although some care has been taken to protect the officials of the. department, yet it has been found impossible to check, to any reasonable degree, the annoyance indicated above.
Money lenders, promoters, agents and canvassers of all kinds seem to easily find their way to the officials high and low.
These regulations have, therefore, been framed in order to permit the officials and
employees of the department to perform their duties without unnecessary interruption. They will prove no barrier to those having official relations with the department.
I may add that these regulations are based upon regulations in force in the War Office, London, England.
Yours very truly,



[Stage Direction]
Deputy Minister, Militia and Defence.
The first of the regulations refers to employees of the department. The second, third and fourth are as follow:
2.	In addition to the civil and military staff employed at headquarters, permanent passes will be issued to the following:-Senators, members of parliament, one representative of each newspaper, and officials of other departments (the deputy minister of each department to forward a list of those officials of his department to whom he wishes the privilege extended).
3.	To all others desirous of visiting the department, temporary passes will be issued, which must be given up on leaving.
4.	A visitor will note on the temporary pass, his name, address, nature of inquiry, and name of official with whom an interview is desired. The pass will then be taken up to the officer or official concerned, who, if he desires to see the visitor, will initial the pass, and the visitor will then be shown up to him. After the interview is ended, the officer or official concerned must see that his visitor is attended to the. exit by a messenger.
The seventh and eighth are as follow:
7.	Officers, officials and other persons employed in the department will, on appointment to the department, be furnished by the deputy minister with a permanent pass.
8.	Officers, officials and other persons employed in the department shall, on vacating their appointments, return their passes to the deputy minister.
There are other rules in reference to closing the doors.
Mr. EMMERSON.: Do people have to take their hats off when they go in?


Edward Norman Lewis: I do not see any reference to that in the rules. The crux of the whole matter is in the last clause of the letter, which is as follows: ' I may add that these regulations are based upon regulations in force in the War Office, London, England.' Now, Sir, I strongly oppose, and I believe I shall always strongly oppose, unless circumstances materially change, the importation into this country of regular militarism. I back up the Minister of Militia in his intentions with reference to our militia service. If his ideas were carried out, I believe that service would be much improved. We are spending $7,000,000 on the militia, and what is the result? We have a frame, with nothing inside of it. In my young days in my home town there were three companies of militia who drilled weekly in the summer evenings, and vied

with each other for the higher skill. Now it is difficult in the same town to get half a company to attend the annual camp. The hands of the Minister of Militia are bound down by the militia council, on which there are some military gentlemen from the old land who look at all matters from a purely military point of view. But we are here to look matters from a practical point of view. I have read the statutes and I can see no reason or authority why a colonial officer, when appointed, not to the militia, but to the regular force of any colony, should nine times out of ten lose his practical common sense. In the old country they are bound down with red tape. We do not want that sort of thing here. What happened in my own case? One morning I wanted to consult an official in the Militia Department building, and I was told that the department was in the Woods building. I went there at about half-past ten. The guard at the door or the man at the elevator knew nothing * of the official I wanted. I went through almost every part of the building, and nobody seemed to know where he was. I found almost every official reading the Ottawa ' Morning Citizen '. Nobody seemed to want to be interrupted. I went again at half past two, with the same result. I could get no information, but this time they were reading ' Hansard '. I contend that we should not send ' Hansard ' to the civil servants of this country in office hours. I ask the minister to look into this matter. Why, Sir, I can consult the one man who has more power than the head of any other country in the world, that is,.the Prime Minister of Canada. I can have access to him at any time if in my proper order. I can consult any other minister of the Crown of the Dominion of Canada if I go in the proper sequence. So can any other free citizen of Canada. I mention these rules with the fullest confidence that the minister will take the facts in the spirit in which they are mentioned, for the good of Canada. I wish to back him up in every effort he makes for the improvement of the militia. While I am against regular militarism in this country, as are nine out of every ten Canadians in every province, still I think our young men instead of being in questionable places should learn to shoot and should drill during the summer evenings, as they formerly did when we spent $1,500,000 instead of $8,000,000 on the militia.


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: 
Edward Norman Lewis: Would the hon. minister give both the letter and the circular into * Hansard ' and the House will dispense with his reading them?


Frederick William Borden: It is the deputy minister who addressed this letter-not the General Officer Commanding, not the militia council-but the deputy minister. It is not an order of the militia council, as my hon. friend seems to think, and to which he takes some exception, but an order pure and simple of the official who is permanently at the head of the administration of the militia department. This is the letter:-
Department of Militia and Defence.
Ottawa, November 17, 1910. Dear Sir,-I am directed by the honourable the Minister to inclose a copy of regulations which have recently been passed, governing the admission of visitors to the Department of Militia and Defence during office hours, and which it is the intention to put into force on the 1st proximo, and to inclose, for your use, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2 of the regulations, a permanent pass for admission.
Eor many years a great deal of annoyance and interference with the public duties of the officials of the department have been caused by the unrestricted opportunities afforded the outside public to visit the employees upon private and personal matters and questions entirely foreign to the official duties imposed upon the working staff of the department, whose whole time belongs to the public. Although some care has been taken to protect the officials of the department, yet it has been found impossible to check, to any reasonable degree, the annoyances indicated above.
Money lenders, promoters, agents and canvassers of all kinds seem to easily find their way to the officials high and low.
These regulations have, therefore, been framed in order to permit the officials and employees of the department to perform their duties without unnecessary interruption. They will prove no barrier to those having official relations with the department.
I may add that these regulations are based upon regulations in force in the War Office, London, England.
Yours very truly,
EUG. EISET, [DOT]
Deputy Minister, Militia and Defence.
Now, the regulations which, I understand, my hon. friend would like to have read, are as follows:
Regulations governing the admission of visitors to the Department of Militia and Defence.
1.	Every officer, official or person employed in the department is liable to be challenged on entering or leaving and required to prove his indentity. Eor this purpose, permanent passes will be issued to every one concerned, and these passes must be produced at any time if called for by the orderlies who will be stationed at the entrance.
2.	In addition to the civil and military staff employed at headquarters, permanent passes will be issued to the following:-Senators, members of parliament, one representative of each newspaper, and officials of other departments (the deputy minister of each department to forward a list of those officials of his department to whom he wishes the privilege extended).
3.	To all others desirous of visiting the department, temporary passes will be issued, which must be given up on leaving.
4.	A visitor will note on the temporary pass, his name, address, nature of inquiry, and name of official with whom an interview is desired. The pass will then be taken up to the officer or official concerned, who, if he desires to see the visitor, will initial the pass,

and the visitor will then he shown up to him. After the interview is ended, the officer or official concerned must see that his visitor is attended to the exit by a messenger.
My hon. friend rather took exception to that. I think it is only fair that a visitor should be shown the way out as well as the way in.
5.	When visitors with temporary passes have been admitted to see an officer or official, and are referred by him to some other officer or official, or wish themselves to have a further interview elsewhere, the officer or official who first receives them is responsible for seeing that they are attended by a messenger.
6.	Civilian officials below the rank of Division II A, and non-commissioned officers and men, will not be permitted to see visitors except in cases of extreme urgency, in which event, however, the permission of the head of the branch or division must first be obtained.
7.	Officers, officials and other persons employed in the department will, on appointment to the department, be furnished by the deputy minister with a permanent pass.
8.	Officers, officials and other persons employed in the department shall, on vacating their appointments, return their passes to the deputy minister.
9.	Visitors, other than those holding permanent passes, shall only be admitted between the hours of 10.30 a.m. and 1 p.m. except by appointment.
10.	The doors leading into the Department of Militia and Defence on the east side will be closed at 5 p.m every week day except Saturday, when the hour of closing will be one o'clock p.m. Any person desiring admission to the department after those hours must use the west entrance, and upon showing to
_ the policeman on duty his permanent pass,
" and furnishing satisfactory proof as to his right to enter the building after office hours, will be admitted by that officer.



[Stage Direction]
Colonel,
Deputy Minister, Militia and Defence. Department of Militia and Defence,
Ottawa, November 17, 1910.
I have only to say that I am glad my hon. friend (Mr. Lewis) has brought this question up, as it gives me an opportunity of explaining the real object had in view. There is no intention, no desire, to exclude anybody. I only wish that a great many more members of parliament would come to the department than do come. The door is open for them, and we are glad to see them at all times. As to the facility of getting into the department-or any of the departments-as compared with the conditions in other countries, I think I know something about these conditions in England and in the United States, and I can assure my hon. friend that there is no such liberty, if I may use the word-' license,' perhaps, would be better-of entering the corridor of the public departments and wandering from office to office as there is here in Ottawa. Any man who has business with
Frederick William Borden: a department in the United States can enter that department, but he must make his way through the proper channel. I believe it would be infinitely better, in the interest of the public service if some such restrictions as are in force in the United States were in force here. I have endeavoured to make a commencement. As I have said, these regulations are probably far from perfect. I shall be glad if any hon. member of this House will give me any suggestions which will enable us to improve them.


Samuel Hughes: As one who has looked into this matter considerably, I may be permitted to express my views upon it. I heartily approve the desire expressed by the minister (Sir Frederick Borden) in the memorandum, to keep out canvassers, hawkers, beggars and all that class of public nuisances that too frequently infest not only the corridors of the Militia Department, but also the precincts of parliament. But it is just a question whether, in endeavouring to carry out that design, a little injustice may not be done to those who wish to enfer the department on legitimate business. But the rules as explained by the minister, I think, are free from serious objection on that score. And what the minister says is true, it should not be necessary for a caller to ramble from room to room trying to find the officer wanted; there should be a clerk or officer at the door who can direct the visitor to the room of the person whom he desires to see. I presume that that is what the minister wishes. But there is another aspect of the case. Under these regulations, members of parliament are furnished with cards. When I received the notification,
I drew attention of the deputy minister to the fact that there is no door of the public service of the Dominion of Canada closed to a member of parliament. As one representing a riding in this House, I am, to that extent, a trustee of the public property here. I do not recognize that there is any door in any public service closed to a member of parliament in connection with his duties as a member. I know the minister will take that view of it.


Frederick William Borden: Hear, hear. Mr. HUGHES. As to having the pass, it is the duty of the gentlemen who guard the doors to come up and look at the goodlooking members or senators, so that when a member says : I am a member of parliament for so and so, he will be admitted. I have had no trouble nor do I think many members will have trouble. As to the hucksters and beggars, they are to be found in the corridors of this building, and I object to people of this class from Ottawa being allowed such a privilege. I dare say the same thing would apply in every department. I think, however, there is something radically wrong with the heao*

of a department who cannot control the officials or servants under him, and prevent them from allowing these people to come in and take up their time. If I were head of a department I would endeavour to ascertain the business of my clerks and to see that they were kept at work.
It is undignified for a member of parliament to have to carry a pass to any department of the public service ao Ottawa, I shall not do it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have certain views with respect to this question and shall say a few words. What I object to is that you should single out any one or two departments of the government of Canada and hedge them around with a sort of divinity which makes them unapproachable. If there are any good reasons for the establishment of these regulations in that department they are good tor every department of the government. The chief ground of my objection is that we are to have hereafter a Naval Department, and I suppose they will hedge themselves around with a sort of divinity, as the Militia Department has done. I consider the regulations objectionable, and I believe that throughout this country they will be so considered. If it is necessary to take steps to prevent hucksters and promoters and men of that class interfering with the work of departments, it seems to me that it would be possible to do that, but the method should be entirely different from the one adopted by the Department of Militia and Defence.


Mr. WILSON (Lennox).: What method do you suggest?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am not called upon to suggest a method, but if I were invited to do so I think I have initiative enough to do- it. I simply want to voice my protest against the action of the department in this regard because of the singling out of a Militia Department or a Naval Department as being entirely different from any of the other departments of this government. That is my strong objection to the regulation.


Mr. CLARK (Red Deer).: As a man of peace, I have been two years a member of this House and have not yet had occasion to call on my hon. friend the Minister of Militia and Defence, I did not however, feel any resentment at what I took to be his courtesy in sending a pass to me ; what I perhaps did resent, in common with a large number of members of both sides of the House, was what appeared to be the injurious suggestion in the letter accompanying the pass that by any possible means a member of parliament could be mistaken for a money-lender. I am not at all sure that the suggestion on the part
of the deputy minister has been recommended by the use of the term referred to by the minister himself. I feel perfectly sure that if the wounded feelings of members were soothed in this respect, the whole matter would blow over with no more ado.


Edward Norman Lewis: The rule that one pass shall be given to one representative of a newspaper will work awkwardly if the minister insists on these regulations being carried out, in fact it has done so since the regulations were introduced.


Frederick William Borden: This matter was talked over. I understood from my deputy that he intended to communicate with the head office of each newspaper, and ask the newspaper to name its representative in Ottawa, to whom the permanent privilege should be granted. I have no objection to sending half a dozen to one newspaper.


Edward Norman Lewis: The wording of the latter part of clause 10 is ambiguous and might cause confusion :
Any person desiring admission to the department after these hours must use the west entrance, and upon showing to the policeman satisfactory proof as to his right to enter the building.


Frederick William Borden: After office hours?


Edward Norman Lewis: After office hours.


Frederick William Borden: I shall bring that to the attention of my deputy.


REPRESENTATIONS RE OVER-PAYMENTS BY AUDITOR GENERAL.
Mr. J. A. BEST (Dufferin).: Mr. Speaker, I would draw the attention of the government to pages 3, 4 and 5 of volume 1 of the Auditor General's Report. The Auditor General here makes some grave charges that the Senate have been over-paying employees, and also that some members of the House of Commons have not paid for speeches-I do not know whether this overpayment was for printing or for making the speeches. As the Auditor General is the principal safeguard against over-payments, I think that these statements ought to be looked into by the government, and that official should have the assistance of the government in seeing that these over-payments are refunded. I would ask the government if these over-payments have been refunded, and, if not, why not? I see the names of three hon. members of this House who have been over-paid on their indemnities. These names are mentioned and why is it that we have not the names of those servants who have been over-paid and also those members who have not paid for ' their speeches? This information should

be given to the House. I think it is wrong to cover up the name of any one who gets over-payment and fails to make a refund. The over-payments to members are at page N-10. I understand that this has all been refunded. As to these other payments, I understand that the Auditor General has been notifying the proper authorities for some years, but that no action has been taken. I would like to know if these overpayments have been refunded and if not, why not?


Wilfrid Laurier: We will look into it.


THE WOODS BUILDING.
William Pugsley: I notice that the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe) is in his place, and therefore, while the matter is fresh in our minds, I would reply to the suggestion which he made that there was an error in the answer which I gave to his question appearing at page 315 of ' Hansard,' The hon. gentleman stated, and no doubt he was under that impression, that there was an error of something like $3,000 in the amount paid for the lighting of the Woods and Canadian buildings for the year ending 31st March, 1909. The hon. gentleman says that the amount I gave is some $3,000 less than appears in the Auditor General's Report. If my hon. friend will turn to the Auditor General's Report for the year ending March 31, 1909, he will find that while the total amount paid for lighting, as shown on that page, is $10,219.62, and while in my statement of the cost of lighting for the year ending March 31, 1909, the amount was given as $7,200 odd, being $3,000 less than that amount, he will find that the amount of $10,219.62 covers the period in respect to the Canadian building from the 20th January, 1908, to the 31st March, 1908, which would be for the preceding fiscal year. He will also find that it includes the lighting of the Queen street building as well, and be will also find that for the lighting of the Woods building there is an amount of $1,836.71 between the 20th January, 1908, and the 26th March,
1908,	which would also be in the previous fiscal year. My hon. friend also will find that it includes the lighting of the Woods building from the 20th January, 1908. So that, between that date and the 31st March, there would also be the lighting which would be for the previous fiscal year. If my hon. friend looks at it carefully he will see that there is no error in the answer that I gave to the House.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Would the hon. minister tell me what volume of the Auditor General's Report he is quoting from?


William Pugsley: I am quoting from volume 3 for the fiscal year ended 31st March,
1909.	That.is the fiscal yeaT 1908-9. That Mr. BEST.
is the year to which my hon. friend called attention.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: If the minister will look at the Auditor General's Report for that year he will find that for the Woods building alone there is a charge of $3,696.50.


William Pugsley: For what year?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: 1908-9, the one that the minister is looking at. There are two items that must be added together.


William Pugsley: That is true; but my hon. friend will observe that that includes the lighting of the Woods building during the shortest winter days from the 20th January, 1908, to the 26th March, 1908, and that ali amounts to $3,696.50.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I am taking the fiscal year 1908-9.


William Pugsley: Quite so; the fiscal year ends on the 31st March. That $3,696.50 includes lighting between the 20th January, 1908, and the 26th March, 1908, and that is clearly for the previous fiscal year.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I have the report, which was prepared by an official of the Department of Public Works, showing the different expenditures for 1908-9 and 1909-10. The figures I quoted were prepared by an official of the minister's department.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman called my attention to the Auditor General's Report for the year 1908-9 and the hdn. gentleman stated to the House that my answer was not in accordance with the Auditor General's Report, but contained an amount $3,000 less. What I want to call the hon. gentleman's attention to is the fact that in the Auditor General's Report the additional $3,000 is shown to be for the lighting of the building during the previous fiscal year and for the Queen street building also.



QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS.

["I should think that would be a very proper point at which to have a small armoury.\nAt six o'clock House resumed, and the Speaker left the Chair.\nAfter Recess.\nHouse resumed at eight o'clock."]
George Halsey Perley: On Wednesday last my hon. friend^ from Grenville (Mr. Reid) asked Question No. 47, which was on the Order Paper on Wednesday, and which is as follows:
1. What amounts have been paid by the several government departments since 1st January, 1908, to the following law firms, or to any member thereof, and what has been in each case the nature of the service rendered: Messrs. Dandurand, Hibbard & Company, Montreal; Stewart, Cox & McKenna, Montreal: Smith, Markay & Company, Montreal; Hibbard, Boyer & Gosselin, Montreal?
This question was purported to be answered on Wednesday last. It appears at page 1008 of ' Hansard '. The answer is as follows:

Answer so far as the Department of Marine and Fisheries is concerned:-	.
1. A payment of $75 was made to the firm of Hibbard, Boyer & Gosselin for legal services in connection with the investigation re SS. ' Hestia.'
This question has now been dropped from the Order Paper, and I submit for the consideration of the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) that this answer is grossly inadequate. On behalf of my hon. friend from Grenville, I wish to say that the question should have been left on the Order Paper. To answer a question in part in this way, and then drop it makes a great deal of difficulty for members of this House. If a question is to be answered in writing, and if the rule is to be taken advantage of and the question not starred it is absolutely essential that it should be answered in full and not in part.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend (Mr. Perley) is right in saying that the question has been only partially answered by one of the departments interested. It ought to include the answers of the other departments. If attention had been called to it I would not have objected to it standing as a notice for an order of the House, because that would be the most convenient procedure. I think the best way of disposing of these questions is to have them called here so that the correction may be made at the time, and when the answer has been stated it may be handed over to the clerk and disposed of.


George Eulas Foster: The Prime Minister will remember that last year we had this question up. Composite questions where several departments are concerned will frequently be asked, a minister answers with respect to his own department only and then the question goes off the Order Paper. I made the suggestion that if all the answers were collected by the Secretary of State, and a proper answer given as a whole it would obviate the difficulty.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think it would.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Civil government-Governor General's Secretary's oific-e-salaries, $20,625.
['I think it would.']
Wilfrid Laurier: There is no change in this except that made by the statutory increases.
Privy Council-salaries, $35,875.


Wilfrid Laurier: There is no change here except that last year we had five messengers, while this year we have one doorkeeper and four messengers, the number being the same.


George Eulas Foster: No new appointments?


Wilfrid Laurier: No.


George Eulas Foster: It is simply the old ones?


Wilfrid Laurier: The old ones.
Department of Justice-salaries, $64,186.25. .


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Does the deputy Minister of Justice devote himself exclusively to his duties as deputy minister or does he take briefs for private corporations or individuals?


Mr. AYLESWORTH.: I can readily answer the part of the question which refers to the manner in which the deputy Minister of Justice discharges the duties of his official position. That leaves nothing to be desired. I can scarcely find I think, words of praise which would be too high for the manner in which Mr. Newcombe discharges the duties of his position. No one could have the least dissatisfaction with that. In regard to the other question put by the hon. gentleman I have never made inquiry. I have not thought it was any of my affair to do so, I have seen in the newspapers occasionally, very occasionally, his name appearing as arguing a case in the Supreme Court which was not a government case. I think that has occurred in a few instances during perhaps the past two or three years; not more I should say than two or three instances since I have been Minister of Justice. I' can certainly say with assurance, that nothing of that nature has in any degree impaired Mr. Newcombe's usefulness as a public servant or interfered in in any way with the proper discharge of the duties of his office.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I did not question the efficiency of the deputy Minister of Justice in the performance of his duties. I question the propriety of the deputy minister of any department doing business for corporations or indivi-viduals outside his department. I question the propriety of the deputy minister of Justice-occupying that responsible position and receiving the large salary of $7,000 a year, who may possibly be called upon to report or give an opinion on questions between the government and corporations or individuals-acting in a private legal capacity for these corporations or individuals. I think that is a great impropriety and I think it only needs to be mentioned to emphasize its impropriety. I understand that the deputy minister of Justice frequently holds briefs for important corporations and individuals. If the interests pf his private clients digress from the interests of the government surely he cannot serve two masters. A deputy minister should devote his time exclusively to the duties of his office. Now that the matter has been called to the attention of the Prime Minister and the Minister of

Justice they should prevail upon the deputy minister of Justice to devote his time exclusively to his official duties.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I do not share the view of the hon. gentleman as to the propriety or impropriety of the course which he has been describing. I have of course a very clear recollection of a debate which took place in this House some five years ago when I was Postmaster General, when an attack was made upon me because I was closing the business I had in hand before I became Postmaster General and had appeared in perhaps a dozen or more cases in different courts while I was a member of the government. I maintained upon that occasion my absolute right to take that course; I have not changed my opinion in the least degree. I put this case to the hon. gentleman: If a medical man should happen to be deputy minister of some department and if in case of great emergency he were consulted by some former, or perhaps some new patient, is he not at liberty, supposing it to be at midnight, to relieve suffering and distress, and if he does it and charges a proper fee for it is any body hurt and is there the least impropriety? I can certainly see no impropriety. Now, with regard to a barrister who may be deputy minister of Justice holding a brief in any court for a private client, certainly if his doing so interferes with the discharge of his official duties; if it leads to his work being behind hand, or his time being taken up which properly belongs to the country, then he ought not to do it. But unless that takes place, I can see no reason why the deputy minister of Justice may not be left to his own sense of honour and of the fitness of things, just as any other barrister would be so left. My hon. friend instances I understand, the possibility that interests of some kind whose brief a deputy minister may hold, might perhaps conflict with the public interest. I think I can assure the committee th^t if there were the remotest chance of such a thing the deputy Minister of Justice at any rate, is a man of so delicate a sense of honour that the private brief would instantly be dropped. I have never heard a suggestion that such a thing has ever taken place and I am confident it never has. I am, I repeat, perfectly confident in my own mind that the public interest has never suffered in any degree by the very occasional and rare instances m which Mr. Newcombe has accepted briefs-generally, I think if not always in the Supreme Court-which had been sent to him at the instance of some private litigant.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: If the argument of the Minister of Justice is good, then any deputy minister or any official of any department of government can con-Mr. S. SHARPE.
tinue to transact business in competition with other men. That is carrying the principle altogether too far. I have not the honour of knowing the deputy Minister of Justice and no doubt he is a man of a high sense of honour and all that, but he is a human being after all. Now, I understand that this last summer the deputy Minister of Justice went over to the judicial committee of the privy council, left his business here in this country, and held a brief for the Bank of Montreal in an important case in which that bank was interested. Everybody knows that the Bank of Montreal does millions of dollars of business with this country and everybody knows that the Bank of Montreal may possibly have differences with the government which differences would naturally be referred to the Department of Justice for a report. In the first instance that reference would no doubt go to the deputy Minister of Justice because the minister cannot devote his time exclusively to that work, and it is only human nature to favour those who employ us. I say it is a matter of the utmost impropriety for a man occupying the responsible position of deputy Minister of Justice, to hold a brief for the Bank of Montreal which does millions of dollars of business with the government. Notwithstanding the strong language of the Minister of Justice and the fact that he speaks as if he said the last word that is to be said on the subject and as if we should accept his statement gratuitously without any contradiction or question, I submit that it is a matter of the utmost impropriety that the deputy Minister of Justice should hold a brief for the Bank of Montreal, an institution that does millions of dollars of business with the government concerning which grave disputes may arise between that institution and the government of this country.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: My hon. friend's reference to a recent case in connection with the Bank of Montreal gives me an opportunity of saying what I wish to say in regard to it. For some years past, certainly ever since I have been Minister of Justice, Mr. Newcombe has gone each summer to London to look after government cases before the Judicial Committee. That has been done in each instance at my special request. Even if I were able to appear as counsel in a case, I would rather that Mr. Newcombe did it, if it were a matter concerning the British North America Act. I know of no man in this country who in my opinion has a more thorough understanding or a better knowledge of the true spirit and meaning of the British North America Act than Mr. Newcombe has acquired in the years of his practice. Accordingly, it has been at my express desire that he has taken government briefs in matters arising under

the British North America Act when those cases came before the Judicial Committee for consideration. Pursuant to such a request and engaged upon three or four important questions of government litigation, Mr. Newcombe was in London during the month of July and a portion of the month of August last for the sittings of the Judicial Committee, and during that time he was offered this brief for the Bank of Montreal in connection with litigation between that bank and the liquidators of the Ontario bank, which had gone to the Judicial Committee. Now, I cannot see any reason in the world why he should decline that brief. The matter was an important one. If it had not been put into his hands by the Bank of Montreal, it would have been put into the hands of a leading English counsel. It in no way concerned any matter of government business. Mr. Newcombe was not at work in the Judicial Committee when that case was under argument. Even if he had declined the brief, he had to remain in London until the last of the government cases was over; and if at such a time, when he would otherwise have been idle, he is offered a piece of work which does not in any way conflict with or touch government interests, what possible objection there can be to his doing it I am not able to see. In this particular instance, I do not think I knew it beforehand; but when we met, he told me about it in conversation as a matter of ordinary interest between lawyers. He succeeded for his clients, they got good service for whatever fee they paid him, and I certainly was not disposed, in fact, I never thought, to ask him any questions about it or to express the slightest disapprobation of what he had done. I cannot see any reason to change my mind about that. It is perfectly true, there are important interests between the Bank of Montreal and the government, as there are between the government and many other institutions. That is no reason for continual hostility, where the special matter is one that does not in any way affect the public interest. the interest of the government or any of its departments. It seems to me, therefore, that the case is one which very well illustrates that no harm is done to anybody by what has taken place.


George Eulas Foster: We do not want to discuss this question at all on personal grounds. I agree with everything the minister has said with reference to the deputy Minister of Justice, his ability and all his sterling qualities. But there is a very great principle involved in this matter, and I am astonished somewhat that the Minister of Justice has not given some attention to that. What is allowable in a man's private business or in a corporation's own business is not allowable in a government's business. The whole principle involved in this case
is as to whether a man can serve two masters. Whatever will hold good for the deputy Minister of Justice will hold good for every deputy minister, for every high officer, for every officer in the service, no matter where he is. I know that the Prime Minister, who has a long experience in governmental matters, both in opposition and in the government, would not subscribe to the doctrine that a minister should not mind at all whether one, two, three or all of the officials in his department were doing outside work, and never should inquire whether they were or not, so long as they attended to their own duties properly. Whatever is allowed to one deputy minister must be allowed to another ; but there is no deputy ministership in the government upon which the duty devolves more to be clear and clean from outside entanglements than that of the Deputy Minister of Justice, because he has something to do with every department in regard to disputes which are constantly arising and which are referred to his department. There is one other point which I wish to bring strongly to the attention of the minister and the House. Just as soon as you allow a deputy minister to take outside work without curb, just so soon you cause dissatisfaction on the part of other deputy ministers, and you destroy the morale and discipline of the service. But there is another thing stronger still. The moment you allow a deputy minister to engage in outside work which brings him money, that very moment you throw him open to suspicion which may be unfounded, but which goes far towards destroying his usefulness. Therefore, it is not fair to a deputy minister himself to allow him to engage in outside work. I see the Prime Minister has gone out, but I doubt very much if he will stand by the doctrine enunciated by the Minister of Justice. If he does, it is a question of so much importance that it certainly deserves the consideration of parliament.


Mr. BLAIN.: This matter was brought to the attention of the House in the session of 1906. It may be as well to remind hon. members who were not here then, that my hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) moved the following resolution :
That it is inexpedient that any member of the government or deputy head of department should act or appear as barrister, counsel or advocate in any action, suit or proceeding, except where the interests of the Crown are involved, in any court presided over by a judge appointed by the government of Canada.
That resolution was discussed and an amendment to it was offered by the then Minister of Justice (Sir Charles Fitzpatrick) as follows :

That, in the opinion of this House, public business should hare the first claim on the time and attention of each and every member of the government and that the permanent officials of the government should give to the performance of the duties of their respective departments their whole time and attention.
That was the opinion then expressed by the then Minister of Justice, now Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The members supporting the government voted down the resolution of my hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) and carried the amendment which I have read, according to which the government were of the opinion that the whole time of every deputy minister should be devoted to the business of his department. If that be still the opinion of the government, no doubt the statement of my hon. friend from North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe) is quite correct :


Mr. SPROULE.: No doubt the proceeding in question is a little off colour, but those who know the history of this government will not be surprised because this is not the first, nor the second, nor the third time that similar conduct has been drawn to the attention of the House. I remember distinctly a case some years ago in which an official of the government, a legal gentleman who was receiving a salary of some four ox five or six thousand dollars a year and his expenses, as legal adviser to the government officials in the Yukon, received fees for defending a party who was prosecuted by the government. One of the officials whom this legal gentleman, employed by the government, was obliged by his appointment to advise in the carrying out of his duties, was the collector of customs. The collector of customs had seized a vessel which came into the harbour in violation of the custom law. The captain of the vessel seized did not know to whom he should go for advice and he was advised by another government official, to go to this lawyer who had been retained for the purpose of advising the collector of customs and other government officials in that country. The ship master went to him and was advised by him. The vessel was seized by the Minister of Customs, advised by the same legal gentleman, and the captain of the seized vessel was also advised by him what he should do to get rid of his trouble. Finally the matter was settled, and this gentleman, besides drawing his salary from the government, drew a $700 fee from the captain of the vessel for the advice he gave. In the case we are now discussing, there is not quite so much impropriety, because the deputy Minister of Justice only got a fee for attending to one side of the case, whereas in the other a government official attended to both sides of the case and each side paid him a fee.


Richard Blain: Department of Justice-contingencies, $11,000.


George Eulas Foster: Have there been any new appointments or are these simply increases to the old officers provided by law?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: There is no increase in the number of clerks. There were some positions vacant twelve months ago which have since been filled.


George Eulas Foster: Who are those?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: An appointment, not yet of permanent character, has been made to the position vacted by the death of Mr. Fraser. The appointment to which I am alluding is that of a young man named Edwards, a barrister of the Ontario bar. He is -not doing the work that Mr. Fraser did or receiving the salary. Mr. Fraser's work has been distributed among the other officers of the department. It is now being done by Mr. Power, Mr. Gisborne, Mr. Chisholm and Mr. Pownall, and the work which Mr. Edwards is doing is of a less important character. Then Mr. Leblanc, an advocate from the province of Quebec, has been appointed within the last few months. He is engaged in the general work of litigation instituted against the government with special reference to actions which come under the law of the province of Quebec. These are the only new appointments except that of a stenographer at $500 a year. In the Supreme Court there have been no additions or appointments during the last twelve months, but in the Exchequer Court an appointment has been made of a gentleman whose name at the moment I do not recollect, as clerk in the first division, subdivision ' B '. His work would principally be that of short-hand reporting in the court. He will also act as clerk in the office of the registrar.


George Eulas Foster: In the other two cases, in what division and at what salaries were the appointments?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: The salary in respect of the position made vacant by Mr. Fraser has been voted each year at $2,S00, but Mr. Edwards has been appointed at $2,100, and is only receiving that amount at the present time. Mr. Leblanc started as clerk in the second division, subdivision ' A ', at the minimum salary of $1,600. Provision is made in this vote so that if, on April 1 next, he should be considered eligible to receive an increase of $50 there will be means of paying it to him from the appropriation voted.
Department of Militia and Defence-salaries, $137,100.


Mr. EDWARDS.: Will the minister please explain the increase of $8,150 in this vote?


Frederick William Borden: Provision is made in this vote for six new appointments rendered necessary by the fact that the Militia Department has taken over from the Public Works Department the work of constructing the smaller military buildings, that is, those costing up to $15,000 each, and including a lump sum voted of $100,000.


George Eulas Foster: Is not that a duplication of the work of the Public Works Department?


Frederick William Borden: To some extent it will be, but I think it will pay, because I think the Militia Department will be able to do better work and


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.
Sir FREDERICK BORDEN-more in accordance with their own requirements- it is from that point of view I speak. The department knows better, or ought to know better what it needs, and probably will be able to do with less expensive buildings.


Samuel Hughes: Are there not engineers in all departments


Frederick William Borden: We have engineers. But I was about to point out that we shall require one architect for this new branch at $2,100, two draughtsmen at $1,200 each, and three clerks at $500 each, a total expenditure of $6,000. Then, there are ten promotions involving an increase of $3,950. On the other hand, there have been three resignations, the salaries of those who resigned amounting to $2,800. This leaves a net increase, as shown here, of $8,150.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) was in his seat a few moments ago when the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe) raised a question as to the propriety of the deputy Minister of Justice receiving a fee for services from a corporation that does business with the government. I have the greatest respect for the opinion of the Minister of Justice in matters of law and legal interpretation, but, as to the question of propriety in this case, I must beg respectfully to dissent from his view. But, if it be proper for the deputy Minister of J ustice to take a fee from one doing business with the government, I suppose it would be equally proper for the deputy minister of any other department to do the same. I would, therefore, put this question to the Minister of Militia:	We will supposethis is merely a hypothetical question-that the deputy Minister of Militia is approached by the Ross Rifle Company, for instance, and offered $2,000 or $3,000, as the case may be for his services in advising that company with respect to the construction of some peculiar kind of arm, and gives his
services to that concern for two or three weeks; or, suppose he is approached by a manufacturer of clothing who has a contract with the government and is offered and accepts a certain sum of money for his services-would the minister say that that would be a proper act on the part of his deputy minister?


Frederick William Borden: I think my hon. friend need scarcely put a question of that kind because everybody knows it -would be highly improper. But I do not think that his supposititious case is at all on all fours with the one which has been discussed. Because, in the case of my deputy, for instance, in the first place, he is not one who would be qualified to give advice to the Ross Rifle company.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If I may be pardoned- let us assume that he gives value, that he is qualified to render services to the Ross Rifle company. Then, wherein could his case be differentiated from the case of the deputy Minister of Justice?


Frederick William Borden: Assuming that, I say it would be improper.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Then, wherein does that case differ from that of the deputy Minis-of Justice, who has taken a fee from the Bank of Montreal which also has a contract with the government?


Frederick William Borden: It is entirely different, I think.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In what way?


Mr. CURRIE. (Simcoe).: The deputy Minister of Militia, I understand, is a medical man. There are dealers in medical supplies that sell large quantities of medical stores to the government. Suppose that one of these dealers had a lawsuit with another party, would the Minister of Militia consider it proper for his deputy to be called in" to give expert assistance at a large fee to that concern? That is a case on exactly the same footing with the other.


Frederick William Borden: I can only assure my hon. friend that nothing of that kind is being done.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: One other question. I would like to ask the Minister of Militia if he expects his deputy minister to give his whole services to the government, or whether it would be competent for his deputy to sell his services to a private individual who had not business with the government.


Frederick William Borden: I certainly believe that my deputy minister does give his whole services-outside of his necessary vacation-to the government.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. minister has not quite answerd my question:	Does he
expect his deputy minister to give his whole time to the service of the government?


Frederick William Borden: I do.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: He does not give medical advice to contractors, does he?


Frederick William Borden: I have not heard of it.


William Cameron Edwards: The minister has told us that the increase of salaries is due to the fact that a change has heen made in regard to the construction of certain military buildings-those costing not more than $15,000-and that this will come in future, under the direction of this division of the Militia Department; and he tells us that in consequence of that change, this increase in the salary vote is needed.


Frederick William Borden: Part of it,
yes.


William Cameron Edwards: The Minister of Militia has shown that he believes that his department can construct buildings required for militia purposes cheaper than the Department of Public Works has done. I hope, for the sake of the country, that they will not cost any more, for under the supervision of the Department of Public Works military buildings, armouries, &c., have cost all the way from 40 per cent to 75 per cent moTe than the estimates. I fail to see why, if the Militia Department is to have the construction of buildings to cost $15,000, it should not have the supervision of the construction of buildings costing from $20,000 to $40,000. Are we to understand that the ability of the Minister of Militia is limited to constructing buildings of $15,000, and that when we come to the construction of a building to cost, according to the estimate, say, $100,000 (and in practice, under the Minister of Public Works $300,000 to $400,000) a brain of the magnitude of that of the Minister of Public Works is required?


William Pugsley: Hear, hear.


William Cameron Edwards: I am satisfied that the supervision of the erection of these buildings by new officers could not be any worse than it has been in the past under the Department of Public Works. We have evidence from the Atlantic to the Pacific of the utter incapacity of the Public Works Department to handle woTk of this kind properly and in the interests of the country; therefore, even if we have to pay a few dollars more in salaries, or to appoint a few more officers for this purpose, I think it is a move in the right direction, and I only regret that the matteT could not be spread over a larger field and that the Department Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.
of Militia could not have under its control the construction of all those buildings, about which, it seems to me, the Minister of Militia should know more, and I believe does know infinitely more than the Minister of Public Works. If you examined the militia I believe you would find that to-day you have nearly as many officers as men in it and a few more officers would not make much difference. My only regret is that the Minister of Militia is not to go a little farther and take over buildings the construction of which cost more than $15,000. The existing system seems to me utterly illogical. The Department of Militia considers that a building of a certain size is required for a certain place and the minister asks for a building to cost $20,000 or $25,000; the Minister of Public Works comes along and puts up a building costing $200,000 or $300,000. That sort of thing has been going on until the people are sick and tired of it, and we have an expenditure of between $7,000,000 and $8,000,000 on Militia and Defence. This would not be so bad if it were properly expended, but in many cases throughout this country, under the system now in vogue, buildings have been erected so much larger than the circumstances required that money has thereby been diverted from the proper channels where it would do most good.


Morley Currie: I wish to endorse the remarks of my hon. friend. I understand an armoury has been built in Hamilton recently and that the architectural work has been placed in charge of the local militia there; that is to say, that the Department of Public Works did not originate the plans. That armoury is endorsed by every person who knows anything about armouries as being possibly the best laid out and the best in Canada. I am very pleased to see the Minister of War take chaTge of this work to some extent, because I feel that we ought to have our public works carried out in the same way as they are in the United States. In the United States and also in England and other countries the inspection of all public work of any character is carried on by the Engineering Department of the War Department. Young and old engineers have charge of all work and no contractor can get away with bad work when these inspectors are on the job. Possibly in only three instances in the history of the engineering corps in the United States has there been any complaint, or any default by the officers in charge. The result is that the government gets a dollar's worth for its dollar, and when a contractor takes a contract for a public work he knows that the inspector of that work is from the engineering staff, a fully competent man, and that he will have to carry on that- work strictly according to his contract. I hope that this gov-

eminent will see its way clear to expand that principle. Every one knows that we are each year passing many very competent. young men through the Military College at Kingston. They graduate into other lines of life after they leave the college, they are engineers, and they go into civil life. We do not seem to be able to tlnd places for these graduates, many of them brilliant men, in the Canadian service, but if there was an engineering staff in connection with the militia, and if all the work carried on by the Canadian government was placed in charge of these men, who would look forward to a life service and a pension at the end of it, this House would feel satisfied that the work would be carried on properly and that good value would be secured for the country. In addition to that, the Royal Military College would be then fulfilling its functions and would be giving value to this country for the money expended on it. I heartily endorse the proposal, I am only sorry that the value of the buildings is not increased from, say, $15,000 to $40,000 or $50,000, which would take in all military buildings.


Frederick William Borden: The arbitrary amount of $15,000 has been fixed subject, of course, to adjustment afterwards, if found necessary. The idea was that the smaller buildings costing $15,000 and less could be constructed with less trouble and more rapidly by the Militia Department than by the Public Works Department for this reason: When the Public Works Department constructs a military building it must, of course, look to the Department of Militia for its plans. In the case mentioned by my hon. friend, the case of the Hamilton Drill Hall, which he rightly says is, perhaps, the finest in the whole Dominion of Canada, perhaps of its kind anywhere, the building was constructed by the Public Works Department, but perhaps special deference was paid in this particular case to the views of the local militia officers.


George Eulas Foster: Was it designed by a Public Works engineer?


Frederick William Borden: Oh, yes, entirely so, but based upon recommendations made through my department.


William Pugsley: As is always the case.


Frederick William Borden: Difficulties are constantly cropping up. Something is discovered in the course of construction, some change that ought to be made, we are not there to look after it and an error very likely is made. There is this to be said, and my hon friend, I think, will not object to my saying it: The Department of Public Works is desirous of constructing handsome and highly creditable public buildings and is a little too prone pos-33
sibly to expend a larger sum of money than would be absolutely necessary for the, requirements of the militia department, particularly in the smaller places. We want a larger number of armouries. We need hundreds and we cannot get them unless we bring the cost down to a reasonable figure. We are going to make an effort-we may fail, but we will do our best to succeed-to construct armouries for a small number of men within a reasonable expenditure. The larger buildings will be left in the hands of the Public Works Department. This will be desirable with all the machinery they possess.. Expenditures for large armouries, costing a quarter of a million or more, and large barracks, such as are to be constructed in Toronto and Montreal, will remain under the control of the Department of Public Works. My hon. friend has referred to the system in the United States of placing all this work under the control of engineers. That is quite true and that is what is proposed to be done now. I did not mention that we have considerable part of the staff that will enable us' to do the work economically. My hon. friend referred to the desirability of affording employment for graduates of the _ Royal Military College. He will be glad ' to know that we are doing more and more of that. We are particularly in the civil branches and in the military branch of the service, employing nearly 100 to-day, while fifteen years ago we only had two.


George Eulas Foster: Not all permanent?


Frederick William Borden: No, but most of them.


Samuel Hughes: The move made by the hon. Minister of Militia is certainly along the right line. At almost every district headquarters there is now, and if there is not there should be, a district engineer. That officer with a staff of a very few men could almost revolutionize the military buildings in each locality. For instance, take Kingston; there are, as every one knows who has visited the Royal Military College, dozens of jobs to be done but if you have to go through the regular routine of calling for tenders it will take a great deal of time and cost a tremendous amount of money. I need only cite the cottages that have been referred to on other occasions by my hon. friend from Fron-tenac (Mr. Edwards) as an instance of the absolute waste of money in this regard. With the engineer in charge and a few men at his disposal there is not a district headquarters or camp that could not have' permanent buildings at a nominal cost, such as would be of absolute advantage to the country. Every year the stores are hauled out from some building where



they are kept to camp at some loss from wear and tear and in other regards. They are not properly cared for because they cannot be properly cared for in tents, and therefore^ I maintain that in all these localities the engineers could very properly-be employed at this work of building drill -iheds and small armouries. The engineer* and one or two of his permanent officials' could do this work where there is no contract, or extras, or rake-off, for half of what it would cost to erect such buildings under the ordinary conditions. I very highly commend the move of the minister


Morley Currie: I have only one remark to add and it will come home more especially to members on this side of the House, as to the quality of the work done by the Public Works Department. All we have to do is to go into this new wing to the west of us. Whoever laid out that wing followed the architecture of the rest of the building, but forgot, in the glad moments of picturing out his beautiful design, that there would have to be such things as heating and ventilation. The result is, that no arrangement was made for wiring, heating and ventilating the building, until it was completed, and now upon going into the rooms you see the same old method of piping as that which appears in the rest of the building which was erected long before they had such thing as steam heating. It reminds me very much of the story of a Chinaman who was employed to make a man a pair of trousers. The trousers happened to have a patch on them when finished. The man had sent the Chinaman a pattern and he had made use of it in this way. The Chinaman then made a new pair of trousers and when they were completed the customer found that the patch had been taken from the old ones and put on the new ones too. So, in this new building the heating pipes, instead of being hidden away in the wall, as they would be under modern conditions, are exposed just the same as they are in old buildings, so that the harmony of the buildings is preserved in that respect. Anybody who has the slightest idea of a modern building, going into the rooms of this new wing, will be shocked to find how the Public Works engineering staff does its work.


William Pugsley: I certainly do sincerely trust that the result of this change will be that we shall get these small armouries built at a less cost than heretofore. May I express the hope that my gallant and brave friend from Victoria and Haliburton, (Mr. Hughes), will be able, a year or two from now, to congratulate my hon. friend the Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Frederick Borden), upon the very great economies that have been effected in connection with the construction of these Mr. HUGHES.
buildings. I may say that my desire, and the desire of all the members of the government, is to erect these buildings as economically as we can. I was very glad indeed when my hon. friend the Minister of Militia and Defence, stated that with the staff which they had in connection with the Department of Militia and perhaps with some slight increase, they -would be able to take charge of these smaller armouries. If the experiment proves the success which I trust it will be, it will afford us very great pleasure to carry it to a still further degree. We have a great deal of work in the Department of Public Works. We are not able to keep pace with the demand from the various sections of the country, for ordinary buildings, such as post offices and custom houses. The country is growing so rapidly, that the chief architect, with his present staff, has not been able to get along with the work as rapidly as I would like him to do. Just a word with regard to my hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. Currie), who knows-I would not say a good deal-but a little about everything, and who thinks he knows perhaps more about architecture than the regular experts of the architectural branch of the Department of Public Works. The hon. gentleman complains about this western wing. I think he is not doing his knowledge of architecture justice, when he makes that complaint. People who know what good buildings are, have spoken in the highest terms of this western wing.


Samuel Hughes: Would the minister point out why there is no provision made in one single room for ventilation?


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman for North Simcoe complains of the fact that the heating apparatus is in the room .beside the walls, instead of being concealed. There are many people who prefer that kind of heating arrangement.


Morley Currie: The minister is entirely mistaken. I did not object to the architectural design. I said that the architecture wras very good. What . I objected to, was that the pipes which convey the heat throughout the building were all stuck on the walls with nails and hooks.


William Pugsley: I presume the hon. gentleman means that the radiators should be placed inside the walls.


Morley Currie: If the minister does not know the difference between a radiator and a steam pipe we will let him have his own way.


William Pugsley: Many people prefer the present mode of heating the western wing, and I do not object to the architect adopting that system. I do not think that any competent and fair minded judge will say

that the western wing is not well constructed and is not creditable to the department.


Richard Blain: We welcome the criticism by the Minister of Militia on the extravagant policy pursued by the Minister of Public Works in the past. Will the Minister of Militia in his new sphere as builder and contractor employ clerks of works who are not builders or contractors or even mechanics, as the Minister of Public Works used to do?


William Pugsley: I hope the hon. gentleman will not take that as admitted because I do not contradict it.


Richard Blain: We had a case where men were employed by the Public Works Department as clerks of works, and these men were tailors.


William Pugsley: That is just a single case, ten years ago.


Richard Blain: Will the Minister of Militia employ for this duty artisans of experience or will he continue the system of engaging politicians?


Frederick William Borden: In addition to the permanent employees it may be necessary to employ some outside men from time to time.


Richard Blain: Will they be experienced men?


Frederick William Borden: That is my intention.


Richard Blain: Will these men have to be recommended by a supporter of the government?


Frederick William Borden: I would be disposed to have an officer of my department visit a particular work and report what would be necessary in the employment of extra men.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Will the increased staff of the Militia Department, necessary to take charge of these buildings, result in a corresponding decrease in the staff of the Public Works Department?


William Pugsley: The demands for public buildings are so increasing that we will have to increase the staff rather than diminish it.


Mr. MEIGHEN.: At what date will the Militia Department take over the construction of the public buildings which are to be placed under its control?


Frederick William Borden: Very likely at the beginning of the fiscal year, in April.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister have sufficient staff to undertake the construe-tion of such works as have already been determined upon, or will this change be ever used as an excuse for delay.
33}


Frederick William Borden: Never.


Arthur Meighen: Will the Minister of Militia have sufficient staff to proceed at once with the construction of such works as have months before this been determined upon?


Frederick William Borden: That is my expectation.


Richard Blain: In some instances heretofore the government have asked the municipalities to provide sites and in other instances the government purchased the sites. What will be the policy as to that in the future?


Frederick William Borden: In some instances a municipality in order to induce the government to erect a building on certain lands which it owned was not only willing but anxious to give the site. Where the municipality desires to contribute the site the department will be glad to accept it. In other cases where it is absolutely necessary to have a militia building, if the local authorities do not feel disposed to give a site my department will purchase a site as has been done in the past by the Department of Public Works.


Samuel Hughes: When a municipality presents a site to the department is there not a concession given to the municipality in the way of allowing them to use the drill shed on certain public occasions.


Frederick William Borden: Yes, there are cases where an agricultural society may own property or where the municipality may hold the property for such a society, and in these cases an arrangement is made. In one case I have in mind the department pays rental on a certain portion of the building constructed on these grounds for military purposes, and that is an advantage to the municipality and to the department. We shall be glad to do this in other cases when the occasion arises.


Richard Blain: How are these sites to be selected?


Frederick William Borden: By the municipal authorities, or the local military authorities, with the assistance of representatives from the engineering branch of my department, or by all three.


Richard Blain: Not by the Reform Association?


Frederick William Borden: No.


Richard Blain: Then the Minister of Militia will have a new policy, because last session I read an advertisement from a western Ontario newspaper calling the Reform Association of the municipality to select the site for a public building.


Frederick William Borden: For the Militia Department?


Richard Blain: No, the Public Works Department.


William Pugsley: It would be to advise as to the site.


Richard Blain: The Reform Association put an advertisement in the newspaper calling the friends together for the purpose of selecting a site for a public building. Will the Minister of Militia continue that policy?


William Pugsley: You would hardly call that a policy, that would be a very impolitic thing to do.


Richard Blain: Will the Minister of Militia answer?


Frederick William Borden: I shall look for the best information we can get. I have already named three sources of information, and I may add that I would not object to advice from the Reform Association or even from the Conservative Association. I would not object to good advice from any source. Our object is to locate our building in the best situation, and the Reform Association might have correct views about that, and equally so the Conservative Association.


Richard Blain: What about the middleman?


Frederick William Borden: I have not had any experience of that kind.


William Cameron Edwards: I would like to ask the Minister of Militia and Defence one question. His department is to have buildings not to cost more than $15,000. Suppose the Minister of Public Works, in the future as in the past, should consider that a certain place ought to have an armoury to cost $20,000, how would you decide that matter? Would you call out the militia to settle it?


Frederick William Borden: No, I think I would decide that.


William Cameron Edwards: The hon. minister has not been able to decide it in the past, according to his own statement. He has frequently said that a building of a certain size was suitable to a certain place, and the Minister of Public Works has put up a much more expensive one to the detriment of the militia, because it has prevented people in other parts of the country getting buildings that would serve the purpose. I can fancy the Minister of Public Works trying to get control, so as to put up buildings costing $20,000 or more, in order to spend the money himself. Therefore I do not know how you are going to settle the matter.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the policy of the government with regard to the mainten-Mr. BLAIN.
ance of drill sheds in small villages? I understood that some years ago the government decided to store the arms of each battalion at headquarters and to do away with these small buildings, but I find that some of them are going up again.


Frederick William Borden: Some years ago, when the Lee-Enfield rifle was first introduced here, there seemed to be an idea that it must be so carefully handled that all the rifles should be kept under a caretaker at a central point. It was found by experience that that was not necessary, and now the policy is that when the headquarters of a regiment composed of eight companies accommodates sufficiently all the companies of that regiment, we should have onlv one armoury at a central point; but when the companies are situated a long way apart, ten or fifteen or twenty miles, then there should be either an armoury for each of the companies, or one for such companies as are situated more closely together. That is the policy at present, to have a much larger number of small armouries throughout the country.


Mr. WHITE (Renfrew).: Before this item passes, I would like to remind the minister that last session I brought to his attention the necessity of establishing an armoury or a drill shed in the town of Pembroke, and. in view of what he has just said, I think that would be wise. We have only one company in the town, and the nearest other company is at the town of Renfrew, about thirty miles distant.


Frederick William Borden: I should think that would be a very proper point at which to have a small armoury.
At six o'clock House resumed, and the Speaker left the Chair.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 32) to incorporate the Security Trusts Corporation.-Mr. Martin (Regina).
Bill (No. 33) respecting the South Ontario Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Nesbitt.
Bill (No. 34) respecting the Walkerton and Lucknow Railway Company.-Mr. Donnelly.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Department of Public Works-salaries, $389,550.
["But for a man occupying a position in the customs, to be actively identified with a party, and active and offensive as the hon. gentleman says' this official is, that is a thing the department does not approve of, and the department will endeavour to deal with the case in some way when the hon. gentleman has laid the facts before me, and I have obtained the answer of the officer.\nSome resolutions reported.\nOn motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the House adjourned at 10.55 p.m.", 'Monday, December 12, 1910.']
William Pugsley: There are increases as follow :	None in First Division, Subdivision A ; Subdivision B, an increase of one ; Second Division, Subdivision A, an

increase of two ; Second Division, Subdivision B, an increase of three ; Third Division, Subdivision A, an increase of three ; Third Division. Subdivision B, an increase of six, making a total of fourteen.	'	.
These increases were urged 'by the chief officers of the department as being absolutely necessary. There are some few_ increases in salaries. In the First Division, Subdivision A, there are eight statutory increases of $100 each. Then authority was given under sec. 38 chap. 15 to add $200 to the minimum salary of the First Division, Subdivision A, to be paid the assistant engineer, making his salary $3,000. First Division, Subdivision B, fifteen increases at $100 each and one at $50. There is a new appointment at $2,100.


Richard Blain: What is the explanation of the new appointment?


William Pugsley: The official is required according to the report made by the deputy minister.


Richard Blain: Has the appointment been made?


William Pugsley: There has been an appointment made and a promotion from the Second Division, Subdivision A.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What auoui the fourteen new appointments?


William Pugsley: These are all in the Third Division.


Richard Blain: Did they pass the civil service examination?


William Pugsley: They must before the appointments are made. We are making provision for the increase.


Mr. HENDERSON.: Among those who have already passed the examination, could not men be found to fill these positions?


William Pugsley: When we get a vote, we give notice that a certain number of clerks are required and they are appointed on the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission after competitive examinations have taken place. The commissioners can recommend from among those who have already passed if there are any available. In fact the commissioners make the appointments. In the case of promotions, they are made on the recommendation of the deputy head, but there must be also a certificate from the _ Civil Service Commission as to qualification.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Does the department require that the deputy minister shall give his whole service to the government?


William Pugsley: That question has never arisen because he does give his whole time to it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Does the minister believe he could give a sufficient service if he were permitted to devote part of his time to outside interests?


William Pugsley: I would not think so. His duties are of such a nature that he could not.


Arthur Meighen: Why should a different rule apply to the Public Works Department to that which applies to the Justice Department?


William Pugsley: I would say that the position of a lawyer is different from that of almost anybody else in the community. A lawyer becomes more efficient and more able to discharge his duties by the greater practice that he has. I should think that, if the deputy minister should undertake to argue a case now and then which would bring him into touch with the best legal minds of the country, and could do it without neglecting his official duties, it would be an advantage to him and to the public service.


Richard Blain: But that is entirely contrary to the policy of the government as set forth in the resolution which I read just before six o'clock.
Mr. PUGSLEY'. I was giving my opinion. I was not asked what the rule was.


Richard Blain: I pointed out that this government had favoured a resolution which was adopted by this House declaring that in future the deputy ministers were to give their whole time to the public service. But now the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) opens the door to any by saying that this may apply to some, ,but not to others. What has taken place to cause the government to change its policy, and what order in council has been passed on the subject?


William Pugsley: I was asked my opinion as to whether there might be a distinction as between the position of the deputy Minister of Justice and that of another deputy. I stated my opinion entirely apart from the resolution. I am not aware whether the deputy Minister of Justice has devoted his time to other business or not; and it would not be my place to answer as to that. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) was here when the items of the Justice Department were under consideration, and I presume he gave the committee such information as was desired.


Arthur Meighen: The minister bases his distinction on the fact that the deputy Minister of Justice is a lawyer, and so improves by carrying on practice. Does he wish to state that his own deputy minister does not improve? I do not catch the distinction the hon. gentleman makes.


William Pugsley: There is a great distinction; my hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) knows it.


Arthur Meighen: I have not had it explained yet.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The Minister of Public Works has clearly stated that the whole time of the deputy Minister of Public, Works must be devoted to the duties of his office, and that one in that position could not give good service if he was allowed to devote part of his time to private practice. But when asked about the case of the deputy Minister of Justice, he explains that in the case of lawyers it is different- Would he change his answer with regard to the deputy Minister of Public Works if that gentleman happened to be a lawyer?


William Pugsley: I do not know that I would. A lawyer would not be so well qualified, speaking generally, to discharge the duties of a department like the Public Works, as would a reliable business man.


Richard Blain: But that does not apply to the minister?


William Pugsley: The minister is an exception to all rules in the opinion of my honourable friend.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the minister please explain what necessity there is for an increase of fourteen clerks in his department in one year? That seems a very large increase, especially in view of the fact that the Public Works Department is handing over a portion of its business to the Department of Militia and Defence. The increase of work must be verv rapid to require an incease of fourteen this year, and, presumably, an equal number next year.


William Pugsley: I do not know what will be necessary next year, but this increase is certainly necessary this year. Several of the new appointments are to be in the architectural branch. The chief architect has asked very urgently for an increase in his staff. He has not been able to keep up with his work. There are a number of buildings that I would like to have seen erected in pursuance of the votes parliament has made, but it has been quite impossible to keep up with the work of preparing plans. And that is an index of what exists in the different branches of the service. The business of the country is growing very rapidly, and, as cities and towns increase in number and importance, there is necessarily a growing demand for public accommodation in the way of post offices, custom houses and other buildings, the construction of which adds greatly to the work of the architectural branch, and, of course, to the need of clerical force required to keep pace with the work. The hon. gentle-Mr. HEIGHTEN.
man (Mr. Sproule) knows as well as I do how the country is growing, especially in the west, and realizes that this must increase the work of the department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It does seem to me that a staff of 257 ought to be a fairly large one for a single department. That was the number last year, and this year it is increased to 271. That would undoubtedly indicate a greatly increased amount of work thrown on the department. Yet, on looking over the estimates, as compared with the previous year, I do not see that there is very much more work. It would almost seem that, year by year, these people do less work and require more hands to do it. From a business standpoint, one would think that this staff would be capable of handling a great deal of work in the way of preparing plans and specifications, making estimates and drawing contracts. I do not know what the increase was last year over the year before, but if there was a proportionate increase, tho staff is certainly growing very fast.


William Pugsley: I am glad my hon. friend realizes that there is no unusual increase in the appropriation. I would agree with him that there is not, except as is required by the increased demands of the country.	-


Richard Blain: How about outside architects?


William Pugsley: But the disbursements amount to a good many millions of dollars. And I must say there is one very important work of the department, the dredging, on which we are trying to keep much closer watch than in the past. We have one engineer who is devoting his special attention to that work. We try to keep track of the different dredges in all sections of the country, to keep track of the inspectors and to watch closely the reports on the work. That requires the attention not only of one engineer, but also of assistants. With regard to the services of outside architects, we have endeavoured to keep the work within the department as closely as possible, but I am sorry to say we have not been able to do so entirely.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the minister expect to do it in the future with the new staff?


William Pugsley: That will depend on how the work increases. We have not the accommodation we would like, but if we had the accommodation I think it would be better to engage even a larger staff, so that we might do the work as much as possible within the department. I have in mind three or four buildings for the coming year, the plans of which will be prepared by outside architects.


Richard Blain: What buildings are they?


William Pugsley: One at Rigaud and two in Montreal. I cannot at the moment think of others.


David Henderson: The minister says he requires more assistance in the architectural branch. One would .suppose that men of that class would be among the better paid officials. I do not see how you could get good architects' for the salaries mentioned here. For instance, in Division 3-B, there are salaries of $800, $775, $550 and $500. Yet I notice that the chief increases asked for by the minister are in the two lower grades, Subdivisions A and B of the Third Division. There are nine inereases in this division, more than one half of the total number. This hardly agrees with the minister's statement that he was short of architects; I would suppose that the architects would be a better class of men with higher salaries.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend will notice one increase in Subdivision B of the First Division and two in Subdivision A of the second and two in Subdivision B of the second. These will all provide for architects of greater experience and then there are two in Subdivision A of the Third Division. My hon. friend is aware that a good deal of work in the department would be in the way of draughting, acting under the instructions of more experienced men. Young men are taken into the department and as they gain experience, if they discharge their duties efficiently are promoted into the higher divisions, but in the lower divisions they are doing exceedingly useful work for a few years.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You had in that branch, last year in the main estimates 257. That was raised to 243, but in the Supplementary Estimates, you provided for one clerk in the First Division, three in the second, four in 2-B and three in 3-A, one in 3-B and two messengers. That was an increase of 20 last year, and now we are asked foi an increase of 14 more this year.


William Pugsley: Was that 20 above the 257?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes.


William Pugsley: There must have been a number of vacancies because we are only asking now for 271 altogether.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I suppose there can be a vacancy if a friend needs the position. I take it for granted that there will probably be in the supplementary estimates this year some additional ones. There are different places where they can be loaded on the country and they are being loaded on in my judgment at a very rapid rate. This same increase in staff has gone on for several years past, and the increase in
numbers seems to be out of proportion to the increased work to be done. I cannot understand it, it is unnecessary and the only explanation I can find is that from year to year there is less work being done individually by the clerks through shorter hours, and one thing and another. I have often been amused and sometimes annoyed at the way civil servants carry on their work. We come here as members of parliament and our time is usually much occupied if' we endeavour to keep up with the work of the House. You have business to do with a department, but you cannot find the clerks you want before 10 o'clock; they are supposed to be there at 9.30 but there are always certain officials not there and you cannot be attended to.


William Pugsley: Would my hon. friend give an instance in my department?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have not had very much to do with the minister's department for the past two years, but I had sometimes before that, and I am quite satisfied from what I know of the customs of the employees and their hours of labour there, that it would be found just the same in the Public Works Department as in the ojher departments. Then we go to the committee work at 11 o'clock and are obliged to work until nearly one o'clock. We go to a department to get something done but that is impossible because so many officials have gone to lunch. You may not find them at their offices before 2 o'clock or 2.30. Then, members have to be at the House at 3 o'clock, they are anxious to be here at least until routine business is disposed of, and it is four o'clock before it is possible to again go to the departments and then you find that some of the officials have left their offices. It seems to me that in many of these departments the hours of labour must be very very short. In a private business such conditions would not be tolerated.
I suggested a few years ago, and a number of times since, that all these officials should be given a certain definite lunch hour and that during that time the departments should be closed. That would be better and more convenient for the members of parliament. It would economize the members' time and prevent many useless trips to the department. A few years ago the civil servants were supposed to work from 9.30 o'clock until 4, now I understand it is from 9.30 to 5 oclock, but if you go to their offices you will find many of them out before that time. I do not wish to be understood as saying that the civil servants as a whole are not hard working people, many of them are hard working men and women, in fact many are overworked, and they do remarkably well considering the chance they have to do their work. Their

time must be broken into from hour to hour a great deal and therefore they cannot do as much work as one could who sat there' quietly on from hour to hour and was not disturbed. I think that there is a large proportion that does mighty little work and puts in very short hours. I would suggest-and I suggest it again because of my experience from year to year and the difficulty of doing any work in the_ departments-the advisability of allowing them a given time at noon, let it be known, and then members of parliament will not be frittering away their time running down to these departments every hour hoping to find these clerks in with the idea of doing some business with them As it is now, and it has been for many years, it is a great source of annoyance and a great waste of time to members of this House and it is very little satisfaction to them in their endeavour to do any work with the departments here during the session.


William Pugsley: This is the first intimation I have had that any member of parliament has been inconvenienced in getting access to any of the officers of the department, or in seeing any of the clerks. I certainly have never had a complaint, and I have never heard of any complaint being made to any other minister.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the minister had been in this House he must have heard this complaint before.


William Pugsley: If the hon. gentleman desires any information in the department, he ought to call upon the minister or the deputy minister, who would ring for the clerk, whose presence was desired, and if he was so late in getting to the office as the hour which my hon. friend speaks of, he certainly would be reprimanded, and I do not think it would be likely to occur again. I think it would be only fair, if the hon. gentleman has any complaint, to make it to the minister or to the deputy and the particular clerk in fault, would be reprimanded. As I have said, I have heard no complaint at all, and I am sure that the heads of the departments would be quite ready to take any steps which might be necessary with regard to any clerk who was at fault in the way that my hon. friend speaks of. Just a word to my hon. friend with regard to the numbers. My hon. friend stated that we had in the supplementary estimates provided for 14 additional clerkships.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In the main estimates for six.


William Pugsley: Quite so.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And in the supplementary estimates for 14, I think it was.



William Pugsley: Yes, in the supplementary estimates. I would inform my hon. friend that this was for the purpose of making promotion. We had to take these additional votes before the promotions could take place.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How can it be promotions, when it is in the supplementaries?


William Pugsley: We provided for a clerkship in the 1st Division of Subdivision B.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes.


William Pugsley: And by getting that vote we could take a clerk from the lower division and promote him into the higher division, but it would leave the lower clerkship vacant. That is the way it was done because we are only asking for 271 this year altogether.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And you had how many before?


William Pugsley: 257. The supplementaries did not mean any increase in the number. It was merely putting clerks in a higher division.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You had last year 257 clerks and this year the number is raised to 271. Are these not individual entities that make up that number?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Can you increase a number and still have the same number of clerks?


William Pugsley: No, it means an increase in the positions, an increase in numbers. But, the hon. gentleman stated that in our main estimates last year we had an increase and he made the number 257. Then my hon. friend thought that we had 14 in the supplementaries. If we had done that last year, that would have made 271. If we added 14 more this year, that would be 285, instead of 271. We are not making any increase.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think my hon. friend's calculation is wrong. How many had you in the main estimates last year?


William Pugsley: I was taking my hon. friend's own figures. My hon. friend said we had an increase of 14, and he said that we had 243 in the main estimates.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then how many were added?


William Pugsley: 14.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In the main estimates?


William Pugsley: My hon. friend said it was 14. In the main estimates last year we asked for 243.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How do you get it up to the 257, which you show in your estimates now?


William Pugsley: In the supplementaries there were 14. Add 14 to 243 and that makes 257. Now we are adding 14 this year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Who was right and who was wrong? I said you added fourteen last year, the minister denied it and said that this was only a change of place. Now you add fourteen more this year.


William Pugsley: I think we misunderstood each other. I understood my hon. friend to say that wre had 257 in the main estimates last year and that we had then added fourteen to the number in the supplementaries.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No.


William Pugsley: And that now we add fourteen more. But I see that what my hon. friend meant was-and no doubt I misunderstood him-that the number was 243 in the main estimates. I have no doubt it was my fault.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have not looked back further than the estimates of last year. I assume that in the supplementaries this year, as in those of last year, there will be an additional number provided for. There were fourteen in the supplementary estimates last year and there may be more in the supplementaries this year.


William Pugsley: I do not think there will be any in the supplementaries this year. I have no intimation that there will be.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It may be so and it may not. But the rate at which they are going seems a very rapid one and out of all pro.-portion to the needs of the country. I cannot understand why the minister needs to add fourteen or fifteen in the civil service branch of one department every year and this going on from year to year. I do not think that the work is there to be done, there must be some other explanation of it.


William Pugsley: No, that is the explanation; the officials of the department claim that they require further assistance.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: I fail to understand why the minister needs an increase of thirty-four employees in the department in the last two years, especially as the amount of public work that has been constructed in the Dominion in the last two years, I suppose, has not been as great as it was four years before. When hon. gentlemen opposite returned from the general election in 1908, and when the House met in January the appropriations for public works throughout the Dominion were cut down by millions of dollars. Yet, notwithstanding that, in that year the minister engages twenty clerks and comes back to this House and asks for fourteen more, making an increase
of thirty-four employees in the department or over ten per cent, and on that basis we will have the right to expect that there will be more clerks provided for in the supplementary estimates of the present year. I think I would be safe in saying that the increase in two years would be forty clerks in the department. The minister has not given us any reasonable explanation of why he requires forty more clerks in the last two years when the amount of public works constructed is not equal to the amount in the two years prior to that time.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend, I think, is in error as to that. He is quite correct in saying that there was quite a considerable reduction in the estimates, but the public works which have been going on have certainly been steadily increasing There may be one year during which there was a decrease, but, taking one year with another, public works throughout the country are steadily increasing and this year the appropriation is very large. If my hon. friend will look at the appropriation on capital account and then take that upon income he will see that it amounts to in the vicinity of $14,000,000. That is a large amount of money, but it is expended on probably 1,000 public works from one end of Canada to the other. We have to have an increased number on the engineering staff and on the overseeing staff and in the architectural branch and the accounting branch. Then the dredging work, both contract and government work, has increased enormously and requires careful watching. By having the requisite staff to attend to that -work a great deal more will be saved to the country than the increased salaries will amount to. I can assure the committee that there is not a single position asked for by me that was not requested by the responsible head of the branch and concurred in by the deputy minister.


William Sora Middlebro: I think I am safe in saying that in 1907 and 1908 the appropriation for public works was as great as it was last year, and yet the minister says* he wants forty more employees to do apparently less work. It is the minister who is responsible for the expenditure of the public money and he cannot shift the responsibility by saying that he relies on his subordinates.


William Pugsley: For instance, when returns are asked for by the House and not brought down, I am told that the delay is caused because the staff is not sufficient to attend to this work and discharge the other pressing needs of the service. I believe the heads of the branches who have recommended this increase in the staff are trustworthy, and I think we should give them the assistance they require to properly perform their duties.


William Sora Middlebro: The expenditure on public works was as great two years ago as it is to-day, and yet the minister says he requires 40 more clerks now.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman cannot measure the quantity of work done by the total appropriation, because while a large amount may be expended on ten or twelve different public works, not nearly as much assistance would be required as if this money were divided between a great many public works scattered over the Dominion. I venture to say there are more public works under way and in contemplation to-day than ever before in the history of Canada. The rapid development of the three, prairie provinces and British Columbia have caused enormous demands upon us, and we will have to make further provision in the supplementary estimates for pressing public works.


Arthur Meighen: I would not for the world say anything that might cause the minister to diminish the efficiency of his staff, but at the same time it might be well for him to look into the quality of his' officials and not concern himself so much about the quantity. I have in mind one instance which ought to impress the minister with the necessity of securing efficient servants in order that he may not lose the esteem of his own party in the country. Previous to my election two years ago, the Minister of Public Works saw fit, very hurriedly, about the first of October, 1908, to commence a public work in the neighbourhood of my constituency. The officials of the department, assisted by the faithful in the constituency, gathered togther very rapidly all the loose men around the town and hurried them to the trenches on the Assiniboine river, where they were supplied with steady work until the election was over. The public work then undertaken was in some degree completed, but unfortunately the officials of the department did not seem to do their work properly and a certain solicitor of the city of Portage la Prairie, who is a faithful adherent of this government,, had charge of procuring the title of the land on which this public work was located. By the way, there was no immediate necessity for this public work, but in order that it might be done just at the opportune time in relation to the date of the election, it was hurried through before any title to the land was procured or arrangement made.


William Pugsley: What was that work?


Arthur Meighen: The cut made in the Assiniboine river, some few miles from Portage la Prairie, in the constituency of Macdonald.
Mr. PUGSLEY


William Pugsley: My hon. friend saysl there was no necessity for that work.


Arthur Meighen: I said the immediate necessity for it did not appear at the timel except in connection with the date of the election. The only time it was required was about four years previously, and no flood had occurred since.


William Pugsley: You cannot tell when you may have a flood.


Arthur Meighen: This public work was hurried along on the 1st of October, 1898, and as the title to the land had not been secured and the land not paid for, certain of the minister's friends in the town, including the solicitor I have spoken of, had to go down in their own pockets and float a note in the bank to purchase this land for the department. They did this of their own accord it appears. The note fell due and the officials of the department, lagging behind, did not attend to the matter and these poor gentlemen in Portage la Prairie had to pay that note themselves. The solicitor, still faithful in his attachment to the party, pleaded with the department to get down to business and to reimburse them this money which they were good enough to put up in order to hurry forward this public work so as to defeat the Tory candidate in Portage la Prairie. But it was impossible for the solicitor to make any progress because of this very limited staff which the minister is now trying to augment. Time went by and the patience of the solicitor became somewhat exhausted. Finally his party fealty seemed to waiver and he wrote the minister in despair, telling him that before he would have anything more to do with his department he would have an understanding first about it, and he further pointed out that if he had been dealing with the Manitoba government, which is conducted on business lines, he would have had no such trouble because as he stated in this letter the matter would have been attended to in a businesslike way. This solicitor then threatened to charge up against the Public Works Department the interest on the note which the friends had to pay at the bank, as part of the costs of the transfer of the land. I am sure that in the light of experience such as that my good friends around me will cease bantering the minister about increasing the staff of his department. If the minister would only look to it that when he wants to hurry forward public works in preparation for an election he has an efficient staff and does not have to call on the faithful adherents to dip down into their own pockets and buy the right of way in a hurry, there might be some excuse for his present action. I may

say, that this same attorney was finally dealt with by the department and became the Liberal candidate in the last local election. We will not criticise anything that will improve the efficiency of the department, but the point that my hon. friend from North Grey has made is well taken. As we know, the work of the department is measured by the appropriations, and the appropriations were never so great as they were just before the last elections, and we expect will never be so great again until the next election comes along. If the minister can tell us why the staff to-day should be greater than in 1908, when there was a larger appropriation for public works, so far as I am concerned the appropriation may go.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Minister of Public Works tells us that if a member does not find a clerk in the office that member should go and complain to him. Does he think that a member of parliament is sent here to run around and hunt up ministers. Why, sometimes you will stand outside( their door for hours before you can see them.


Mr. PATERSON.: Oh, no.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: All of them are not that way, but some of them are.


William Pugsley: I am sure we would all be very glad to see the hon. gentleman.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the minister thinks it is the duty of a member of parliament to hunt up a minister to make a complaint to him about an official, he must think he is talking to children. He is supposed to have responsible men at the head of his staff, and it is their duty to see that the work is properly done. The minister says he has never before heard complaints, but I have made the same complaint in this House for some years back, and that complaint has been made time and again by other hon. gentlemen. The statement of the hon. gentleman is somewhat picayune coming from a minister of the Crown.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman says he has not been in my department for a number of years.


Mr. CROSBY.: The Minister of Public Works cave as his reason for the employment of additional clerks that he wanted some of them to watch the men who are placed in charge of the dredging. There is no doubt they need watching, but it would be much better for the minister to dismiss some of these fellows who require watching than to nay the men who are needed to watch them.' He told us that there was a lack of efficiency amongst the clerks who look after the dredging.


William Pugsley: I made no such statement. I said we had a great amount of
government and contract dredging going on all over the country and that we endeavoured to keep in the closest touch possible with that work.


Adam Brown Crosby: Since when?


William Pugsley: Since a considerable time.


Adam Brown Crosby: You must have commenced very recently.


William Pugsley: Oh, no. We have made that the special duty of one of the engineers of the department who has assistants under him, and we keep in touch with the dredging work all over the country, getting returns regularly, having these [DOT] returns carefully looked into, testing out the work so as to keep up a sort of constant inspection upon the dredging. That does not at all imply that there is any inefficiency on the part of the staff. That is a proper business like precaution which I am sure the House will approve. We are spending several millions of dollars a year on work of this character and it is only a proper discharge of the duty we owe to the country that we should keep in constant touch with the work in order to see that it is being carried out honestly, and in the best interest of the country.


Adam Brown Crosby: When the Minister of Public Works starts out to give information in reply to any question asked him here he reminds me of the man who was asked to sing ' Annie Laurie ' and he sang ' Highland Mary ', and when he was asked why he sang ' Highland Mary ' and said there was more 'divarsion' in 'Highland Mary.' I think, Mr., Chairman, that the Minister of Public Works finds more ' divarsion ' in giving information he is not asked for than in answering the questions we put. He told us he was going to put the dredging in charge of some engineer in his department, but has it not always been in charge of an engineer?


William Pugsley: Yes, but the chief engineer has had charge not only of dredging, but of general work connected with the department, and we have assigned this work to one whose special duty it will be to follow that work.


Adam Brown Crosby: It is hardly worth while to lock the stable door after the horse is stolen. You should have made this appointment long ago. But why should you require the 34 clerks? Do you require them to look after this one engineer? I should like to ask the hon. minister, if it is his department which is doing the repairs to the post office at Halifax?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Adam Brown Crosby: How is it they are not finished? Last year I was told by thel

minister that the work was to be completed the 1st March, 1910, but that the contractor could not get it done in that time and consequently he had been given until the 1st of July. But the post office is not finished yet, and the contractor wrote the other day a letter to the Halifax ' Herald,' in which he said he had nothing to do with the delay at all, that it was, the fault of the department, because the department had sent down a lot of fittings which were perfectly useless and had to be returned.


William Pugsley: The senior member for Halifax asked a question regarding that post office a few days ago, and my hon. friend will find the answer I gave in ' Hansard.' When we come to the item for the completion of that building will be the proper time to discuss it. I shall be glad then to give all possible information.


Adam Brown Crosby: As the hon. minister did not give any satisfactory information regarding the number of extra clerks, I thought I would draw his attention to this post office, which is in very much the same condition as when it was started.


William Pugsley: No.


Adam Brown Crosby: All I can say is that from the outside it looks the same, and no one is allowed inside.
Department of Public Works-contingencies, $20,500.


William Pugsley: There is an increase here of $5,000. This is in clerical and. other assistance. That is the amount estimated by the secretary of the department for additional assistance required of a temporary character. During the session we have to employ temporary clerks necessary to aid us in the making of returns for the House.
Department of Inland Revenue-salaries, $106,387.50.


William Templeman: There is a small increase here of about $2,000, due almost altogether to statutory increases. The number of employees is the same as last year. The inside staff remains the same, namely, 71 in number. The aggregate increase in the estimates of 1911-12 over 1910-11 is $2,175. Under departmental salaries there is one increase in the First Division subdivision B, which is caused by the intention of the department to promote the assistant secretary from Second Division Subdivision A to First Division Subdivision B. In the Second Division Subdivision A there is an increase of one, which, through the promotion of the assistant secretary from this class, enables the department to promote two clerks from the Second Dvision Subdivision B to the Second Division Subdivision A. In the Mr. CROSBY.
Second Division Subdivision B there is a decrease, which is caused by the intended promotion of two clerks from this grade to-a higher grade, and the promotion of one clerk from the next lower grade to this grade. In the Third Division, Subdivision A, there is an increase of one clerk, which is caused by the proposed promotion of one clerk to the class above and two clerks into 3-A from the class below. In the Third Division Subdivision B there is a decrease of two clerks promoted, as referred to above. The number of clerkships on departmental staff remains as in current estimates. In the laboratory branch the staff remains unchanged as respects numbers, but four of the assistant analysts it is the desire to promote from the Second Division Subdivision B to the Second Division Subdivision A. These gentlemen are technical officers and are well deserving of the promotion suggested. The Methylated Spirits Branch, the Electricity Branch ,and the Weights and Measures Branch remain unchanged as respects numbers and classification. The aggregate increase of $2,175, above referred to, is almost exclusively made up of annual increments.
Inland Revenue-contingencies, $8,000.


William Templeman: There is no increase in this amount, but we have rearranged it a little. For last year we had $1,200 for clerical assistance, but did not require it all. For the coming year we reduce that to $700 and distribute the balance among stationery and sundries.
Department of Customs-salaries, $261,237.50.


William Paterson: I may give a general explanation, and then if hon. gentlemen desire to discuss any particular points they can be taken up for more detailed explanation. The principal cause of an increase of $16,262.50 in this vote is the proposed addition of 16 officers to the staff, 14 by appointment and two by transfer from the customs outside service. It is proposed to appoint twelve clerks in class 2-B at the minimum salary of $800, and to transfer two from the customs outside service to the same division at their present salaries of $1,200 and $950. One clerk is to be appointed in 3-B at the minimum salary of $500 and one messenger at a minimum of $500. The yearly salaries of these 16 officers will amount to $12,750. The commissioner considers the additional staff necessary on account of the increase of the work. The entries inward for the year 1908-9 numbered 1,072,863, for 1909-10 1,251,394, and for the six months of the current year 635,047. The custom revenue for the year 1908-9 was $48,059,791.93, for 1909-10 $61,919,622.42, and for the seven months of the current fiscal year $41,372,129.91. When the additional officers have been appointed seven will be assigned to the work in the statistical

branch, six will be' employed in checking entries, two as checkers and sorters, and one as messenger in the statistical branch. In these estimates, provision has been made lor statutory increases to all of the officers not at their maximum except two, and such statutory increases amount to $7,950. It is proposed to promote one officer from Division 1-B to Division 1-A, to promote one from 2-A to 1-B, and to promote two from 2-B to 2-A and one from 3-A to 2-B. These proposed payments account for an increase of $275 in the estimates. The increases for 1911-12 are therefore:-
Additions to the staff, 16 officers. $12,750
Statutory increases	 7,950
Promotions	 275
Total	  $20,975
A reduction in this amount of $4,712.50 has resulted from vacancies caused by deaths, resignations and transfers during the year being filled by appointments of officers at lower salaries, leaving a net proposed increase of $16,262.50.
The large increase in the work absolutely demands these increases in the staff. Comparing the estimates of this year with those of last year, sixteen officers seems a large number to add, but during the year we were not able to carry on the work with our regular staff and had to bring some of the outside officers here. They were paid out of the votes for the ports to which they were assigned and then out of contingencies we had to pay some temporary clerks supplied us by the Civil Service Commission, so that this is not really a jump of sixteen officers this year. We shall try to get along with this number but under contingencies we are asking for some $2,000 or $3,000 additional, out of which we will pay some extra clerks whom we will obtain from the Civil Service Commission. This year we were not able to give some of the clerks their three weeks' holidays.


David Henderson: We have heard a great deal of the extra work in the hon. gentleman's department. It seems to me that a considerable amount of that work has been brought about by the many changes in our tariff and the complications of the present tariff. We have a general tariff, a preferential tariff, an intermediate tariff, a French tariff, wnich applies to twelve or thirteen other countries, a Japanese tariff and I do not know how many others. Undoubtedly this must add greatly to the work in the department, and if we had a straight tariff readily understood I believe a clerk could do a great deal more work.


William Paterson: Yes, that is our experience, it has entailed more work in the department.


David Henderson: Does that account for a considerable proportion of the increased number of men wanted or are there other causes?


William Paterson: There are other causes. Of course as he suggests the different tariffs have greatly increased the statistical work and also the work in our check department but that does not account for all the increase. The revenue last year from customs was $10,000,000 greater than the year before and it looks as if the revenue this year would be $10,000,000 greater than that of last year. Then, the number of invoices, which is really what causes the work, rose from 1,072,863 in 1908-9 to 1,251,394 last year, while for the six months of the current year we have already 635,047 entries. The entries are increasing and the revenue is raising at the same rate.


William Cameron Edwards: Are these sixteen additional clerks all brought in from the outside service, all men of experience?


William Paterson: Oh, no, not all.


William Cameron Edwards: At what salary would new clerks without experience start?


William Paterson: They will go in at $800, the minimum of that class. It is proposed to promote Mr. F. O. Bennett, chief clerk of the statistics, from Subdivision ' B ' of the First Division to Subdivision ' A.' He is now at the maximum of his class, $2,800, and he will go into the minimum of the class above that, which is $2,800, the amount he now receives.


David Henderson: His statutory increases will go on again?


William Paterson: Yes, he is at a standstill now.


David Henderson: A magnificent scheme to get away with money.


William Paterson: When I tell you that Mr. Bennett is in charge of the compilation and publication of the Trade and Navigation returns and has ninety officers under his supervision and has thirty-nine years service


David Henderson: I think he is a very good man.
Mr. PATERSON

the House will agree
that he is worthy of promotion. To fill his place, and this is the only other promotion, we are promoting Mr. W. F. Wilson from 2-A to the division from which we moved Mr. Bennett, 1-B, at the minimum salary of $2,100. Mr. Wilson has been acting as inspector of preventive service since the death of Mr. F. L. Jones who had charge of that work. He has been in the service for seventeen years and is in charge of a very important branch of the work. Then,

provision is made for statutory increases of $100 each to the remaining eight officers in the service, making $800 in all. That is the class in which you can give an increase of $100. In the lower class statutory increases are only $50, and so on. These places have to be filled, but it necessitates bringing in twelve new men and it is proposed to start them at the minimum of the class from $800 to $1,600.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: Will these twelve new men come in on the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission?


William Paterson: Yes. The fact of the matter is that the department does not appoint new officers at all. The Civil Service Commission appoint the men. When we find that we want a man the commission has to notify him that there is a vacancy, they give the name of the man and the fact of their giving the name appoints him. We do not have to put an order in council through appointing him. After he has been there for six months, if he should prove incapable of discharging the duties of the office the commissioner of the department may notify'the Civil Service Commissioners that the officer they gave him seems to be not able for the work and the Civil Service Commissioners will have to give him another name. So, the services of that officer would be dispensed with and the man who succeeds him would be appointed bv nomination of the Civil Service Commission. It is in their hands now.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Does the minister intend to apply that principle to the outside service?


William Paterson: That is worthy of consideration, and it would relieve the minister very much if we were able to have that established in some of the large ports. But I have not been able just to determine how that might be done. Of course, you can see it would not be practicable in many cases in the smaller offices. If we ask for a man to fill a position in the inside service he can come from any province, but in many of the local offices it would not work so well, because people would not want to leave their homes. The salaries would not warrant them in moving, and it might be that in some of these ports, for instance, in one of the hon. gentleman's own ports, he would not want somebody to be brought from away off at a distance because he had happened to pass a better qualifying examination. The local men may be as capable for the duties, but they may not have passed the literary examination. But, if we could devise something of that kind in the very large ports it would take a great deal of the work and thought off the minister.


William Paterson: 


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Are we to understand that the minister seriously contemplates having the appointments made in the larger ports of entry under the Civil Service Commission?


William Paterson: You must not understand me as being committed to it, because I have not studied it out sufficiently to see how it might work and what difficulties there might be in the way. The thought has been in my mind, but I have not arrived at any conclusion further than the natural conclusion that the minister is relieved of the responsibility for appointments which is placed upon the Civil Service Commission, and it is supposed as a result of the examination they hold that the men they name are capable for the positions. Do not understand me as being pledged to that. I think it would, perhaps, be easier for me, but there may be great difficulties in the way of doing it.


David Henderson: What additional conveniences and accommodation is the minister giving to the people in the way of ports of entry and outports in view of the large increase in the imports into the country? Is the minister increasing the number of ports?


William Paterson: Yes, we are. We are going as slow as we can, but going that slow even, the demands are so great, especially in the northwest, and their cases are so strong that when we come to the general item you will find that I am going to ask for $100,000 more, part of which must go towards opening up some new outports in our growing country, and I do hope that outside of that we will have enough to give a slight addition to very many of the outside officers who are giving us faithful service and who maintain that at the present time their salaries are insufficient to give them such a living as they are fairly entitled to.


Adam Brown Crosby: While the government is receiving a great revenue through the customs in Halifax and St. John half our customs officers there axe working at a salary below $1,000 a year. I feel that the time has come when, in ports like Halifax and St. John, where there is a great traffic going through all the time, and where you require the services of responsible men, there should not be one officer receiving less than $1,000. Under the conditions which exist to-day it is impossible for a man to live in a city and to maintain himself in such a position as that which a customs officer should occupy on the salaries that they are receiving. I hope that when the Minister of Customs brings down his estimates with regard to the outside service he will see that our officers in these poTts, where there is a large immigra-

tion going through and a large amount of customs work to be done night and day, axe more adequately compensated. I hope he may be able to make the minimum salary in the Customs Department not less than $1,000.


William Paterson: While I sympathize with the officers, I do hope that the hon. gentleman will not let the idea go out and be entertained by the officers outside that we are going to establish a minimum of $1,000. A hundred thousand dollars would be nowhere if we attempted that. We are trying to give each man who is not at what we consider' the maximum now about $50 a year. Three years ago I took $150,000, and then $100,000 next year, but if you begin to spread that from the Atlantic to the Pacific it becomes very thin foT each one. I would hesitate to ask parliament to give me enough money to do that, though 1 might have the same opinion that my hon. friend (Mr. Crosby) has about it. But don't let the idea get* abroad that the minimum salary of our outside officers should be $1,000, because that would be an impossibility. I would not raise such hope as that, because it cannot be gratified.


Adam Brown Crosby: I do not want it to apply to the whole of the outside service.


William Paterson: Only to Halifax, I suppose.


Adam Brown Crosby: We have just voted $357,000 in one lump for the inside service in Ottawa, and I am not complaining about it. but the minister must know that people in other parts of Canada find it just as hard to live, and are just as good livers, if they have the opportunity, as they are in Ottawa. You have very few competent men in the customs department in Ottawa, who are. not getting more than $1,000 a year; you take a man into the inside service today, and he commencs with a salary of $900, and yet you have competent men in the city of Halifax who have been for 20 years in the customs department, and you only pay them $800 a year. I have nothing at all to say against the men in the inside service; I believe there are good men in that service, but I do say that they are not a bit better than the men in the outside service. In the outside customs service in Halifax,-where travel is going through all the time, and where but for the efficiency and honesty of your officers, the customs revenue would be very much less,-and you are not compensating your men properly. I know the minister has done fairly well since he came to the department in the matter of salaries, but progress has been slow and when you find customs officers in Halifax who have been 25 years in the service, and who get less than $800 a year, I say it is not fair play. I ask for consideration for
these men, and I am sure the minister will try to do the best he can so that if he cannot bring them up to $1,000 a year, he will bring them pretty close to it.


Mr. JAMESON.: Would the Minister of Customs approve or disapprove of officers of his department taking active part in election campaigns?


William Paterson: Taking an active part in election campaigns?


Clarence Jameson: Yes.


William Paterson: Oh, no, I would discourage anything of the kind.


Clarence Jameson: I wish to get the minister's views upon ' Hansard ', because I think it is well that his opinion should be understood by officers of his department. I am informed that one of his officers, a gentleman who had something in the nature of a roving commission, took a very active part in an election in Nova Scotia not very long ago. And while I do not wish to make any charge against the man in question, and I am not doing so, I wish to get the minister's views recorded in ' Hansard ' so that it may perhaps have a salutory effect.


William Paterson: I do not remember that any complaint of that kind has reached me. In some cases, a community may wish to elect a customs officer as councillor or school trustee, and we are asked about it, and our answer is, that our officers had better not occupy any of these positions. It might not conflict with their work, but even in municipal elections there is feeling aroused and as our officers have to deal with the public, we discourage anything of that kind. There have been cases in which there was a unanimous desire that one of our officers should serve the public in such a capacity, but we thought it better that he should not do so, and we try to keep them in line if we can.


Clarence Jameson: The gentleman to whom I refer, was in no sense a candidate, he was not asked to be a candidate, he was not personally interested in the election, I am informed that he was not even a voter in the constituency in which the election was being held.


William Paterson: Was it a municipal election?


Clarence Jameson: No, it was an election for the legislature of Nova Scotia, and I simply wish to have the minister's view on ' Hansard,' and I am glad to find he is opposed to any such thing.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I had intended at a later period of the session, to discuss a similar matter, but now that the subject is broached, I will speak to it. The minister says that he endeavours to keep his

officers in line if he can. I do not understand the meaning of that expression. Does he mean to say that it is impossible for him to keep the employees of his department out of political contests?


William Paterson: Do you mean with reference to their running for office?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I mean with reference to their taking an active part in politics. Is it impossible for the minister to keep the employees of his department out of active politics.


William Paterson: I think we do, so far as I know.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Then I will ask the minister this. If I submit indisputable evidence to the Minister of Customs that employees of his department are taking an active part in political campaigns, will he dismiss them?


William Paterson: We will have to be guided by the circumstances of the case.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That is a very different thing altogether.


William Paterson: Is the hon. gentleman now speaking of Dominion elections or is he speaking of provincial and municipal elections . I make a distinction between municipal and Dominion elections, but I say that even in municipal elections it is desirable that our officers should not take an active part. The officer may contend that in a municipal election he has a direct interest as he is a taxpayer and the question before the municipality is whether they will go into a large public expenditure, and that he has a right to concern himself in that, but I say in a general way we dissuade our officers from making themselves in any way offensive or even active in a municipal election.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I will put a concrete case, and although I will not give the name of the man, it is an actual case. This man is the treasurer of the political organization in a district in my constituency; he is also perhaps the most active political worker in the district; he is municipal councillor for the district and the municipal contests there are run upon strict party lines; he is the man who collects the party campaign contributions in his district, and he stands at the polling booth on election day. His name appears in the press as being an officer of this political association, and I am prepared to substantiate these facts by affidavit. In such a case would the minister regard that man as sufficiently partisan to dismiss him from the department?


William Paterson: Is he an officer of Customs?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: 


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


William Paterson: I would be very pleased if the hon. gentleman would give me the facts and I will consider the case.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Of course the minister would be pleased to consider it but what I ask him now is if he would regard these circumstances as causing him to think that man sufficiently partisan to be dismissed from the service.	.


William Paterson: The hon. gentleman puts a hypothetical case.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, this is an actual case and I will give the proof later on.


William Paterson: When the facts come before me I will be able to answer it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: But I want a declaration from the minister now because I do not want to waste his time or mine by getting affidavits and preparing data and then have the matter discussed^ at a later stage I want to know from the minister how far his officers can go in political controversy down in our province. I may tell him that politics is rampant among officials in Nova Scotia, and we have had to contend against it year after year so that it is well to know where we are going to draw the line. If the minister fails now to give me a positive direct answer I will have the matter discussed at a later stage when the data will be in better shape.


William Paterson: That would be better.


David Henderson: I wish also to put an actual case before the Minister of Customs. Would the minister approve of one of his officers being a licensed hotel keeper in a village?


William Paterson: No, I would not approve of it.


William Cameron Edwards: In view of the remarks made by the hon. Minister of Customs, I think we are entitled to an answer to the question put by my hon. friend (Mr. Rhodes). The Minister of Customs stated very distinctly that he thought it would * be very wrong for an officer of his department to take part in politics, even in municipal politics. Then my hon. friend asked him : ' If I present you with a case where an officer of your department takes an active part in pslitics, municipal or otherwise, what will you do?' Then he begins to hedge and beat about the bush. When my hon. friend presents a straight case, exactly in line with what the minister said, he asks time to consider, he will have to know the man and know all about him.


William Paterson: The hon. gentleman can take that view of it if he likes ; but the hon. gentleman has presented this case, being a lawyer, would, I think, admit that

my position was not unreasonable, that I should know the facts of the case 'before I pronounced upon it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In that respect I am quite prepared to take the attitude of the minister, at the same time, I think this House should know, and I propose that at some time during the session we shall know, what the hon. minister's policy is to be with respect to his employees becoming interested in political contests. I think that should be known both in the interest of efficient service and in the interest of the men themselves. On that point I entirely agree with the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat.


William Paterson: The hon. gentleman is willing to wait until I ascertain the facts?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Surely.


Mr. SINCLAIR.: I think a great deal depends on the amount of salary an officer gets. If he is in a town or city and gets a living salary, he should devote himself wholly to the duties of his office. But there are hundreds of men who are engaged perhaps as preventive officers at $50 or $100 a year. Would you expect a man to retire from municipal politics and from active interest in public matters in his own district because he gets that small sum? I think that consideration ought to govern in a great many instances.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I understand that the hon. member for Guysborough has put a question to me. I do not know that I am called on to answer it, but I wish to be perfectly fair. What I wish to find out is what the policy of the department is- how far its employees are to be permitted to mix in politics. My hon. friend asks me if I think that men receiving small salaries should not be allowed to take.part in public matters. I say yes, if they are conducted on party lines. But the difficulty is that these offices in the smaller districts of Nova Scotia are dangled as plums before the eyes of the party workers; that I know ; and they have to get up and hustle for their party in order to get them. Active political partisanship counts for more than efficiency. That is the crux of the whole difficulty, and the sooner we root politics entirely out of the service the more efficient it will become. I do not speak thus in any narrow, partisan sense. I dare say the same thing may have occurred before 1896 ; I am prepared to admit that for the sake of argument. But I do not want hon. gentlemen opposite to quote that in justification of themselves. We ought to rise above that sort of thing and deal with the situation of the moment; and if we do we shall have a far more efficient public service throughout this country.


Mr. MADDIN.: I am very glad the hon. member for Guysborough has raised the question of the distinction between those officers of the 'Customs Department employed in the rural districts and those who receive sufficient salary to compensate them for all their time. He holds that a person acting as a preventive officer in a rural district and receiving a pittance of $50 a year should not be debarred from entering municipal politics, but that an officer in a city receiving a substantial salary should devote the whole of his time to his official duties. I would like to remind the hon. Minister of Customs that in the municipal elections in Cape Breton, in 1904, Mr. Ratchford, the collector at Victoria Mines, who receives I think $80 a year, was nominated as a candidate, and there came a letter signed by the hon. Minister of Customs to the Collector of Customs at Sydney, the late Mr. Macdonald, directing that this man either withdraw his candidature or resign his office. Less than two years ago, Mr. Fitzgerald, of the city of Sydney, who receives $800 or $900 a year, and who is presumed to devote a great deal of time to the duties of his office, was nominated as an aider-man of the city of Sydney. I myself drew this to the attention of the minister, yet Mr. Fitzgerald continued as a candidate, and he sits to-day at the council board of the city of Sydney. If there is any equity in this matter, it would seem that the collector at Victoria Mines should not have been interfered with in becoming a municipal councillor, while there would have been some justice in debarring Mr. Fitzgerald from being an aldermanic candidate. What I would like to have from the hon. minister, for the benefit of the officers and the public, is whether there is any rule in this matter or whether it is intended to have a hard and fast rule. In the one instance, the man was a Tory and was not allowed to run for municipal honours because it was not desirable that the council should be Conservative. The other man was a Liberal and he was allowed to run. I do not think the minister should blow hot and cold in a matter of this kind. If Mr. Fitzgerald can run as an alderman I do not know why another man should not equally run as alderman. I would like to know from the minister what he intends to do with regard to these office-holders. Are they eligible for municipal office or not?


William Paterson: There was a circular issued from the department years before I became head of it, in which the attention of the officers was called to the fact that it was undesirable they should take any active part in politics, or hold any corporate office. I do not remember that 1904 case at all, but I presume that when attention was called to it the same course was followTed



in that as in every other vase. I do not know whether such a letter was sent in 1904 to this gentleman, who may have been a Conservative in his leanings; but the hon. gentleman will surely take my word when I say that when the attention of the department is drawn to any such case a letter is written to the party complained against inclosing the memorandum I have mentioned. There was a case where the party had served some years, but finally our attention was called to it, when half the year was through, and he wrote back saying he would like to finish out the year. We have had from the Niagara district both political parties and the municipal authorities urging us to waive the provision in so far as it referred to a trustee whose services they considered very valuable, but I know of no instance in which, when the matter was brought to our notice, we did not send this memorandum, and I fancy it has always had the desired effect. There are, of course, some hard cases. There was one the other day, I think. A man who gets $100 was asked to run for some little office which would give him $25. My personal sympathies were all with him, but his case was brought before us and a letter was sent to him with the circular, and he wrote back saying he was sorry, but he would not run for the $25 office. In fudging such cases one does not want to be too hard.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This is all very pathetic.


William Paterson: And very true.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: But what we want to find out is on what principle the department acts. I am not saying they should exclude every one, although I believe that all departmental officers should be prevented in taking an active part in political contests. You have no difficulty in filling the offices. As a rule there are 15 applicants for every office, even down to a $25 one. But can there not be some line drawn beyond which no man, Liberal or Conservative, can go. If the hon. minister will say that every man with a salary under $100 may take an active part in a political contest we shall know what to expect. It is all very well to send circulars and remonstrate, but if the minister were engaged in a manufacturing enterprise and he did not choose that his employees should smoke on the premises he would not send circulars or remonstrances, but he would say: You will not smoke on the premises or you will be dismissed.


William Paterson: The line is very clearly drawn. A public officer has a perfect right to vote, but he is not allowed to do anything offensive in connection with any election.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I believe that every man ought to vote. In fact, I think there should be legislation taking away the franchise Mr. PATERSON.
from the man who does not vote unless he can show good reasons for keeping away from the poll. But that is not the point. I have been using the word ' active partisanship,' and that is what I want to get at.


William Paterson: That is not favoured.


James William Maddin: In the ease I brought to the attention of the committee Mr. Ratch-ford, who received a small salary was stopped from being a candidate in the manner I have described because, when the notice was sent him he withdrew his nomination. In the other case in which the minister assures me he wrote in the same wav, that of Mr. Fitzgerald, he did not withdraw his nomination. All this discussion goes for nothing unless the minister will admit that the regulation is so loosely drawn that it frightens a Tory away from a nomination, while a Grit does not need to care a hang for it. If that be the case, the regulation should be re-drawn; it should make it clear either that a man has a right to run or that he has no right to run. Merely to write to a candidate and inclose a circular to the effect that the department thinks it undesirable that one in its employ should be a candidate for municipal honours will not do, and I have pointed out these instances to show that it does not do, -that, as I have said, it frightens a Tory away from a nomination but encourages a Grit to go on. I ask the minister if he thinks that equitable? If not, will he undertake to have the regulation so amended as either to leave either party free to run or to make it clear that neither party may run? They ought to be put on an equal footing-Grit and Tory, large-salaried man or small-salaried man. I do not see that the salary should make a great deal of difference one way or the other. I ask the minister for his opinion about the matter. And, if he thinks the regulation is not fair, will he have one drafted that will be fair?


William Paterson: So far as the notice is concerned, I have already stated that it is sent in every case that is brought to my official knowledge-the same circular accompanied by a letter calling the party's attention to it.


James William Maddin: I quite agree that the regulation is sent. But it is the regulation I am criticising. If this goes from the minister to a prospective candidate w-ho is a Tory, that candidate trembles in his boots and resigns; but, if a Grit, he does not have to. The candidate is not told that if he persists his office will be declared vacant or that he will be subject to any other penalty. And so, I ask the minister if he thinks the regulation is fair, and, if not, will he undertake to have a regulation drawn up that will either leave it open to

all these people to become candidates or debar them all alike?


Mr. McKENZIE.: I do liot think that the fact that a man receives a salary of $100 ought to disqualify him from any position. If he is to be disqualified from engaging in any other business, because he has a government position, that government position should afford him a living. I go further and say that the mere fact of running for the office of municipal councillor should not be regarded as taking an active part in politics. It is a sad fact that there are politics in municipal councils in counties and in towns as well. But it should not be so, and I do not think that this drawing of party lines in municipal affairs should be assisted by the department by regarding the fact of a man engaging in a municipal election as an act of political partisanship. I understand that my hon. friend from South Cape Breton (Mr. Maddin) has quoted the case of Ratchford and Carrol, an election that took place in the county of Cape Breton some three years ago. One would imagine that this was a contest between Ratchford as a Tory and Carrol as a Grit, and that Ratchford the Tory got frightened and retired from the conflict. I do not know whether the hon. member said that in the first instance or not, but I gather from his observations now that that is what he wanted the committee to understand-that Ratchford was a Tory and was scared away from the contest, and Carrol, a Grit, was permitted to go in by acclamation. I am a much older man in the county of Cape Breton than my hon. friend. I know Mr. Ratchford well, have known him for twenty-five years, and know that during that time he has been a straightforward, consistent supporter of the Liberal party, and that he was appointed to office by this government. Now, why he should get scared by a notice from this government who appointed him and were friendly to him and should avoid the responsibility of running, I do not quite understand. Mr. Ratchford and Mr. Carrol were both Liberals and both supporting the Liberal warden. Whichever of the two came into the council, it did not make the slightest difference to the Liberal party, so I do not see what advantage it would be to the government to frighten away one or the other. So, if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maddin) is making a point of the fact that we were scaring Ratchford away and trying to get Carrol in, he will fail in making that point with anybody who knows the facts. As to partisanship in this matter, so far as the department is concerned, I know of the case of a gentleman in North Cape Breton, who ran for the council this year. I suppose the man opposing him a strong Conservative partisan thought to drive him out of the field by notifying the department. So 34i
the other man, who was a Liberal, received the notification. Well, he was strong enough to stand to his guns, ran the election and put the Tory out of business. He is the councillor for the district, whatever may happen. But, as I have said, I contend that the mere fact of a man running for municipal office should not be regarded as an act of partisanship.


James William Maddin: I do not pretend to know so much about the political complexion, of the electors of Cape Breton county as the hon. member (Mr. McKenzie) who has just spoken. However, I made acquaintance with a sufficient number of the Conservative faith to find a seat in this House. Perhaps the minister was quite familiar with the politics of Mr. Ratchford, of South Bar. All he has said about his politics may be true. I do not say he was scared away from the candidature, but I say he received a notification from the Minister of Customs after he had canvassed the district, after he was nominated, and he retired from the contest. I was not arguing against the right of a collector of customs to run for municipal honours but I am arguing against the inefficiency and the unfairness of this regulation. The member for North Cape Breton and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) has simply put forth an argument along the same line's as I have been advocating this week. He has demonstrated another instance of the absolute inefficiency of the Act. He cited a case where a Liberal office holder received a notification from the Minister of Customs but was strong enough to stand to his guns. Think what strength it required for a Grit Customs officer to stand to his guns with such an elastic notification as that. Why should there exist a regulation to be mailed at all to any man employed in the Customs Department when he seeks municipal political honours unless that notification means something, unless it means that he is to be encouraged or discouraged in his candidature, that he is permitted to run or is prohibited from running. Such a regulation should carry with it some penalty, either of dismissal, suspension or fine. Personally I agree with the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie).
I know no good reason why this man should not be permitted to run, but there should be no regulation which, wlifcn sent to one man will have the effect of causing him to withdraw and when sent to another will permit him to run. I am not discussing the policy of permitting or not permitting Customs officers to become candidates; my point is that this regulation can be directed to one man and cause Rim to withdraw while another man can stand to his guns as the hon. member (Mr. McKenzie) has pointed out. So I return to

the question which I submit to the minister, does he think a regulation of that kind is effective, that it will work out equitably? If it does not, will he undertake to have a regulation drawn that will either leave the field open to these men or close it to them, Grit and Tory alike?


William Paterson: I do not know that 1 understand the hon. gentleman. We deal with all cases when they come before us in precisely the same way. What the effect may be I do not know. The effect ought to be that when an officer received that communication he would know that the department did not favour his running. It does not necessarily follow that political feeling is aroused, for, as has been said, there are many contests in which the line between Liberal and Conservative is utterly obliterated. I do not know Whether the man is a Liberal or a Conservative. If the charge comes before us that So and So, one of our officers, is going to run in this or that municipality, we write a letter to him calling his attention to this circular which we inclose What he may do after I cannot say, that is with himself. If charges are made to me that this circular is disregarded, then we may have some further communication with him. While that circular may not go the length of saying to a man: If you run for that office you will be dismissed, it does warn then that the department do not favour and would endeavour to discourage his running. In a municipal contest feeling may run just as high as in a political contest, and we do not want our officers to take an active part in matters of that kind which would render them not pleasing to the community as a whole in discharging their duties as Customs officers; we want to have our officers in such relations with the community that every man, whatever his political opinion may be, will go and transact the public business with him with a feeling of friendliness to him. It may be in the interest of the municipality to have our officers hold a, municipal position, but if, by his candidature, feeling is aroused against him among a section of the community, then we consider it is not in the interest of the department. We have only one line of conduct towards all officers. The hon. gentleman knows, for he will do me the credit, surely of believing my word, that I told him when he spoke to me of this case, that we did not approve of such a course and that we would communicate with the officer at once. We did communicate with the officer, and we would communicate with any officer in a similar position whose case was brought to our attention.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am quite prepared to believe that the minister is prepared to deal Mr. MADDIN.
in the one way with every case which comes before him, be the subject a Liberal, or a Liberal-Conservative. What I am endeavouring to find out is what that one way is. As a candidate I do not care whether a man runs for a municipal office or not, it does not matter to me politically. Since the matter has been discussed, I believe it is a mistake to have a man run even for the position of municipal councillor if he is a customs officer. These men have to do with the passing of goods. They may wish to increase their strength in the community, and there may be one or two men who buy goods, and whose political favour they would like to have, and, being human, it is natural to suppose that if any favours can be granted by these officers, to these men they will grant them. Being human, it is very natural to suppose that if any favours can be granted to the customs officer he is going to receive them. As so often happens in small communities, he is also the merchant, and a man who has goods to take through that office will take care that he will buy his goods of the man who has the customs office in his own shop. That is a reason, I think, why these men should not mix in municipal contests,.whether political contests or not. The only point I wish to raise, and I do not raise it in a partisan way at all, is that I wish to find out what measure to apply to these men. I will do the minister the justice to believe that he will apply the rule the same to a. Liberal as to a Conservative if I can find out what the rule is. I put an actual, concrete case to him in which the customs officer is the treasurer and secretary of the Liberal organization in his district. He is named in advertisements in the press as being the treasurer, he attends the meetings of the party, stands outside the poll on election day, and is perhaps the most active man in the district in the Liberal interest in every contest, either Dominion or provincial. I could not get the minister to commit himself to saying that if I could prove the facts he will dismiss that man. I am trying to find out how far a man can go who is a customs officer and still retain his position.


William Paterson: We certainly will look into the case if the hon. gentleman brings it before us.


James William Maddin: The Minister of Customs tells us that he wishes to be very fair in this matter.


William Paterson: Not very fair-just equitable.


James William Maddin: He says that he appeals to my fairness and assures me that he sent a copy of this circular to Mr. Fitzgerald after I complained a year ago that he was a candidate. I unquestionably accept his statement, but that brings me back to the

point: What is the use of this regulation?
I asked the minister three consecutive times, and he could very plainly answer * yes ' or ' no whether he thinks that regulation is effective. Is it the purpose of the department to prevent their officers taking part in municipal contests? If it is their intention he must see that the regulation is utterly worthless. In the instance that I have reference to Mr. Fitzgerald continued as the candidate notwithstanding the communication received from the department, and he sits at the council board as he has a right to do. The hon. member for North Cape Breton and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) instanced another case within a few weeks, and the man stood by his guns. There are two specific instances demonstrating the absolute worthlessness of this regulation, if it is a regulation to prohibit customs officers from entering municipal politics. Since the minister would not answer my question as to whether he would draw up a new and effective regulation, would he take us into his confidence to-night and tell us what he proposes to do with regard to the two officers who did not obey the instructions in the circular, who did not accept his counsel, who stood by their guns, and treated it with contempt? What is he going to do in future cases which may arise of a similar character?


William Paterson: Does the hon. gentleman prefer that charge now?


James William Maddin: I do not propose to charge any man with doing anything he has a right to do. I am pointing out that the regulation does not provide any penalty against Mr. Fitzgerald for running. It does not make it an offence for any man to run. So, what charge is there to make? The circular says that the department think it undesirable that any officer should enter into municipal contests or hold office under corporations. What charge could you lay under a regulation of that kind? What tribunal could you lay it before? I suppose I could go to the minister's office some afternoon, and say:	There is one of your
customs officers who, notwithstanding the fact that you issued a circular, still insisted on running for the municipal council, and sits there; what are you going to do about it?


William Paterson: I would write to the officer and say that a complaint had been made against him.


James William Maddin: Would that constitute a charge? It is a mere statement of the fact as it exists, and it is not for the purpose of finding fault with that officer that I am making this protest here to-night. It is to demonstrate to the minister that this regulation is utterly worthless and useless,
and is only sent out when occasion demands it for a certain purpose. It has the-effect of driving an undesirable candidate from the field, from the Tory point of view,, while a Grit candidate can stand by his-guns and laugh at it. I do not wish to lay a charge against any officer of the Department of Customs. The worthlessness of this regulation has been demonstrated by the testimony of the hon. member for North Cape Breton and Victoria, and by the instance which I have cited here and I ask the minister what he is going to do about it? Is he going to retain that worthless circular and mail it out to his officers in the country when municipal elections come on, or is he going to meet the situation face to face and make a new and effective regulation? What does the minister say?


William Paterson: I think I have said all I need say.


James William Maddin: I would ask if he intends to draft a new regulation that will be effective? Will he or will he not?


William Paterson: I prefer the regulation as it is, for the reason that I have explained. We do not approve, in fact, we discourage .cases such as that which the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Rhodes), has pointed out. We would rather that our customs officers did not engage in anything in which feeling in the community might be aroused, not that it is a sin for a man to occupy a position in the municipal council. It may be for the benefit of the community, but the object of the department-and this was, no doubt, the view which was taken when the order was issued, which was long before I came into the department-is to let the officer see that the government did not approve of it, that they thought it was altogether better that, while serving the public in a public capacity, for all men have to do business with them, they should not engage in any contest in which feeling might be aroused over some municipal or political question. We do think that our officers, when they receive that, recognize from it that the view of the department is against that, and if there be a case or two where they have disregarded it-the hon. gentleman mentions a case now, and there have been others mentioned-I think I would be safe in saying that they are the only two that have been brought to my notice in so far as I know, one of them only to-night, indicating that it has had its effect. It may not have had its effect somewhere else, but I have heard nothing of it; so that, it cannot be said that it is ineffective. It is very effective. We do not think that we should absolutely prohibit it-that is another question,-but when a complaint is made to us that circular is sent with a letter to the

officer, calling his attention to it which indicates what the mind of the department is with reference to it.


William Sora Middlebro: Surely that rule of the department should have some penalty attached to it for non-compliance. The minister says that first of all, he fires a shot at the officer, by sending him that notice, and if he does not comply with it, he sends another shot at him. But, what happens if the officer still stands on his ground, and says to him:	I do not care for your notice; I am going to stay on the job?


William Paterson: We have never had to fire a second shot yet.


William Sora Middlebro: Let the minister make a plain statement now as to what he will do to a man who persistently disregards the advice of the department, and he will save a great deal of future trouble.


William Paterson: We will tell him that we want him to mind what we tell him.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: And send him another letter.


William Sora Middlebro: And if he disobeys again what will the minister do?


William Paterson: We will try and do what we think is right, as the hon. gentleman himself would do.


William Sora Middlebro: If the minister will state now that he will dismiss such an officer it will save trouble, and that officer ?ar*' *n Political campaigns hereafter. My hon. friend (Mr. Rhodes) nas cited a case where a customs officer is secretary-treasurer of the Liberal Association and advertised in the papers as such, and stands at the polling booth on election day, and surely the minister can say that such a man is not entitled to be in his department. If the minister says that now, many a customs officer throughout the country will take heed. A few years ago a resolution was passed by the House emphatically stating that no official should take part in elections under pain of forfeiture of office, but that resolution is ignored. Personally I do not object to an official going into a municipal election, but that an officer of the Crown, paid by the people, should use his duties not on behalf of the people but on behalf of one political party, ought not to be tolerated.


William Paterson: If the hon. gentleman from Cumberland (Mr. Rhodes) places the information before me reciting these facts, I shall do as I have done in other cases.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Send them a letter?


William Paterson: 


William Paterson: I will send them this letter, I will say that certain charges, naming them, have been preferred against you and I want your answer to them, and the answer comes , and then I shall judge as to future action. Do not think that we are novices in this business.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: We know you are not.


William Paterson: There have beep charges upon charges preferred against officers, and we have asked the man for his defence and we have judged on the merits of each case. If the hon. gentleman thinks that a man who takes a more active part in an election than he ought to, on the Conservative side, is dismissed because he happens to be a Conservative, he is attributing to the department what has not been the course of the department.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not want the minister to misinterpret me. I have never suggested that. I have repeatedly said this evening that I do believe that the Minister of Customs would deal equitably with each case. But I am trying to find out the measure he uses in dealing with these cases. I am not concerned about the poor Tory office holder because there are not very many of them left. I want to know from the Minister how far an official who takes an active part in political contests in my county can legitimately go. It has become notorious with us, so much so that I felt it almost useless to make any representation to the government, but when the question arose to-night I thought I would ask the minister whether such a case as this was not in flagrant violation of his own regulations. I am prepared to say now that I do not charge the minister with partisanship, because I have no evidence to that effect.


William Paterson: I candidly say that while I do not approve of this thing, I do not care to dismiss officers if I can help it. But if our officers do violate these rules we must have them dealt with. I must say that I do believe in giving an officer a chance to make a reply to charges.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Certainly.


William Paterson: And when he has made that reply, I deal with it. There have not been many cases brought to my notice in which a Liberal office-holder has been charged with being active in politics, but there have been a great many cases brought to my attention when our Conservative office-holders have been so charged. I suppose that if I were to listen to friends behind me their opinion would be that I had been very very lenient in

these eases. I like to give a man liberty, so much as I can, to take an interest inpublic affairs.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Hear, hear.


William Paterson: But the line is drawn at his having the right to vote and of speaking with people and discussing public questions with them as he may.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That is all right.


William Paterson: But for a man occupying a position in the customs, to be actively identified with a party, and active and offensive as the hon. gentleman says' this official is, that is a thing the department does not approve of, and the department will endeavour to deal with the case in some way when the hon. gentleman has laid the facts before me, and I have obtained the answer of the officer.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the House adjourned at 10.55 p.m.

Monday, December 12, 1910.