1914-03-05

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. B. NANTEL (Minister of Inland Revenue) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 96, to amend the Weights and Measures Act.
He said: This proposed amendment to the Weights and Measures Act has reference to the metric system. Under the law, as it now stands, the use of the metric system of weights and measures is permissible. The object of the amendment is not to make the use of this system compulsory, but to provide for the substitution of the international metric standards in use throughout the world, for the local standards now authorized by the present law.
The legal standards of the metre and kilogram, deposited in the office of the Minister of Inland Revenue, consist of a bronze bar and cylinder. We propose to put in their stead a bar and cylinder of platinum-iridium certified by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures, after comparison with the original prototype deposited and kept at the International Bureau, Paris, France.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. McKENZIE:: 1.	Was there any authority given by the Department of Public Works, or by- any department of the Government, to the telegraph operators in the employ of the Government in Victoria county, Nova Scotia, to the effect that they or any of them could send free of charge messages handed them or either of them during the months of January and February, 1914?
2.	What office or position does James G. Dunlop, of Baddeck, hold in connection with Government telegraph lines in the county of Victoria, Nova Scotia?
3.	Did the said James G. Dunlop have any authority from the Government at any time during the months of January and February, 1914, enabling him to compel or command operators on the Government telegraph line in the county of Victoria to receive and send messages free of charge? If so, how many such messages were sent, and by whom, during the months of January and February, 1914, up to the 15th of February?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	No; but a standing regulation is that
personal messages, urgent and of social character, may be sent free over the lines of the Government Telegraph Service, by or for agents and operators, or other regular employees of the service.	*
2.	General repairer between Big Bras d'Or, Baddeck and Meat Cove.
3.	No.
gimli lake front.


Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	Has the Department of the Interior issued a patent to Pjetur Tergesen for a portion of the lake front in the town of Gimli?
2.	If so, what was the area so patented?
3.	What was the price paid?
4.	When was payment made?
5.	What was the date of patent?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	Yes; patent was issued in the name of Hans Pjetur Tergesen.
2.	1.88 acres.
3.	$900 principal. $6.38 interest.
4.	$225 on 8th April, 1913. $675 principal and $6.38 interest on 23rd July, 1913.
5.	24th September, 1913.


TOBIQUE INDIAN RESERVE.
Mr. CARVELL:: 1.	How much lumber did B. F. Smith cut from the Tobique Indian reserve during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1913?
2.	How much of said lumber was dry, dead and green, respectively?
3.	What was the rate of stumpage paid?

4.	What was the total amount of stumpage paid?
5.	Has B. P. Smith cut any lumber on said reserve since March 31, last?
6.	If so, how much of said lumber was dry or dead, and how much green, respectively?
7.	What is the rate of stumpage for each kind?
S. How much has he paid this year?
9.	Did the department give him the right tc cut green lumber?
10.	Is the department allowing him to move green lumber already cut from the reserve?
11.	Is the department /charging anything extra for cutting green lumber, as stumpage or as a penalty? If so, how much in each case?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	A small number of trees was cut for Mr. Smith, exact quantity not specified.
2.	All green.
3.	Dues were collected by the agent, presumably at tariff rates.
4.	$28.18.
5.	Yes.
6.	Mr. Smith had a license to cut burnt
timber; no return has been received from the agent of quantities cut under license. Mr. Smith cut in vio'ation of his license, as reported by an inspector of the department, the following green timber: On south side of Tobique riveT:	hemlock 85,330 feet,
spruce 179,850 feet. On north side: hemlock 11,300 feet; spruce 15,640 feet, firewood 28 cords, spruce pulpwood 49 cords.
7.	Hemlock $1 per M. feet, B.M., spruce $1.25 per M. feet, B.M., cordwood 20 to 30 cents per cord.
8.	Dues as above $28.18.
9.	No.
10.	No authority has been given to remove green timber.
11.	Mr. Smith is being charged triple dues and expenses of seizure for green timber cut on the north side of the river, and is being allowed to purchase the lands on the south side of the river which were in the hands of the local agent for sale, and on which the green timber has been cut, at an upset price based on valuation of land and timber.


REBATE ON RAW MATERIAL.
Mr. KNOWLES:: What amounts were rebated on account of raw material used by manufacturers of agricultural implements during the fiscal years 1905-1906 and 1912-1913?


Mr. REID:: The amount of drawback paid on raw material used by manufacturers of agricultural implements during the fiscal year 1905-1906 was $92,167.87. This raw material
[Mr .Carvell.]
was used in the manufacture of implements exported from Canada.
The amount of drawback paid on raw material used by manufacturers of agricultural implements during the fiscal year 1912-1913 was $186,832.05 on implements manufactured for export from Canada, and $119,336.40 on implements manufactured for home consumption.
No drawback was allowed on imported material used in the manufacture of agricultural implements for home consumption in Canada in 1905-1906. Provision for such drawback was first made in the Tariff Act of 1907 which took effect from the 30th day of November, 1906.


PARCEL POST.
Mr. PARDEE:: Is it the intention of the Post Office Department to pay higher wages to letter carriers and rural couriers, on account of the inauguration of the parcel post system?


Mr. PELLETIER:: This matter is under consideration.


BONAVENTURE COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	For what purposes were the following
amounts expended in Bonaventure county, as mentioned in answer by the Minister of Public Works on February IS last, at the places mentioned :	Bonaventure river, $4,349.31; Cross
point, $2,556.17; Marfia, $9,284.79 ; Paspgbiac East, $2,181.94; and St. Charles de Caplan,. $2,292?
2.	Which of these amounts were paid under contract, if any, and to whom paid?
3.	Which amounts were paid out for day labour?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Bonaventure river, extension of training pier; Cross Point, wharf repair; Maria, extension of wharf; Paspebiac East breakwater; St. Charles de Caplan, extension of wharf.
2.	By contract: Bonaventure river, contractor, R. M. LeBlanc; Maria, extension of wharf, contractor, Peter Nadeau and Sons, $5,634; Paspdbiac East, contractor, Peter Nadeau and- Sons; St. Charles de Caplan, contractor, Burns and Charleson, $6,933.
3.	Day labour:	Cross Point, wharf repairs, $2,556.17; Maria, wharf repairs and protection wall, $3,650.79; St. Charles de Caplan, $359.90.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY REFRIGERATOR CARS.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	How many refrigerator cars are now available on the Intercolonial railway?

2. How many of said cars are equipped with steel wheels, so that they can he safely attached to passenger trains?


Mr. REID:: 1.	145 cars.
2.	13 cars.


SEA FISHERY STATISTICS.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	What was the total expenditure in the calendar years of 1912 and 1913 in connection with printing and issuing the monthly bulletin of sea fishery statistics, including the salaries of all officers engaged in that branch of the service, and all other expenses whatsoever?
2.	When was this bulletin first issued?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	1912-13, $1,251.78; 1913-14, $1,222.15.
2.	April, 1911.


THE 20TH BATTERY.
[Stage Direction]
*Mr. GAUVRF.AU:
1.	Was there a request made upon the Minister of Militia or his Department for the purchase or the renting of a hall at Fraserville, County of Temiscouata, in which to store the guns intended for the military drill of the 20th Battery of Fraserville?
2.	If not, is it the intention of the Minister to rent a hall where these guns can be placed, and if he intends to do so, is he aware that Dub§ Hall, where said Fraserville Battery is having its drills, is said to be the best place for the storing of guns and for the officers' annua, military drills?
3.	Has any other party or company applied for the renting of a hall which has been used as a shop, at Fraserville, in order to store the guns in said hall?
4.	if so, what party or company, and at what price has such renting been offered?
Mr. HAZEN (for the Minister of Militia):: 1.	Yes, a recommendation from the Offl cer Commanding the division for the renting of a hall temporarily, which is under consideration.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Question not understood.
4.	Answered by No. 3.


RONALD CURRIE.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	When was Rinald Caine received in custody in Dorchester penitentiary on the sentence for perjury?
2.	When was he discharged therefrom?
3.	What were the reasons of his discharge?
4.	Who applied for his discharge?


Mr. DOHERTY:: I am not sure that the hon. member has the right name in this case.


Mr. MACDONALD :: No, that is a misprint for ' Ronald Currie.'


Charles Joseph Doherty: That question was
answered the other day.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes, but in some way the answer did not reach ' Hansard,' and the only way I knew to get it on ' Hansard ' was to ask the question again.
I would like to have the question amended by having the name 'Ronald Currie' substituted for the one that appears here.
Question stands.


CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Has the Canadian Northern Railway Company, by themselves or by any one on its behalf or in its interest, applied either verbally or in writing to the Government, or any minister or ministers of the Government, for any financial assistance to said company by way of loan or otherwise?
2.	Has the question of assistance to the said company been discussed by the Government, or any member thereof, with any of . the officials of said company?
3.	If so, what was the date of said application or discussion?
4.	Has the Government come to any conclusion in regard to a policy of financially assisting the said company?


Mr. BORDEN:: If any announcement
should become necessary with regard to the matters alluded to, it will be made in due course.


GRAND RAPIDS, ATHABASKA RIVER.
Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	Has an agreement to give a lease of water power at the Grand Rapids of the Athabaska river, been granted to any person or company?
2.	If so, to whom was it granted, and at what date?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Herbert William Adcock, June 1, 1913.


SHELLFISH COMMISSION.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Has the Shellfish Fishery Commission completed its labours?
2.	What is the total cost of this commission to date?
3.	Has the Government accepted any of the suggestions or recommendations of the report? If so, which?


Mr. HAZEN:: [DOT]
1.	Yes.
2.	$9,138.47.
3.	They are now under consideration.


ST. LAWRENCE SHIP CHANNEL-BOILERS FOR TUGS.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1. With reference to an ,ieni of $8,000 expended in purchasing two marine boilers from Canadian Import Company, Quebec, as found on page No. 135, volume 2, of the Auditor General's Report, what are the names of the newspapers in which the advertisements calling

for tenders for the construction of said boilers appeared?
2. What are the names ot me tenderers, the date and amount of each tender received?


John Douglas Hazen: .
1.	Tenders were not called for the boilers referred to. The department, having decided upon the construction of two new tugs for use on the river St. Lawrence Ship channel, learned that these boilers were readily available, and had an inspection and report on the same made by its technical officers. The inspection and report being favourable, and the price reported as fair and reasonable, the necessary authority was obtained for the purchase of the boilers. These boilers are installed in the two new tugs built at the department's yard at Sorel.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
THE OFFICE OF DEPUTY SPEAKER. On the Orders of the Day being called:


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: I beg to move that item No. 28 of the notices of motion be now called. It is as follows:
Sir Wilfrid Laurier.-Proposed resolution: That, in the opinion of this House, in the discharge of the duties and responsibilities of the Deputy Speaker towards this House, he is bound by and subject to the same rules as apply to Mr. Speaker, and that, therefore, he is debarred from taking part in electoral contests.
In the publication of this notice there is an error. It is not in accordance -with the notice I sent to the Clerk. The notice I gave was that I would move the resolution on such a day as a matter of privilege. In my opinion, the matter is one of privilege and therefore does not require notice, 'but I wished to give warning to the House of my intention, so that hon. members might not be taken by surprise. I move, therefore, that this item be now called.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Of course, in the case of a notice on the Order Paper it cannot be taken up except in regular course. But the motion the right hon. gentleman makes is in order.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Wilfrid Laurier: If my memory serves me right, and I think it does, the office was first established in Great Britain in 1855, and in Canada in 1891. I	lay	down	the principlethat	the	same	rules	which apply
to Mr. Speaker ishould apply with equal force to the Deputy Speaker. I have not found, in any of the books 1 have consulted, any written authority upon this point except that Redlich, also in 1870 in the same volume, at page 171, has a very significant remark. After having stated that the deputy speakership was established in 1855, he goes on to say that later on, in 1902, an assistant Deputy Speaker was appointed, and he concludes his chapter with these words:
The appointment of a second deputy was not ordered till the 2nd of May, 1902, and was a part of the reform of the rules effected by the Balfour Cabinet. In the debate on the proposal, which took place on the 11th and 12tli of February, 1902, the necessity of the provision was recognized, the Chairman of Committees being already, in modern times, overburdened with business. It was, however, suggested from several quarters that the new presiding officer should receive a salary, so as to secure a material guarantee of the independence of the Chair. He does now receive payment for his services, though at first the Government did aot accede to the proposal.
When an assistant Deputy Speaker was appointed, or, to be more accurate, when the office of assistant was created in 1902, the necessity for such an appointment had become obvious from the fact that the business of the British House had become so overburdened that not only a deputy to Mr. Speaker, but an assistant to the deputy, was required. Then, when thg office was established-and it was established, so far as my information goes, unanimously-the suggestion was made from several quarters in the House that the assistant Deputy Speaker should, like the Deputy Speaker, receive a salary. The object was to secure a material guarantee of the independence of the Chair; that is to say, that the assistant deputy, like Mr. Speaker himself, and like the Deputy Speaker, should receive a salary so as to secure absolutely his independence. What do those words mean ? If they mean anything at all, they seem to mean that if the office of assistant Deputy Speaker carried with it a salary there was more guarantee of his independence in the Chair. If we are required to pay him a salary to secure a guarantee of his independence in the Chair, all the reasoning which applies to Mr. Speaker should apply also to the assistant Deputy Speaker; and therefore I conclude that the rule was recognized, and that this

was a further form of it, that the assistant Deputy, like the Speaker himself, should abstain from politics.
I	must again refer	to	the	fact thatin	my consultation	of	authorities	Ihave not found any discussion as to the	possible breaking	of	that	rule	byDeputy Speaker. I have	not	found	in
any of the books which I have consulted that at any moment the Chaiman of Committees departed from this rule and took part in any political discussion. Whether or not Mr. Speaker, or the Deputy Speaker or Chairman of Committees, is allowed to take part in any political discussion in Great Britain, I say again I have not been able to satisfy myself; but from the very fact that the books are silent upon this point, I conclude that the rule has been observed, and I believe I am correct in stating that, on the floor of the House itself, neither the Deputy the Deputy Speaker. I have not found in the assistant Chairman of Committees takes any part in the discussion. If I am wrong in this I would be glad to be corrected; but after what examination I have been able to give to the subject my conclusion is that the same rules Which apply to Mr. Speaker apply also to the Deputy Speaker and to the assistant .Chairman; and, quite apart from any precedents, discussing the question simply as a matter of reason, it seems to me that the conclusion is not only obvious but irresistible, that the Deputy Speaker should be bound by the same rules which bind Mr. Speaker; that, having to discharge practically the same duties he should be subject to the same regulations and the same exceptions. The Deputy Speaker presides over the Committee of the whole House, over the Committee of Supply and the Committee of Ways and Means, and I need not tell hon. members that three-quarters of the business coming before this House is discharged in one of these committees. The experience of Parliament has forced the conclusion that the Speaker of the House should not be allowed to take part in politics, and that the same rule should bind also the member of the House who has to discharge the important duty of Chairman of Committees of the Whole", of Ways and Means and of Supply-that is to say, the presiding officer in that portion of the time of the House in which the House is occupied in discharging the major part of all its duties. As an abstract principle, therefore, I submit to the House that the Deputy Speaker

is bound by the same rales that apply to Mr. Speaker.
Now, I come to the other question, and the more practical one under the present circumstances: what has been the rule of this Parliament in this respect? Up to the present time we have had no rule on this point, and if I bring the matter at all to the attention of the House it is because, in my estimation, it is important that we should know exactly whether this rule ought to be observed or not. The Deputy Speakership was established in this House in the year 1881 or thereabouts. Mr. Bergeron, when Deputy Speaker, took part in political contests in 1892, in 1893, and all the time he was Deputy Speaker up to 1896. This was notorious; everybody knew it; but his action never was challenged on the floor of the House, no exception was taken to it, and therefore no blame can be attached to him for it. In 1897, the first year of the late Administration, there was a local election in the province of Quebec, and Mr. Brodeur, who was then Deputy Speaker of this House, took part in that local election in his own riding, Rouville. His action was challenged on the floor of this House. The matter came up for discussion. I looked at the discussion again before entering the Chamber this afternoon. The discussion was rather angry, still not too much so, and, on the whole, I think the sense of the House was rather that the Deputy Speaker should not take part in elections. I may say that I discussed the matter with Mr. Brodeur himself, and that he said that	he had	taken partin	the	local	elections,	but would
not take part in any federal election. I believe that from that day up to last year the Deputy Speaker has never taken pait in any federal election. If there has been any deviation from this rule I do not remember its being called to the attention of the House. I speak subject to correction, because one's memory may in such matters be defective. If there has been any deviation from the principle I would like tc know of it. So far as I am concerned, I think it would be a safe rule to adopt that the Deputy Speaker, like Mr. Speaker, should be debarred from taking part in any political contest. Last year the member for Champ'ain (Mr. Blondin) took part in a political contest.


Robert Laird Borden: What election?


Wilfrid Laurier: Chateauguay. I do not want say anything in the 87
present instance which would cause any bitterness on this point. On the contrary, I want to discuss this matter simply to fix a principle which in my judgment should be recognized. The member for Champlain, finding no rule, may have thought that he was entitled to the privileges of a member on this point, but in my opinion he was debarred. As we have no election at the present time, we are free from the heat and passion which it occasions, and I therefore invite the attention of the two sides of the House to the matter, so that we may lay down a principle which shall guide us in the future whichever side may be in power, and that it may be recognized that in this matter the rule which applies to the Speaker shall apply also to the Deputy Speaker. It seems to me that it would be absolutely out of the question to suppose that the Deputy Speaker should have more privileges tha,n the Speaker. Like the Speaker he receives a salary and he has therefore to give the same attention to his duties as the Speaker does, and, I repeat, without any party bitterness, but simply approaching this subject as it has been approached in former times-in 1902 in Great Britain, for instance-I ask my hon. friends to agree to the proposition involved in the resolution which I have placed in your hands, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Laird Borden: I appreciate very much the tone in which my right hon. friend has made the proposal which he has submitted for consideration, and I am sure the House will be obliged to him for the review that he has given of the practice of Parliaments both in Great Britain and in Canada with regard to the matters upon which he has spoken. It is perfectly obvious that the position of Speaker in Great Britain and the position of Speaker in Canada are not upon precisely the same footing for the reason which my right hon. fjiend has mentioned. I do not recall that my right hon. friend mentioned another aspect in which the two positions are different. In Great Britain it is not the custom to contest the election of the Speaker in his constituency. That arises out of the first consideration to which he has alluded. It being understood there that the Speaker will be continued in office although the party which selected him may not be returned to power, it has not been the practice in Great Britain to contest his election. In Great Britain, I think, there has been no such con-



test for a very great number of years except in the case of Sir William Court Gully. I happened to be in England in 1895, and I very well remember that there was a contest, and that after his election Sir William Court Gully alluded to the fact that a departure had been made from established custom in his instance, and he expressed keen regret that that had been done. There was also a rather fierce controversy in the press of Great Britain, especially in the Conservative press, as to whether or not the old custom ought to be observed in his case, but in view of the very satisfactory results which had obtained up to that time, notwithstanding isome strong expressions of opinion in the Conservative press, Sir William Court Gully was re-elected as Speaker and continued as Speaker, until he resigned the office. In these two respects, then, the status of the Speakership in this country is to be differentiated from that of Great Britain, namely that the practice does not obtain here of continuing the Speaker, even if the same party is returned to power, and that nere his election is contested. At the moment I do not recall any instance-I speak subject to correction-where the Speaker in this House has retained the office beyond the parliamentary term even though his 'own party is returned to power. As a result of that, the election of the gentleman who has been Speaker has, I think, been contested in the same way as any other election. Under those circumstances-this is not exactly relevant to the question but I mention it in passing-the Speaker in this country is placed in a somewhat peculiar position and possibly sometimes a position of disadvantage, because he is not expected to pay any attention to his own riding from the political party standpoint, and at the same time he knows he will be confronted with a contest in the ease of a general election.
My right hon. friend has referred to Red-lich. On page 135 of the 2nd volume from which he has quoted I find these very significant words:
The complete aloofness from politics imposed upon the Speaker received its full extension during the nineteenth century, when it came to he considered that he must keep himself free from all political action outside as well as inside the House, even in his own constituency. He is thus the only member of the House of Commons who is not allowed, either in speech or in writing, to advocate the interests of nis constituents. The position in which his constituency is placed is accurately described in England as one of practical disfranchisement.

The latest historian of the House gives a capital description of the situation in the following terms: The Speaker's constituents not only do not go to the poll; they cannot, according to present-day usages, call on their represent tnve to vote either for or against any measure which may he before Parliament. As the Speaker never meets his constituents to discuss politics, one of the chief means of present-day political education is lost to them. PolitiiiCal organization is suspended in a Speaker's constituency; for a present-day Speaker has no need of any local party organization to secure his return, even if the deemed it proper to contribute to party funds. The newspapers in the constituency have necessarily to refrain from criticism or comment on the parliamentary conduct of its representative: and in nearly all the essentials which go to make representation the constituency is unrepresented. In the constituency represented by the Speaker of to-day, political life is dormant; for ail its outward activities, as they concern both political education and local poll tical organization, are suspended.
But no constituency complains or frets under its temporary and peculiar political disabilities. It is honoured in the honour done by the House of Commons and the country to - its representative.
In this country the practice in that regard has not been followed because it has been felt-and I might give illustrations of that even in recent years-that the Speaker still does represent his constituency and is entitled to press upon the Government the claims of liis constituents and even to set forth to his constituency the advantages which they have been able to enjoy by reason of his being their representative in Parliament.
My right hon. friend, in the course of his speech, has not alluded to one aspect in which the position of the Deputy Speaker is distinguished from the position of the Speaker, both in Great Britain and in this country. It has been the practice for the Deputy Speaker to vote on all questions upon which he desires to vote, even if they are questions of direct party difference. That has been the practice of all Deputy Speakers under the late Administration within my experience, and it has also been the practice of the Deputy Speaker under the present Administration. As far as I know, the same rule prevails in Great Britain, although I have not absolutely verified that by anything that I have found in the authorities upon the subject. It seems to me that the Deputy Speaker in Great Britain, as here, is not hedged about by quite all the considerations which have governed the conduct of the Speaker in Great Britain, and I quite agree in the observation of my right hon. friend that the status of the Speaker in Great Britain

has become an accomplished fact, not through any formal, definite written rules, but through custom and tradition. The status of the Speaker in Great Britain has been established in that way, and exists in that way at the present time.
The same observation, I think, might be made with equal truth respecting the status which the Speakership has acquired in this country. My right hon. friend has alluded to the debate that took place in this House in 1897. The discussion, and the difference of opinion, arose, not upon the action of the Deputy Speaker in taking part in an election, but by reason of the fact that it was charged that for several weeks during the session, while enjoying the salary paid to him for the performance of a particular duty, he had been absent from his post here and had neglected the duty which he owed to the House. Several members who took part in the debate on the Conservative side of the House at that time, notably, I remember, Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper, and the hon. gentleman who at present occupies the Chair in this House, stated distinctly that they saw no reason why the Deputy Speaker, if the House was not in session, should not, if he so desired, take part in a political campaign in his own constituency or outside of his constituency.
My right hon. friend on that occasion alluded to the practice which 4 p.m. had prevailed in the past, and drew some distinction between the action of the Deputy Speaker in taking part in a federal election and in taking part in a provincial election. Perhaps I had better give his words exactly. After alluding to the status of the Speaker in the House and the traditions which enforced his abstinence from political activities while he occupied the high position of Speaker, he went on with these words:
But if that has been the rule applied to the Speaker, hon. gentlemen opposite know as well as I do that while they were in office no such rule was ever laid down for the guidance of the Deputy Speaker. While I have no desire to enter into a discussion of the manner in which the Deputy Speakers who formerly held that office have discharged their duties on the floor of this House, hon. gentlemen opposite know as well as I do that, outside of this House, the Deputy Speaker was as much a partisan as any of us.
Then, further on, my right hon. friend continued in this way:
If it be a crime for an hon. gentleman occupying that position to take part in an election, and if it is to be the rule that he should not do so, for my own part, I am. quite willing to apply that rule in the future, if that be the sense of the House.
However, no action was taken by the adoption of any formal rule, and, if my information is correct, the rule which had been pursued before that time by the Deputy Speakers under the Conservative Administration h*s been pursued since. I am not sure that I can give any instance in which Mr. McIntyre, who occupied the position of Deputy Speaker in the last Rarfiament, interfered in any election, and I speak with reserve >as to him, but I think it can be very clearly shown that Dr. Macdonald who, although a very strong partisan, discharged in a very commendable way the duties of Deputy Speaker of this House from 1900 to 1904, did not restrain his political activities in the same way. In fact, I have noticed extended references to his proposed activities in certain election campaigns which were going on in the province of Ontario while he occupied the post of Deputy Speaker. My hon. friend the member for Bonaventure (Mr, Marcil), while occupying the position of Deputy Speaker in 1908, I think it was, entered upon a political campaign in my own province.


Wilfrid Laurier: After dissolution.


Robert Laird Borden: No, before dissolution. I was very careful to verify that. Dissolution took place on the 17th day of September, 1908, and the hon. member to whom I have alluded spoke at Stellarton on the 8th day of September, 1908, at Liverpool on the 9th, at Truro on the 10th, at Amherst on the 11th, and at Springhill on the 14th.
I am quite as desirous as my right hon. friend of not dealing with this matter in a partisan way, and therefore I shall send over to him some extracts which I have culled from those speeches of that hon. gentleman. I invite his particular attention to one passage which I have marked, and which I shall not place upon the pages of ' Hansard.' I think my right hon. friend will find, upon looking at that particular passage, that it bears fairly well the stamp of pretty 'Strong political attack. My attention was called to these utterances at the time, and it was suggested that I should make some reference to them when the Speakership came in question in 1909, because it was well known at that time, and it had been definitely announced in the Liberal press, that the hon. gentleman in question was to be nominated for the

Speakership. But I thought that under the custom which lias prevailed in this country it was not worth while, or at all events not desirable, that I should raise any question of that kind and, as far as I recollect, I did not make any allusion to it. So, I think that my right hon. friend will see that the practice has not been quite along the line of what he suggests now, even during his own administration.
I do not at all minimize the importance of having the Deputy Speaker of this House placed outside the pale of party politics, so far as that can reasonably be carried out; but there are certain considerations in that connection, which would seem to be a corollary of what my right hon. friend suggested, viz., that the Deputy Speaker should be considered equally immune from attack. If he is to be regarded as outside the pale of party politics, then in respect of political attack on one side or the other it would seem to me that a certain .amount of eonsideraition .should be given to the fact that he is not to open hits .mouth upon party questions or to take .part in .electoral contests. I merely make that observation in passing, leaving hon. members to make any application of my suggestions that may occur to them in view of what sometimes takes place in this House.
The best course it .seems to m.e is to surround the Deputy Speakership, so far as it can be surrounded, with the same tradition of custom and of us.age that is [DOT]applied to the Speakership in this country.
My right hon. friend has alluded to the status of the Speakership, in Great Britain *and in this country, but he will look in vain to the rules of the British House or tQ the rules of this House to find therein the foundation of the status of which he has spoken, and spoken, as I admit, quite appropriately. It does not seem to me, in view of the course of affairs during the past twenty or twenty-two years in which we have had the office of Deputy Speaker in this Parliament, that we have had any such difficulties or inconveniences in respect to the matters to which my right hon. friend has called attention,, as to necessitate our making formal rules in that regard. If we are to make formal rules and to embody them in a resolution of this House, why is there more necessity for doing it in respect to the Deputy Speaker than in respect to the Speaker? We have not attempted to do it in the case of the Speaker and nevertheless the

status of the Speaker is acknowledged in this House, and my fignt hon. friend himself has borne testimony to the fapt that the duties of the Speaker under all Administrations have been satisfactorily and worthily discharged by the men who have been selected for that important position. If we attempt to define the duties and responsibilities of the Deputy Speaker in these respects by the promulgation of formal rules, it seems to me that it would be desirable to inquire why these rules are more necessary in the one case than in the other. If such rules are promulgated they should be very carefully considered, indeed. For this reason, it does not occur to me at the moment, even in view of the incident of which my right hon. friend has spoken, that there is any occasion at the present time for the House to make a pronouncement upon this question by resolution. If it is thought proper, when next the rules of the House are under consideration, that we should embody in those rules some pronouncement defining the duties and responsibilities of the Deputy Speaker in this respect, or of the Speaker himself, I would be prepared to consider that proposal, although at the moment I would not be prepared to say that I would think it desirable. I invite the attention of my hon. friend to one sentence to Redlieh which most truly declares that the status of the Speaker to Great Britain is founded in tradition and custom. It would seem best to found the status, not only of the .Speaker but of the Deputy Speaker, on custom and tradition. Under these circumstances, after this discussion and the frank interchange of views on this subject-.and I am bound to say that in the abstract the views of my right hon. friend do not differ materially from my own except in the respect that I have mentioned-I shall be glad if he will not press his motion and if he will let the matter .stand until we have had an opportunity to consider it more fully in committee when the rules are being revised.


Wilfrid Laurier: Of course, I would gladly accede to the wish expressed-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: As this is practically a substantive motion, it is my duty to inform the House, if there are any other members who desire to speak on this subject, that they must do so before the member who has moved the resolution commences his reply.


Wilfrid Laurier: Of course, I would defer at once to the wish expressed by my right hon. friend-especially since he has left the door open for further consideration-not to press my motion at the present time. I will tell him, however, why, in my judgment we should have a standing order upon this point. My right hon. friend has asked me: If we have no standing order in regard to the Speaker, why should we have one in regard to the Deputy Speaker? My right hon. friend has very properly stated that there are no Tules to define the duties of the Speaker, and that they are all to be found in tradition and precedents; but if at the present time I think it advisable that we should have a standing order upon this point, my reason is the difference in the interpretation which has been given of the duties of the Deputy Speaker. The Speaker never takes the liberty of taking part in an electoral contest. The Deputy Speaker has thought it within his privilege and power to do so. If it be admitted that the same rule should apply to the one as to the other, the fact that there has been a 'difference of interpretation with regard to the duties of the Speaker and of the Deputy Speaker would be a reason why there should be a rule to determine precisely the duties of the Deputy Speaker. With regard to the manner in which these restrictions have been observed by Deputy Speakers, I am not aware that Dr. Macdonald ever took part in an electoral contest, except after dissolution. But I am not sure as to that. As to my hon. friend from Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil), I still persist that while, technically, he may have spoken before a dissolution, in effect Parliament was dissolved and the electoral contest was on. His speech in Nova Scotia was made on the 9th of September, when the compaign had really commenced-a very lively and vigorous campaign, as all will agree-and the House was dissolved on the 17th of that month. So he was no longer Deputy Speaker, except in a technical sense.


Robert Laird Borden: I can tell my right hon. friend that Dr. Macdonald did take part in a provincial election in Ontario in 1902.


Wilfrid Laurier: 
Robert Laird Borden: I spoke to the Deputy Speaker with regard to the election in Chateauguay, and he informed me that he did not speak on the public platform.


Wilfrid Laurier: I will leave it to him to say what he did.


Robert Laird Borden: He certainly was in the county, but did not speak on the public platform.


Wilfrid Laurier: Perhaps not.


Robert Laird Borden: A certain leavening has gome on very rapidly in this matter even in Canada. When Joseph Howe, James W. Johnson, Sir Charles Tupper and Sir William Young were fighting their political battles in Nova Scotia forty-five or fifty years ago, it was the custom, unless I am very much mistaken, for the Speaker to descend from the Chair and make violent partisan speeches, and to be attacked like any other member and to answer like any other member. A complete change has been brought about in that province as well as in Great Britain. My hon. friend knows that up to 1817 the Speaker in Great Britain participated in the political discussions of the House, even making violent speeches. The only question is whether we had better evolve the status of the Deputy Speaker in the same way as that of the Speaker has been evolved, or whether we had better lay down formal rules. I shall be quite satisfied to have the matter considered at the convenience of the right hon. gentleman.


Wilfrid Laurier: If I have permission to speak again, I would observe that the practice which the right hon. gentleman speaks of as having prevailed in Nova Scotia, prevailed in even stronger form in Lower Canada; for Mr. Papineau. who was really the leader of the Opposi-

tion, was Speaker of the House. I think that this debate will lead ;to the maim object I bad in view: that it will have the effect of .suggesting to the Deputy Speaker the desirability of less activity in these matters than he seems to have shown; otherwise he may be liable to be called an offensive partisan and to be dismissed. Motion withdrawn.
HOUSE OF COMMONS STATIONERY. On the Orders of the Day being called:


Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: I desire to call
attention to the quality of the stationery supplied to members of this House. I presume that the country is paying for first-class goods. Of course, if only second-class goods are paid for, we may have to' put up with the present quality. The envelopes are really no good at all, unless you wish to send an open letter. If you wish to send an enclosed letter, you have to get mucilage or wax and stick the envelopes yourself. I understand that this matter had been called to Your Honour's attention, but notwithstanding that it seems to me the quality of the stationery grows worse.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The matter was drawn
to my attention, and on looking into it, I found that the supply coming from the Printing Bureau was part of an old supply which is nearly exhausted. Samples of the new supply, both paper and envelopes, were submitted to me, and they are of an entirely different and much better grade than those which have been furnished. The envelopes are well mucilaged. The new supply is being rapidly prepared and will be furnished as soon as possible.


Mr. KYTE:: I desire to call attention
also to the quality of the blotting paper which is as little suited to the purpose for which it is designed as are the envelopes and paper. I would almost as soon use sole leather as the blotting paper of our present supply.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN:: If there has been an inferior supply of stationery, why not discipline the officer responsible for it?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The supply of both has been on hand for some time and is being rapidly used up. My information is that better stationery will soon be supplied.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
The House to Committee of Supply. Mr. Blondin in the Chair.	.
ISir Wilfrid Laurier.]
Excise-Salaries of officers and inspectors of excise, and to provide for increase depending on the result of excise examinations, $565,278.75.
['With all due respect to the hon. member for Ohambly Verchbres, it has been decided that the salaries of those who are not appointed by commission are subject to seizure.\nIt seems to me to be the general opinion on both sides of the House that it is absolutely urgent the Government should do something for those men whose salaries are inadequate.\nProgress reported.\nOn motion of Mr. Pelletier, the House adjourned at 10.43 p.m.\nFriday, March 6, 1914,']
Mr. NANTEL:: This item covers the salaries of all excise employees, including the different classes of inspectors and collectors. There is an increase of $13,471.75. There are some new appointments and increases , of salaries. The salary of the exciseman is generally low; third-class excisemen start at $600. I consider that these salaries should be increased, and the increase over last year is to be applied to increasing the salaries of the lower grade officers in the department. The increase of an employee's salary is based upon a certificate from his chief that he is entitled to the increase.


Mr. McKENZIE:: Are these men in the
inside or the outside service?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Outside only.


Wilfrid Laurier: When the
Civil Service Act was last revised, the gen-' tlemen who now sit on the Treasury Benches expressed the view, and put it. very strongly, that the principle of competitive examination should apply not oniy to the inside service, but to the outside service also. If there are any officers to whom the competitive examination should be applied, it seems to me that they are those in the excise service. Special qualifications are required of them, and I would ask my hon. friend if it is his intention to apply to that service the competitive examination system.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: The question has not
been decided yet. I .suppose that if the outside service is considered as being on the same footing as the inside service, the same competitive examination may 'be required.


Wilfrid Laurier: The duties of the various officials in the outside service differ very widely. For instance, I would not ask that the postmasters in the rural districts should be appointed under a system of competitive examination, and the same may he said of lightkeepers and officers of-a similar character. But in the Customs and Excise Departments it seems to me that there is ample reason why such a system should be introduced in respect of the outside service.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: We already have what
may be called a competitive examination as to promotion.


Wilfrid Laurier: If the competitive examination system applies to promotion, can any reason be given why it

should not be applied also to first appointments?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: The first appointment is
generally made this way. The officer is appointed temporarily, and has to pass a Civil Service examination before he is permanently . appointed.


Mr. GRAHAM:: How long does his temporary appointment last?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: We generally give the
employees time to pass the Civil Service examination.


Wilfrid Laurier: How many distilleries are there in Canada and where are they situated ?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: There are fourteen.


Mr. BOIVIN:: Has the distillery at Beau-port closed or is it still in existence ?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: It was closed.


Georges Henri Boivin: When ?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Last fall.


Georges Henri Boivin: How long did the excise officer in the employ of the Government remain at Quebec or at Beauport, doing nothing and still drawing a salary from the Government, before he was transferred? I refer to David Murray, now at Prescott.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: I am informed he spent one month at Beauport after the closing of the distillery, and was then transferred to Prescott.


Georges Henri Boivin: Is the minister sure that that information is correct ?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: I am informed that he was there about a month after the closing of the distillery.


Georges Henri Boivin: I wish the minister would procure for us the exact date of the closing of the distillery and of the transfer of Mr. Murray to Prescott, and also tell us the duties now performed by Mr. Murray.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: He is there as a first-class excise man belonging to the division at Prescott. His name appears in the report as being still at Quebec, but, of course, in the next report he will appear in the Prescott division. He receives a salary of $1,500 a year.


Georges Henri Boivin: I quite agree that the salary paid to Mr. Murray is very reasonable, because I know him personally and he is certainly a competent officer. The information I wanted is as to the duties of this man at Prescott, whom he replaced,
and the factory in which he is employed as excise officer.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: I am not in a position to give this information immediately.


Wilfrid Laurier: How many breweries are there in Canada and where are they situated ?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: I shall procure that information.


Georges Henri Boivin: Would the minister also let us have the number of tobacco, cigar and vinegar factories in Canada ? Will the minister complete his statement as to the exact number of employees whose salaries he intends to increase under this vote ?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: There is an item of $10,975 covering the statutory increases in salaries and a certain number of appointments. I have the names here of those who will receive increases in salary.


Georges Henri Boivin: It is not the names of the employees I was asking for. I would like to know how many employees in the whole service are going to receive an increase in salary under this new law. If the hon. minister places a certain amount in his Estimates for salary increases he must certainly be in a position to give this committee the number of men wnose salary he intends to increase.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: About sixty.


Georges Henri Boivin: Do I understand that there are only sixty in the whole Inland Revenue service who are going to receive an increase?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: I am speaking of the thirdclass excisemen.


Georges Henri Boivin: How many are to receive increases in the other classes?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: They receive the statutory increase.


Georges Henri Boivin: Perhaps to-night, when
his Estimates are before the House, the minister could give us the total number of employees in the whole department who are going to benefit by this $10,000 increase. That is the information I desire. I can quite understand it may be a bit difficult for the hon. minister to give this information off-hand.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: I can give the names of all the officers who will benefit by this amount.


Georges Henri Boivin: That would take too long. I do not think the committee is interested in hearing the names.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Let us have the names.
Mr. BOIV1N: I bow to the will of the committee.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Shall I read them?


Georges Henri Boivin: I did not ask for the names, but the hon. member for Pictou did.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: I am perfectly willing to pass the book over to the hon. member for Pictou.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: We want the names on ' Hansard.'


Mr. BUREAU:: Do I understand the minister to say that last year on this appropriation there was an unexpended balance of $60,000?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: About that- amount.


Jacques Bureau: Do I understand further that the amount that the minister asks us to vote now, will not be all expended this year?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: I do not think it will be.


Jacques Bureau: What is the basis for this appropriation?	,


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Perhaps it is a false
principle, but it is the principle that has always been followed by the department. We have a margin. We prefer to have more rather than less, but we do not feel compelled to spend the whole amount. If I cannot use that money to increase the salaries, it will return to the treasury.


Jacques Bureau: I understand that, but
what I want to know is upon what basis the minister arrives at these figures. I am surprised, and not a little surprised, when the m.nister makes the statement that he is starting on a false principle.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: I did not say it was a false principle. I said it might be a false principle but that it was the principle that had been followed by the department.


Jacques Bureau: The principle is being
criticised very much and ought to be improved on.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: I did not know it had been criticised.


Jacques Bureau: That is hardly a satisfactory answer for us on this side of the House. We would like to know whether it is a false principle or not, and we might have some discussion on the principle before going any further. The minister says

that last year he had an unexpended balance of $60,000. We find in the Estimates a column for revotes, and the money unexpended goes under the heading of revotes. Looking up this particular estimate I see that in 1913-14 the amount was $551,807, and in 1914-15 $565,278. Here is an increase of $13,471 over last year, and yet the minister states that last year he had an unexpended balance of about $60,000. I want to know upon what principle this appropriation is based?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: I am not ready to discuss, just at present, as to whether the principle is good or bad; but I may tell the honourable member that the department follows the method which has been adopted for more than ten years.
Now, we always have a balance of estimates representing a pretty fair amount. We prefer to have a little more than a little less, in order not to ask for supplementary estimates.


Jacques Bureau: I am not opposed to that, because we have followed about the same principle.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: It is because I think that this additional estimate will put me in a position to increase the salary of several of those employees whom I consider as being underpaid. The principle may be a bad one, but it was my intention to make those increases out of that sum of $13,471 which has been put in the estimates, if Parliament is ready to vote it. And should we adopt the Bill which may perhaps be introduced during the present session, I shall take this opportunity to increase the salary of those employees, because there are some of them who get but $800 or $1,000 though they have been in the service for quite a few years.


Jacques Bureau: I have no blame to cast on the minister, those disposition are splendid; but I wonder on what basis he is distributing that sum? Does he take as a basis the number of employees, or the time during which they have served, or his own fancy? There should be a basis of some kind.
The hon. minister has said that there were fifteen or twenty employees who did not. get the salary to which they were entitled.
I shall point out to him that I am not asking such questions in order to embarrass him, but merely to get some information.
Shall those increase be granted by virtue of the new civil service law which has been announced in the Speech from the Throne,

and is the honourable minister in a position to tell us when this Bill shall be introduced? In fine, I wish to know whether the increase in the business of this year is taken as a basis for the estimate which we are voting.
I wish to know whether new offices have been opened for the collection of excise duties.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: I say again that the same basis was followed this year. There has always been an additional amount laid aside in order to face those needs which the honourable member has alluded to. In fact the number of employees is a little larger than that of last year. We have 10 inspectors, 10 collectors, 28 collectors belonging to class A, 70 collectors belonging to class B, and 29 belonging to a special class, and then, 75 belonging to the third class. The number of employees is about the same, but we are obliged to appoint other men in certain localities when we open new collection offices. That is the reason of this increase and we take as a basis the experience of the preceding years.


Jacques Bureau: If I understood the honourable minister aright, he told us that a temporary employee could not be appointed as permanent unless he had passed the Civil Service examination.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Exactly. When the candidates have taken the examination and a certain number of them have been successful, the permanent employees are selected among those who have been successful, and that without regard to. their political preference.


Jacques Bureau: If the candidates are not all successful and the number of those who have passed is less that the number of employees needed, do you allow the unsuccessful to try again? Does the department take into account the political ideas of those who have passed their examination with success?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: First of all, one must not mistake the exterior service for the interior service. As far as the interior service is concerned, we get our employees from the Civil Service Commission; but as to excise, the inspectors are appointed according to the principle of promotion, except in certain cases. For the higher positions we take but the employees who are already in the service. With regard to thrd class officials we take political recommendation into account, to some extent, the choice is made just about the same way as formerly.


Georges Henri Boivin: Is the honourable minister
of opinion that the Conservatives are any better than the Liberals in this respect?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: We do not care about that, and nominations have been made to the great discontent of our political friends.


Jacques Bureau: I would like to know from the honourable minister if, when an officer gets into the department as permanent after going through a test for some _ time as a temporary employee and he takes his retreat, his years of service as a temporary employee shall be added to his years of service as permanent, in order to determine the amount of his pension? For instance, in the case of an employee having been in the permanent service for thirty years and in the temporary service for five years, shall those five years be taken into account when he takes his retreat?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: When he takes his retreat his years of service shall count but from the date of his permanent appointment.


Mr. DEMERS:: Must I understand that the inspectors of revenue who have passed an examination are the only ones entitled to the benefit of the salary increase paid out of those $13,471.75, because it is said in the wording of the item under discussion.
Salaries of excise officials and inspectors, &c., and salary increase according to result of excise examination.
Are those the only ones who are to get the increase which the department will grant?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: There is always, in the department, a certain number of employees who never passed any examination; those in class B, for instance, like the collector at St. John.


Marie Joseph Demers: Shall he not get the benefit of this increase?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: He cannot get it directly; but the collectors in class B are apart and they get an increase notwithstanding the rules which apply to all others?


Mr. McOOIG:: On the item, 'Stamps for imported and Canadian tobacco,' I see an increase of $5,000. Has there been an increase in the importation of American tobacco into Canada?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: This increase of $5,000 is to provide for an estimated increase in the selling of stamps. If the revenue increases in the same proportion this year, we *estimate that we shall need $5,000 more for stamps.

Mr. MoGOIG: Is it on account of an increase in the importation of American tobacco or on account of more tobacco being produced in Canada?	.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: This applies to Canadian tobacco and imported tobacco.
Mr. MoGOIG: Is this increase caused by an increased production of tobacco in Canada or'by an increased importation of foreign tobacco?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: There is no more increase in imported tobacco than in tobacco produced in Canada; the proportion is about the same. Last year we had about a similar increase, and this year we consider that we shall need this increase to fill the requirements for stamps on Canadian tobacco and imported tobacco.
Mr. MeOOilG: On account of the great amount of dissatisfaction existing in different parts of the Dominion, particularly in the counties of Essex and Kent, where indignation meetings are being held by the producers of Canadian leaf tobacco, and where other meetings are being held for purposes of organization to endeavour to dispose of the present crop, which they have not been able to do so satisfactorily as they could wish, and on account of the general feeling that the producers are not being treated by the manufacturers as they should be, 1 would like to ask the hon. minister, as there seems to be an increase in the importation of tobacco, if he would consider having an increased duty placed upon foreign tobacco coming into this country, so that the industry which has bees established in Canada would have further protection.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: I will give my consideration to the question.
Mr. MeCOIG: That is hardly a fail answer in face of the facts. If the hon. minister has been keeping in touch with present events, he must hate seen the great amount of dissatisfaction existing in the country, as the leading press, both Conservative and Liberal, are having front page articles every day in connection with this important industry. Not only in the two counties in the south-western part oi Ontario, but in all parts of the Dominion, there seems to be a great amount of dissatisfaction. The minister is" asking for an increase in the item for stamps to label tobacco of $5,000 ovct $120,000 last year. He should have some excuse for this, and [Mr. Nantel.I
know where the tobacco is coming from. If it is all coming from the United States, and if the local industry is being demoralized on that account, it is a matter to which the minister should have given consideration before the present time.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: We have nothing to do
but to furnish the stamps for labelling imported tobacco as well as Canadian tobacco. I am not aware that any complaint has ever reached the department in regard to the matter of which my hon. friend speaks. What we do is to furnish the stamps as demanded by producers or importers. We consider that we need $5,000 more to buy stamps so as to be in a position to furnish stamps as required.
Mr. MeCOIG: If the hon. minister were satisfied that injustice was being done to the producers of Canadian leaf throughout the Dominion and that a larger proportion of tobacco is being imported into Canada than in former years, would to consider the advisability of increasing the duty on the tobacco coming in?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Does the hon. gentleman consider that the injustice is due to the fact that they import too much tobacco?
Mr. MeCOIG:	I consider that the producer is not getting fair treitment.
* Mr. NANTEL: Protection?
Mr. MeCOIG: Yes. If they are importing more tobacco and the manufacturers are using foreign leaf more than was expected, and if it were proven to the minister that there was great dissatisfaction throughout the country and that public sentiment would support his action, would he give the matter some consideration


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Certainly, if I received
complaint I would give the matter consideration and would submit it to Council, because it is a subject affecting the general policy of the Government rather than that of the department only.
Mr. MeCOIG: I can assure the minister that there is considerable dissatisfaction in the tobacco growing sections of the country. A number of meetings have been held in the county of Essex, and I see by the morning papers that another meeting is to be held in the town of Blenheim. It means a great deal to the farmers of Essex and Kent in particular; and if the minister will consider the matter as he has told us he will, provided it is forcibly drawn to his attention-as I have no doubt it will be after the

meetings to which I have referred-I know :it will give great satisfaction.


William Findlay Maclean: Is there a ring
amongst the buyers?


Archibald Blake McCoig: It has been said that the buyers i3eem to take each a particular section and not to come in competition with each other.


Georges Henri Boivin: Will the minister please
tell us what the Government is doing to encourage the production of home-grown tobacco?	,


The CHAIRMAN:: I think I must remind the committee that we are skipping a good many items. The item now before the Chair is the ' Salaries of Officers.' If it is desired to take the Estimates item by item-


Mr. BELAND:: I think we should go on item by item.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: If that be the wish of the committee, I will ask hon. members to confine themselves to the item under discussion.


Mr. VERVILLE:: I desire to ask the minister why Mr. J. B. St. Pierre has been dismissed. A return brought down to the House states that he was dismissed because * services not required.' Yet it appears he was replaced by Wilfrid Gauthier, at the same salary.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Mr. J. B. St. Pierre was
dismissed on the 1st of May, 1912, for political partisanship.


Alphonse Verville: That is not what appears in the return. It says :
J. B. St. Pierre, temporary excise officer; services not required; given four days' notice ; replaced by Wilfrid Gauthier.
And, while St. Pierre, who was dismissed was thirty-seven years of age, Gauthier who succeeded him, was fifty-eight. And the new man receives the same salary as the man he displaces. Now, if J. B. St. Pierre's services were not required, why was the place filled?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Mr. Wm. Gauthier was
never appointed to replace St. Pierre.


Alphonse Verville: I see by the return that lie was dimissed.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Yes, for political partisanship.


Alphonse Verville: That is not what is
stated in the return. Can any reliance henceforth be put in official statements
brought down by the ministers? I read in the return which I have in my hand and which was brought down by the Government; Jean Baptiste St. Pierre, 37, temporary officer, drawing a salary of $600 per annum.-Why dismissed? Services not required.-Four days notice-By whom replaced?-William Gauthier, age 58, temporary officer, at $600 per annum.
If St. Pierre has been dismissed for political partisanship, why is it not stated in this return? How, after that, can any reliance be put in official returns brought down by ministers, if they are not as a rule in closer agreement with the facts than this one relative to St. Pierre?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Was St. Pierre a permanent
officer?


Alphonse Verville: No. He is a Montreal man with whom I am very well acquainted. I wish to know why he has been replaced by another, as that tends to show that the position was a necessary one. Was he considered unable to fill the position, and why does not this return make any reference to political partizanship?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Of course, there is a mistake somewhere. However, I am satisfied that Mr. St. Pierre was dismissed on the ground of political partizanship. He was a temporary officer and was paid at the rate of $600 per annum.


Mr. MICHAUD:: Was there an enquiry
held?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: No.


Georges Henri Boivin: The dismissal of this
temporary employee, Mr. St. Pierre, of Montreal, though it interests the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville) particularly, because he knows the hon. gentleman does not interest me nor, perhaps, other members of this committee. But what does interest us is the fact of a return brought down in answer to an order of this House moved for by the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Murphy) gives us information which is flatly contradicted by the minister from his place in this House. That is the important feature of this dismissal. Are the members of the House supposed to rely upon the information contained in the returns which are laid upon the table by the Secretary of State, or are they to rely upon the word of the minister? This is not the first time such a contradiction has occurred since the present Government came into office.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: There must be a mistake somewhere, either in my papers or in those of my hon. friend. I will endeavour to ascertain where the mistake lies.


George William Kyte: The subject of dismissals
has been discussed in the House from time to time, and we on this side have been endeavouring to get some accurate information as to the number of dismissals that have taken place in the various departments. We have reason to suspect that information brought down from the departments and placed upon the table of the House is absolutely unreliable. For instance, in one department of the Government there have been 476 dismissals within twelve months. Looking over the return, I find that about 300 of them are put down as having resigned. Men receiving salaries ranging from $600 to $1,200 a year, their only source of income, are represented to us as having resigned because they did not desire any longer to hold their positions.


Mr. BEL  AND@: What department?


George William Kyte: The Post Office. Such excuses or explanations will not be accepted by hon. gentlemen on this side of the House. This afternoon we have had another striking instance of the misinformation that is being imposed on members on this side of the House, and I think it is time that the country be made aware of the fact that on this question of dismissals the ministers or officials of the Government, in order to conceal the record that they have made in this matter, are deceiving the people with regard to the information that we on this side of the House are moving for.


Marie Joseph Demers: Along the same lines, ia connection with dismissals, I would like to know why Mr. Deland, collector of inland revenue at St. Johns, was removed.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: For political partisanship.


Marie Joseph Demers: I know personally that Mr. Deland has never taken any part in politics.
I am satisfied that he was not removed on the grounds of political partisanship. The hon. minister wrote to Mr. Deland notifying him of his dismissal, and the reason given in that letter is that notary Deland had a partner who meddled with politics.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: What is the name of that partner?


Marie Joseph Demers: Mr. Brassard. I shall call on the minister to read the letter, for in the return which I have in my hands, it is stated that he was dismissed for political 
partisanship, which statement is at variance with the facts. After that, what reliance can we put in those returns laid on the Table of the House.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Mr. Deland, notary, practised in partnership with Mr. Brassard; they were in the same office practically, and Mr. Deland's office was at the same time the excise office, and it was in that office that the organization of the Liberal party had its headquarters. We considered that these two things were incompatible, and that is why we decided to remove Mr. Deland for reasons of political partisanship; if that is not a dismissal on political grounds, give it whatever designation you please. Mr. Brassard was a candidate at the last provincial election, and it is in that office that his campaign was organized. We appointed Mr. Archambault collector of excise.


Marie Joseph Demers: I wish to answer some of the statements made by the minister. Mr. Brassard was a candidate at the last provincial bye election which took place quite recently. Mr. Del arid was removed in 1911. Mr. Brassard was never an organizer, was never anything else but a good Liberal, like, I may add, all other Liberals in the county of St. Johns.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Has he not paved the way for his candidature there?


Marie Joseph Demers: I cannot say; but the excise office is altogether distinct from that jf notary Brassard. I shall ask the minister to read the letter addressed to Mr. Deland, so that we may judge whether he has been dismissed for reasons of political partisanship. I say that the letter is in direct contradiction with the return, for Mr. Deland never meddled with politics. But Mr. Deland being in partnership with a man who took interest in politics, it was resolved that Mr. Deland would be dismissed on grounds of political partisanship. That is what the minister calls political partisanship.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: The old proverb whicli
says: Tell me with whom you associate, and I shall tell you what you are, is very apt in the present instance. The facts are as follows : Mr. Deland practised his profession in partnership with the future Liberal candidate, and the excise business was being transacted in their office. The matter was brought to my attention and I considered that both things could not properly be combined.


Marie Joseph Demers: My hon. friend's argument might have some weight if Mr. Brassard

had, as early as 1911, been chosen as Liberal candidate for the 1913 elections.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: In any case, the information given' me was correct.


Marie Joseph Demers: I wonder what view will be taken of jny case, considering -that I have as my partner the Conservative leader in St. Johns.


Henri Sévérin Béland: My hon. friend may be sure that if it was within the power of the minister to remove him as member of this House, he would do so.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: If his partner was collector of inland revenue, I do not know what I would do.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Has the minister requested Mr. Deland to change his office?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: I do not remember that I have notified Mr. Deland to change -his office. He was dismissed in November, 1912, more than one year after the election of 1911.


Henri Sévérin Béland: When was he dismissed?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: He was dismissed one
year after I assumed the administration of the department.


Henri Sévérin Béland: For what reason?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: For the reason I have
stated.


Henri Sévérin Béland: What proof has the minister of the partisanship of Deland?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Mr. Deland admitted that he was in the same office with Mr. Brassard, and I considered it was not proper to have the Liberal1 organizer in the same office with the collector of the Government.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Surely this is no sufficient reason and is not to be accepted by the committee. Here is a gentleman who has been a public officer for fifteen years. He has given entire satisfaction to the public and to the Government; he is known ail over the district of-Montreal as a gentleman who has never taken any part, active or otherwise, in election's. Then this hon. gentleman gets hold of the office of Minister oi Inland Revenue. No doubt he carries on an investigation regarding this gentleman. He finds out one morning that Mr. Deland is in partnership with Mr. Brassard, a Liberal. He does not request this gentleman to conduct the Government's business away from his law office, but at once concludes that he is a partisan and dismisses him. For the same reason it might be assumed that-my hon. friend (Mr. Demers) would have
the assistance of his partner, a Conservative lawyer, in the organization of the elections in the Liberal interest. Every one knows that my hon. friend's partner is a Conservative, but is that a sufficient ground to conclude that my hon. friend receives the help of his partner in the organization of his great victories in St. John and Iberville?


Mr. ROGERS:: He seems to get a lot of help from some quarter. -Mr. BELAND:	The only and the true
reason is that some ardent partisan of the Minister of Inland Revenue wanted the position, begged for it, and said to the minister: This man is there in the same office as Mr. Brassard; Mr. Brassard, they say, is dreaming of being a candidate in the remote future; therefore dismiss your agent. Do you think public opinion will be satisfied with -such conduct? Public opinion will never be satisfied, and I think this will be another ground of reproach in the province of Quebec against my hon. friend when he comes before the electorate as candidate and as minister.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: If that is the only thing to bother me, my conscience would be perfectly at ease in the next election.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am sure the minister
h-as worse -sins than that on his conscience. What was the salary of Mr. Deland?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: $900.


Henri Sévérin Béland: There was no Investigation held?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: No investigation. Mr. Deland admitted the fact himself.


Henri Sévérin Béland: What fact did lie admit?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: He admitted he was in
partnership with Mr. Brassard, and I had the other fact that Mr. Brassard was the chief organizer of the Liberal party in St.John and the coming candidate; and 1 considered, being told so by friends at St. Johns that it was incompatible to have the office for the collection of the revenue in the same office with Mr. Brassard, who was to be the next candidate in St. Johns.
-Mr. BELAND:	The only investigation
was a letter sent by the minister to Deland asking him whether it was true that he was in partnership with Brassard. The only question put to Deland was whether he was in partnership with Brassard and that was the only investigation held by the minister.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: There was no investigation.


Henri Sévérin Béland: That was a kind of investigation. The minister sent a letter to Mr. Deland and asked him whether it was true that he was in partnership with Mr. Brassard. Did the minister send the letter? The minister is not in a position to say whether he asked-


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: I have not the record before me. I suppose that I wrote to Mr. Deland and he admitted in his letter that it was a known fact that he was in partnership with Mr. Brassard.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Surely the minister knew that beforehand.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: I knew that and he admitted it.


Henri Sévérin Béland: You wanted the admission from Mr. Deland that he was in partnership with Mr. Brassard,


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: It was not necessary, he had made the admission.


Henri Sévérin Béland: And what crime is that?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: What crime is it to have dismissed him?
Mr. BELAND I would like the minister to admit frankly that he dismissed Deland without a simulacrum of a reason. If he would admit that we would allow the item to go. Let him admit that he has dismissed this worthy officer without reason.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: On the contrary, I contend that I dismissed that man for good reason and that it was not suitable to have the office for the collector of inland revenue in St. Johns in tne same office with the organizer of the Liberal party.


Marie Joseph Demers: He was not then organizer of the Liberal party.


Mr. SEVIGNY:: May I enquire from the hon. minister whether the Government pays rent in connection with the office of the collector of Inland Revenue at St. Johns?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: There is a rental paid.


Albert Sévigny: I understand from the discussion which has been started by the member for St. Johns that he is anxious to make some political capital in view of the next elections. I for one approve the decision rendered by the minister. The facts are as follows: Mr. Deland is collector of Inland Revenue at St. Johns, and practices in partnership with Mr. Brassard, the liberal political leader of the hon. member, the organizer of the Liberal party in St. Johns.


Marie Joseph Demers: He is not my political leader.


Albert Sévigny: At any rate, he is one of the leaders, and the organizer, of the Liberal party in the county of St. Johns; the hon. member, will not say the contrary.
Such are the facts which appear from that discussion, the leader of the Liberal party in the county of St. Johns practises in partnership with Mr. Deland, an officer of the Dominion Government. The rent for that office is paid for by the Government, and the hon. member tells us that this man was in office for a period of fifteen years. So he admits that he has been using an office, the rent of which is paid by the State, to earn his living as a notary in partnership with Mr. Brassard, the Liberal organizer in that county. The hon. member is horrified at the thought that Mr. Deland was Temoved from office. I think it will suffice to lay those facts before the public, and I have no doubt that the public will approve of the decision of the minister. Neither have I any doubt that the well-advised electors of St. Johns will approve of the minister's stand.


Marie Joseph Demers: The hon. member for Dorchester has just drawn some conclusions on imaginary data. Mr. Deland may have got some rent from the department, but I know, having been apprised of it by Mr. Deland himself, that he has been paid only a very small amount as rental of the office used for excise purposes, and that he never was paid rent toy the department in respect to the office occupied by Mr. Brassard.
The hon. member for Dorchester, being unaware of the facts, has drawn false conclusions. He should have ascertained the truth of the facts before making such statements. I say that my information is correct: never has the Government paid any amount as rental for that part of the office occupied by Mr. Brassard. The only rental paid by the Government was in connection with the office occupied by Mr. Deland, who was not practising his profession. Such are the facts, and I trust that public opinion will not be perturbed by the remarks of the hon. member for Dorchester.


William Erskine Knowles: 
Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: I do not consider this the proper time to discuss the naval question, but I am prepared to discuss that question in my own constituency and I invite my hon. friend to come before my constituents at the next election. If I desire to coine back here I will be here just as surely as my hon. friend. As to the dismissal of
Deland, I regret that my hon. friend could not understand the discussion in French. I will repeat in English what I said. I dismissed Mr. Deland because he had as a partner the organizer of the Liberal party in St. Johns.


Henri Sévérin Béland: He says he was not.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: He was the organizer. I was perfectly positive as to that fact and later events have proved it. He was preparing for an election and I considered that a good reason for dismissing him.


Mr. BOULAY:: I am greatly amused at seeing hon. gentlemen opposite quite horrified because a few of their friends have been removed from office. They were not so particular in 1896, 1897 and 1898, when poor sectionmen on the Intercolonial were, without reason, being dismissed, on the ground that they were my cousins or my brothers-in-law.
At six o'clock, the committee took recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock. Mr. Blondin in the Chair.


Georges Henri Boivin: This afternoon my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) asked how many breweries and distilleries there were in the Dominion of Canada. Has the minister that information?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: We have fourteen distilleries; nine in Ontario, four in Quebec, and one in British Columbia. There are twenty-eight malt houses.


George Perry Graham: Would they be breweries, or malt houses in connection with breweries?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Malt houses in connection with breweries. We have breweries to the number of fifty-four, cigar manufacturers, 251; tobacco manufacturers, 74; and vinegar manufacturers, 21.


Georges Henri Boivin: I think the leader of the Opposition asked for the names of the distilleries and the places where they are located.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: There is the H. Corby Distillery Company, Limited, at Corbyville, near Belleville; Joseph E. Seagram, Waterloo; William Marshall, Hamilton; the John A. McLaren Estate, Perth; Spalding and Stewart, Perth; J. P. Wiser and Sons, Limited, Pre-cott; Gooderham and Worts, Limited, Toronto; General Distilling Company, Limited, Toronto; Hiram Walker and

Sons, Limited, Walkerville; the Melehers Gin and Spirits Distillery, Company, Limited, Berthierville; Montreal Products Company, Limited, Montreal; the Robitaille, Eureka Distillery Company, Limited, Beau-port (closed now); the St. Hyacinthe Distillery Company, Limited, St. Hyacinthe; British Columbia Distillery Company, Limited, New Westminster.


Georges Henri Boivin: I would like to know the names and locations of the new cigar and tobacco factories which have been opened in Canada since the publication of the last report of the department.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: It is a very long list. There are 261 factories.


Georges Henri Boivin: I simply ask for a list of the new factories.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: To find that we are obliged to refer to the old list with the date of the opening of each factory.
The CHAIRMAN; It might be well to wait until we come to the item dealing with this matter. This is for the salaries of officers.


Georges Henri Boivin: But I respectfully submit that there is an officer engaged in each one of these factories and it is precisely for that reason that I would like to get that information.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: To answer the question it is necessary to take the whole list with the dates of the opening of each factory.


Georges Henri Boivin: But a statement of the new factories is the only information I want. I Should have thought that the minister, when he came to pass his Estimates, would have had that information at hand.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: It will take a good deal of time.


George Perry Graham: The fiscal year closed on the 31st March last, and what my hon. friend wants is to find out what new factories have been opened since the 1st of April last. The reason of that is that this item itself is to provide for increases depending on the results of expert examination.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Finish Tobacco Manufacturers, Sudbury, Out.; A. Van Ben them, Kenora, Ont.; James Bear, Welland, Ont.


George Perry Graham: These are all new?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Yes. The Misner Manufacturing Company, Limited, Goderich, Ont,.; Thomas Little, Toronto, Ont.; N. Caouli, Toronto, Ont.; McAlpine Cigar Company,

Limited, Toronto, Ont.; J. J. Foster, Kingsville, Ont.; O. Morin, L'Assomption, Que.; Forest & Freres, St. Jacques, Que.; Verne & Freres, St. Jacques, Que.; J. A. Dugs, Rawdon, Que.; Olivine Gobeil, Montreal, Que.; J. Ote Laplante, Montreal, Que.; Chas. Germain, Montreal, Que.; Jos. Dau-phinas, Montreal, Que.; P. Desmarteaux, Montreal, Que.; G. Grampalo, Montreal, Que.; J. T. Lefebvre, Montreal, Que.; H. Sauvageau, Montreal, Que.; L. Dubuc, Montreal, Que.; Hirschenbein Bros., Montreal, Que.; H. J. Harvey, Granby, Que.; Gelinas, & Dugre, St. Boniface, Que.; A. McKenna Tobacco Company, Limited, Pic-tou, N.S.; John Preusamtanz, Winnipeg, Man.; Blairmore Tobacco Company, Blair-more, Alta.; Chas. Sehnoter, -Kamloops, B.C.; Cuban Cigar Factory, Prince Rupert, B.C.;


George Perry Graham: Can it be possible that these are all new this year?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Yes.


George Perry Graham: The tobacco industry must be flourishing.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Fred L. Foote, Vancouver, B.C.; C. C Bensen, Vancouver, B.C.


Georges Henri Boivin: How many is that altogether?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: When we make the addition, we will give it to you.


Georges Henri Boivin: I thought the Minister had the total. I will not insist upon that.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: He should have it.


Herménégilde Boulay: It would be better for the hon. gentleman, to put questions, and he would get an answer.


Georges Henri Boivin: Mr. Chairman, I submit
that the questions I am putting to the hon. minister are in order.
Mr. NANTEL [DOT] Certainly, and I am not finding any fault.


Georges Henri Boivin: No, but the hon. minister has some back benchers who do.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: I have no control over
them.


Georges Henri Boivin: Have .any new appointments been made?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Here is the list of the new officers in class 3; they number thirteen or fourteen. We do not always appoint new men when new factories are started, for this

reason uhat when a new tobacco factory is started in a place where there are already several factories, we require the services of excise men who are on the spot. It should not be forgotten that several of those factories do not take up a man's whole time.
Those $13,471 are appropriated towards meeting the salary increases of excise men of the third class.


Georges Henri Boivin: I understand that this item covers the increase in salary of the men formerly in the Government's employ. I would like to know from the minister whether the salaries of the newly appointed men are comprised in that item.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: It is provided to meet the salaries of the newly appointed men for the current year.


Georges Henri Boivin: You have appointed thirteen new men for the current year. You are asking for $13,000 for these thirteen new men, that gives an average of $1,000 for each one and there is nothing left for the others?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: The increase to old employees is $100 per annum, but they do not all get the $100; they get only whatever comes to them considering the number of months they have been employed. Thus some will get $75 for nine months, others, $50 for six months, and so forth.
Now, the increase which I am asking for is payable to the sub-collectors of class B. There is an increase of $13,250 That represents the increase granted to those officers in the course of the year.


Pius Michaud: Will the hon. gentleman state whether these men are in the outside service?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: All of them.


Pius Michaud: Must they pass examinations?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Those in class B have no examination to pass. They are men who have been for a great many years in the service of the Government, and whose salaries amounted as a rule to $1,000.


Alphonse Verville: What salary does Mr. George Warren get?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: $600 per annum.


Alphonse Verville: Has his salary been decreased?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Mr. Warren was at first appointed temporarily. Until appointed permanently, officers get no increases.


Alphonse Verville: Mr. Warren has been employed for twelve or thirteen years.


Mr. PAQUET:: Is he bound to give all this time to the work?
M. NANTEL: Mr. Warren is a preventive officer.


Alphonse Verville: Here is a very capable officer, and nevertheless, under the regulations of the department, there will be no increase forthcoming to him. Will he get an increase?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: *No, for he is only employed as a temporary officer and is not entitled to an increase. Besides, there are applicants for those positions of $600 per annum in even larger numbers than we can appoint. Apparently they are satisfied with that salary.


Alphonse Verville: Things are getting worse, if men are compelled by want to accept such a salary. Here is a most capable man-I am quoting Warren's case as an instance- even if it be a fact, as stated by the minister, that men of that class are available in unlimited numbers, that is no justification for paying starvation wages. Hunger will make people knock at every door, and be content with black bread when there is no white bread within their reach. I say that the Government has no.more right than any private citizen to take advantage of a man's straitened circumstances to make him work at a salary of $600 per annum, when-I take the minister at his own words-it is not possible to live nowadays on such wages. Such men are to be obtained in unlimited numbers, the minister states . . .


Albert Sévigny: Is the hon. gentleman
aware when that man was appointed?


Alphonse Verville: I do not know. Whether he was appointed last year or ten years ago does not make much difference to me. I know he is a first class officer, who is very capable and does his work conscientiously. It is stated that this class of men cannot get any increase, being only temporary officers. Why should not that rule be altered in the same way that it has been changed at the Customs Department? There are a good many men in the various departments who could not pass an examination, and who nevertheless are competent. Now, without passing an examination, they cannot get an increase. It follows that the passing of examinations means a difference of three or four hundred dollars per annum.
So I say we have no right to speculate on the salaries, and under the circumstances it seems to me a certain amount should be put at the disposal of the minister, so as to per-



[Stage Direction]
mit increasing the remuneration of these temporary men.
Moreover, I urge on the minister the advisability of considering -the sentiments lie uttered this afternoon when he stated it was necessary to increase the smaller salaries, and that six or seven hundred dollars was not enougn.
Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Mr. Warren was appointed in 1891, and since that date, his salary has not varied, the rule being that all temporary officers must pass examinations before being entitled to the yearly increase of one hundred dollars. Mr. Warren was advised of the fact and did not deem it advisable to go up for the examinations. So we should not be blamed for leaving him at the same rate of salary. He was de-alt with in accordance with the regulations of the department.


Albert Sévigny: I take this opportunity to state, following on the hon. gentleman from Maisonneuve, that such a rate of salary is inadequate, considering the increase in the cost of living, particularly in cities. We have just, now before us a striking instance. A civil servant was appointed in 1891 and has been in the service of the Government for twenty-two years, and his present salaiy is no more than $600 per annum.
Every week here in Ottawa, I have occasion to meet at my office government men who have been in the service for twenty or twenty five years. They are men who remained in the service under the former Administration at starvation wages. I am not aware that during those fifteen years, or rather during the eight years that the hon. gentleman from Maisonneuve sat in this House, he ever complained in this House that they were receiving too little. To-day the hon. gentleman is trying to turn this salary question into a party question.
Well the Government will go one better op the hon. gentleman's denunciations, for at this session, as announced in the Speech from the Thron-e, the Government is going to introduce a measure towards granting better terms to government employees, and we hope to have to that end the support of the hon. member from Maisonneuve. If the Government should do no such thing, then it will be time to complain.


Alphonse Verville: When I enquired what salary, Mr. Warren was getting, it was for the purpose of finding out what was the remuneration of the men of his class. I was not especially concerned with Mr. Warren's case.
Several hon. gentlemen have stated that I have not done anything on behalf of the 
labouring classes. Hon. gentlemen are not in a position to know what is going on unless they follow assiduously the proceedings of the House. I let no opportunity go by without requesting an increase for those poorly paid men. To-day the increase of living in Montreal is 33 or 35 per cent as compared with 1891, and a rate of salary of $600 at that time was equivalent to $800 oi $900 at the present time. [DOT]


Mr. RAINVILLE:: In 1911?


Alphonse Verville: The increase from 1911 to 1914 amounts to 27 per cent. That is rather an important item.
The member for Dorchester charged me with trying to make political capital out of this salary question. I may answer that there is no need for my making any political capital in the constituency. I represent, through urging increases of salary; that does not further my chances. I have always been in favour of the increase of smaller salaries, whether in the case of workingmen or of Government employees, it does not matter, and I trust the hon. gentleman will take into consideration that very important question and find his way to changing the regulation which prevents granting increases to temporary employees earning only $600 per annum.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: The hon. gentleman will admit that men, though they may have been in the service for a long period, are not entitled to the same remuneration as those who have gone to the trouble of passing their examinations.
Are they in a position to do so or not,
I cannot say. As for those who are unable to pass examinations, I am doing my utmost to be fair with them. I have increased the rate of pay for class B; I had the right to do so. I would be disposed to further the carrying of a measure granting a fair salary to every civil servant. Mr. Warren is responsible for his status; he knew what the regulations were, and he was dealt with as one not having complied with the requirements of the law.


Alphonse Verville: As 1 understand it,
there is an increase in the item of salaries in the anticipation that a new law may be enacted to the effect that the salaries be increased. The hon. minister stated that the salaries to be increased would be the smaller ones, because he believed, of course, that the higher salaries are sufficient at the present time. What is the lowest salary in the department at present?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: In the excise?


Alphonse Verville: Yes.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: 


Alphonse Verville: What increase does the minister expect to give on salaries of $600?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: The regular yearly increase is $100.


Alphonse Verville: Will the regular increase be more than that on the higher salaries?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: [DOT] You speak of the increase to be decided by the new law?


Alphonse Verville: No. According to the item which we are now discussing.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: $100.


Alphonse Verville: Then those who are receiving $600 may expect to receive $700?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Next year, $700.


Alphonse Verville: The minister has stated plainly and properly that men cannot live on those small salaries. Even $700 is rather small for one who has to support a wife and family. According to my calculations, from the number of employees which the hon. minister stated this afternoon, and from the amount of money wnich he is now asking for, the increase would be about $20 a year to each employee. Therefore, I presume that many employees will not get an increase. If possible, the increase should be given to those who need it most. Nobody in this House will say that $700 a year is sufficient for anybody to live on. I may be told that men working in other callings are receiving smaller wages, but that is not the point. We are supposed to be model employers, and it is a question of taking the money out of the people's pocket to give it back in some other way. Therefore we should increase the smaller salaries so as to enable those employees to meet their obligations. If the increase was double the amount, I would not be against it, because I am not against increasing salaries when absolutely necessary. During the discussion this afternoon, the minister stated that he had a surplus last year of about $60,000 over and above expenses. I am rather sur-nrised at the idea of a surplus in the department of $60,000 over and above expenses. I do not know whether we should congratulate the minister or not. Surely, if wisdom were exercised in forcasting the operations of the department, there would be no such surplus. However, if the minister is in a position to increase salaries, 881
I hope he will give increases to the small-salaried men.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: The number of new cigar manufactories is forty-one.


Georges Henri Boivin: That is exactly the information I wanted. Now, does the department appoint a new inspector for each of these factories?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Not in each case-it is not necessary. Sometimes, we are in a position to send an officer who is attending another factory, but we have appointed new officers in certain eases.


Georges Henri Boivin: Then I understand that in cities where factories already exist, when a new factory is established it can be looked after by an officer already in the department.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: When we have officers in sufficient numbers we do not appoint new ones, but only when they are needed. '


Georges Henri Boivin: Can the minister tell uc how many new officers were appointed. for these new factories?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: I am not in a position to give that information now.


Georges Henri Boivin: That information is quite essential. Here we are discussing a vote for salaries of officers and inspectors which *shows an increase of $13,471.75. The minister tells us, with a flourish of trumpets, of the things he is going to do for the employees of his department-that he is going to increase their salaries out of this extra vote. We ask how many new employees he is to pay out of this money that we may know what proportion of it will go to the old employees. Even if they got it all, it would amount to the enormous sum of about $20 on the average. We want to show that this increase to the employees of which the minister speaks is fictitious and that in reality they will get no increase, for this money is to be paid to new employees in new factories. I think we have a right to the information.


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. minister has just told us that this increase of salaries which he lauded so highly this afternoon is not to apply to those poor employees who are earning only $600 a year; that is to say, those who are earning next to nothing wifi have to stay where they are. These favours are for those who have passed their examinations and are earning salaries of $1,200 to $1,500 a year, and the poor and needy

will have to be satisfied with their $600 or get out-because there are lots of people rapping at the door looking for a job. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Maisonneuve, if the law is such that the minister cannot increase these salaries, why does he not, from his place in this House to-night, take the responsibility of saying that when the Civil Service Bill comes before the House he will amend the law as to make it possible for him to give these poor men an increase?


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: I think there would be an easier way of meeting the wishes of my hon. friend. So far as I can make it out, the only thing that could be done to meet his views would be to exempt all those who want to enter the Civil Service from any kind of examination, thus putting them on the same footing as those who are in the service to-day. But would that be just? I have many reasonable complaints from officers in Montreal who are getting only $600 or $700 and have families to support. When they enter the Civil Service they know that they enter under the condition that they will have six months to pass their examinations. Some persons go to night schools and to Sunday schools to prepare to pass these examinations.


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. gentleman is
wrong; they do not learn anything about excise in Sunday school. .


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: I know people who
are going to Sunday school to-day who are preparing for many kinds of examinations. At all events, would it be fair to give a man who cannot or is not willing to pass the examinations a salary just as large as that paid to the man who passes the examination? I have tried-and the hon. minister knows that I have-to obtain increases for some of my friends who have not passed the examination, but under the law that cannot be done, and if the, law were changed as to put those who have passed examinations upon the same footing as those who have not, it would be an unjust law.


Georges Henri Boivin: A moment ago 1 asked
the hon. minister of Inland Revenue for his opinion, but I see that, for the time being at least, he has delegated his powers to the hon. member for Chambly-Vercheres, who gives the minister's answer. He says that if the law is to be changed it should be changed so as to do away with competitive examinations in the Civil Service.
IMr. Boivin.]


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: That would be the
result of your argument.


Georges Henri Boivin: I feel sure that is not the stand the hon. the Minister of Inland Revenue would take on the question. I would ask him now if he is in favour of the abolition of competitive examinations in the Civil Service?


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: Mr. Chairman-


Georges Henri Boivin: 
Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: All the officers in the department who are permanently appointed pass the regular Civil Service examination.


Georges Henri Boivin: Does the hon. minister think, like the hon. member for Chambly-Vercheres, that this examination should be abolished?


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: The hon. member is
misquoting me. I said that his argument was in effect that the examination should be abolished. I am not in favour of that.


Georges Henri Boivin: I am very much pleased to learn that the hon. member for Cham-bly-Verchbres has argued so long 9 p.m. for nothing, and that he is not in favour of his own argument. I should like to have the opinion of the hon. minister.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: I am not in favour of
abolishing the examination.


Georges Henri Boivin: I think the committee entirely agrees upon that question. Is the minister not in favour of so amending the law, having regard to the Civil Service Bill to be brought down by the Government in a few days, that an increase of salary could, in the discretion of the minister, be given to those poor men who have not passed the examination, and who are earning $600 a year?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: That is a question which, no doubt, will be given due consideration when the Bill comes before the House.


Georges Henri Boivin: I would be glad, and I am sure the committee would be glad, if the minister would promise to use his influence before the Privy Council to secure an increase of salary for these employees. I know his influence would have considerable weight, and I hope he will do all in

his power to obtain an amendment of the law which will enable such of these employees as are deserving to get a larger salary.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: All the lower grade officers have my sincere sympathy. I have tried to increase the salaries of those who passed the examinations; as to the others, they will be given consideration. I consider, really, that if we could do something for them it would be advisable to do so.


Georges Henri Boivin: A moment ago, in giving the list of breweries in the province of Quebec, the minister named the brewery or distillery, I think it is, at Beauport, Quebec, and he also said that this distillery is closed. Is the distillery permanently closed?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Yes.


Georges Henri Boivin: Then why is it included in the list of existing distilleries?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: We give it as closed.


Georges Henri Boivin: Can the minister give us the cause of the closing?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: No.


Georges Henri Boivin: It was not closed owing to any order coming from the department?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: No.
Mr. BOIViN: The department had nothing to do with the closing of the distillery?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Nothing at all.


Georges Henri Boivin: Would the minister give the information I asked concerning Mr.Murray, and the date of the closing?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Mr. Murray was transferred from Quebec on the 1st of October, 1913, to Prescott. He took the place of Mr. W. H. Gerald, officer in charge of the Wiser Distillery, at a salary of $1,500.


Georges Henri Boivin: I think that this salary of $1,500 is very reasonable for a man of the ability of Mr. Murray. I am not criticising his appointment at Prescott or his salary. Another item of information I asked from the minister this afternoon was why the distillery at Beauport was closed.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: I am told that the distillery was finally closed in the middle of January last, and after Mr. Murray was transferred to Prescott, we sent another officer there from Joliette.


Georges Henri Boivin: I am informed by people residing in that district that nothing has
been manufactured in that distillery for a period of almost two years.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: But they were obliged to dispose of the stock on hand.


Georges Henri Boivin: Was it necessary to keep an excise officer there for that?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Certainly.


Georges Henri Boivin: A return which was moved for by the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Murphy), and which was laid upon the table of the House a few days ago, showing the number of employees in the Inland Revenue Department who were dismissed from the 10th of October, 1911, to the 12th of December, 1912, contains the names of a large number of these employees dismissed for political partisanship in spite of the declaration made by the minister this afternoon that political partisanship was not considered as a very great fault in his department. I am very much surprised to see that in some instances, not only in the case of officer St. Pierre, which was mentioned by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville) this afternoon, but in the case of nine other officers in this list, which was 'aid upon the table of the House by a responsible Minister, in answer to a return moved for by a member of this House, there are nine names of persons dismissed, for what reason? Because their services were no longer required. They were not dismissed for partisanship, or because their services were not satisfactory, or because they had sent in their resignation, but because their services were no longer required. I can only take one meaning from that, and that is that there was no more work for them to do. The plain fact is that the nine men dismissed because their services were no longer required were immediately replaced by nine other men to do the same work. I would like an explanation from the minister as to how it is that these nine men were dismissed on six or eight days' notice because their services were no longer required, but were immediately replaced, by older men in many cases, with the same salaries, or in some instances, higher salaries, and why? Because their services were no longer required. It appears to me that the return is not a true return of the condition of affairs, that they may have been dismissed for political partisanship. It appears to me that if the Government dismissed these men for political partisanship, or for any other reason, they should have the courage to say in this return that they were dismissed

for such and such a reason, and not say that their services were no longer required, when they were immediately replaced by other men. I shall give the names of the nine men who were dismissed because their services were no longer required, and immediately replaced by other men. The first is John W. Bohan, temporary preventive officer, St. John, N.B., salary $300, services not required; six days' notice; replaced by E. J Clarke, 71 years of age, temporary preventive officer, St. John, N.B., salary $300. The second name on the list is Louis Basinet, 65, temporary preventive officer at Joliette, upon the enormous salary of $300 per annum. His services were no longer required. He was given a notice of nine days but replaced immediately by Dr. D. P. Lavalee, age 73, temporary preventive officer at Joliette, with a salary of $300 per year.


George Perry Graham: What	about the age
limit? [DOT]


Georges Henri Boivin: These	gentlemen, 1
imagine, will have to go to Sunday school before they can pass this examination. The third man on the list is Dr. O. E. Milot, age 46, temporary excise officer, Three Rivers, $200 per year, services not required, twelve days' notice, replaced by Isidore Voisard, aged 61, temporary excise officer at Three Rivers, $200 per year. The fourth man on the list is J. B. St. Pierre, mentioned this afternoon. He was only 37 years old; he was temporary excise officer at Montreal at a salary of $600 a year, and his services were not required. He was given four days' notice and immediately replaced by Wilfrid Gauthier, 58 years of age at the same salary. The next man on the list is Mr. Richer, temporary assistant inspector of weights and measures at St. Hyacinthe, earning a salary of $600 a year; services not required. He was given notice of one month and eight days and was replaced by Mr. Champagne, age 33, at the same salary.


George Perry Graham: He does not qualify for that job; he is too young.


Georges Henri Boivin: 
Herménégilde Boulay: The hon. member for Shefford complains about dismissals. What would he have said if he had been here in 1896, 1897, 1898 and 1899. He complains about 98 dismissals effected in the department of Inland Revenue. I have here a list of 150 dismissals effected on the Intercolonial between Campbellton and Levis.


Alphonse Verville: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. We are considering the estimates of the Department of Inland Revenue, and not those of the Department of Railways.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I understand that the hon. member for Rimouski is merely making a comparison.


Herménégilde Boulay: There are complaints about civil servants having been dismissed on the grounds that their services were no longer required. I have in my hand a list of the dismissals made under the former Liberal Administration giving no reasons whatever. In that way were Desrosiers, Michaud and thirty-four others, whom I could name, dismissed without cause.


Alphonse Verville: Do you not think, Mr. Chairman that the comparison is rather Overdrawn? I insist on the point of order which I just raised.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: As a matter of fact, the comparison is somewhat overdrawn, and if the hon. member insists, I shall have to declare the hon. member for Rimouski out of order.


Herménégilde Boulay: I bow to your decision, Mr. Chairman. My object was merely to enlighten the hon. member for Shefford.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: The hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Boivin) complained bitterly of the dismissals in my Department and he dealt with nine men who were dismissed for no other reason that that their services were no longer required. The return shows that St Pierre was dismissed because his services were no longer required; I could have dismissed him as a bitter partisan. He was president of the Club Choquette. He was a temporary officer but gave more attention to politics than to his duties. The total number of dismissals, is 83. We have in the service 500 or 600 officers and we have dismissed 83 since 1911.


Georges Henri Boivin: No, you dismissed 98 in the first year.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: I have the whole list of dismissals here amounting to 83.


Georges Henri Boivin: That only shows that these returns cannot be depended upon.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, ordeT.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: They were dismissed for
cause. Mr. Labelle of Joliette has been dismissed for cause.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What cause?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Defalcation.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Why did you not put that in the return?


An hon. MEMBER:: Because he was a Liberal.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Why did you not
put that in the return?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: All of these persons were temporary officers, and when they were appointed they knew perfectly well they could be dismissed without long notice. They have all been dismissed for cause, but m some cases, especially in St. Pierre's case, the reason was that their services were not required. I think I was justified in dismissing that man St. Pierre, and the same reason would apply to most of the other names -mentioned by the hon. member for Shefford.


Georges Henri Boivin: I rose a few moments ago to draw the attention of the minister to the fact that while he tells us that there were only three men dismissed in his department, we have a return showing ninety-eight' dismissed and these were dismissed during the first year. There is another contradiction between the statement that the minister makes on the floor of the House and the return that was tabled by the same minister a few days previously.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. This list is a list of all the dismissals up to December, 1912.


Georges Henri Boivin: That is only for thirteen months. The date of the return is December 10. Can the minister tell us how many nave been dismissed since the 1st of December, 1912?


Alphonse Verville: While the minister is waiting for the figures, I might mention that he stated a moment ago that the dismissal of Mr. St. Pierre was on account of political partisanship. If it had been stated in the return in that form I would not have brought up the case this afternoon. It seems to me unfair to dismiss a man for

tlie reason given by the hon. gentleman. There is no shame in anyone belonging to a political club. There are some hon. gentlemen who are presidents of clubs and nobody blames them for it. Therefore you should not find fault with anybody else. It has been stated in the return that St. Pierre had been discharged for political reasons, it would have been all right and I would not have said anything about it, but it is because it says in the return 'services not required ' that I bring the matter up. When he is replaced by another man it must be apparent to anybody who has any sense at all that there is something wrong. I would advise the minister to tell his department that when a return is asked for facts should be put in it as they really are because if that rule were followed we would not have all this discussion in the House.


Mr. CARVELL:: The minister stated a
little while ago that in many of these cases he had been polite enough to tell these people that their services were not required but that as a matter of fact there were good reasons for their dismissal; in most cases it was because they were political partisans. I noticed that the first name on the list was that of John W. Bohan of St. John. John W. Bohan does not live at St. John; he lives in the county of Carleton which I have the honour to represent. I have known the gentleman all my lifetime.
I find the statement made that his services were not required. Certainly Mr. Bohan's services were dispensed with but Mr. Bohan's place was filled by a very estimable gentleman indeed, Mr. E. J. Clark who lives not a quarter of a mile from my own residence, a gentleman who is 71 years of age. I do not find much fault with that because there is not very much to do for an official of my hon. friend's department in that town. You will remember that we had a discussion about this work and the agreement was made with the late Minister of Inland Revenue that there would be no official appointed in that town. However, my hon. friend, from political exigencies, was compelled to make an appointment and he appointed a gentleman with whom I have no quarrel whatever and who, from a political standpoint, I think, was entitled to the position. Now will the minister say that the same reason applies to the case of Mr. Bohan as he has given regarding the case of Mr. St. Pierre? Had he any evidence to show that Mr. Bohan was a partisan?
I would like to know what record the min-
ister has of his conduct as an official and whether or not he was dismissed for cause or simply because they required a position for Mr. Clark.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Mr. Bohan was a temporary preventive officer receiving $300 a year, he was dismissed and, being a temporary officer, he could not expect to be kept indefinitely in the service. Mr. Bohan never protested against his dismissal. He accepted it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What would the minister call a protest?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: He never sent a letter of protest. I suppose he accepted the dismissal because he was-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What did you want him to say?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: He seems to have accepted his fate very favourably because he was a kind of organizer.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Does the minister say he was an organizer?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: I think I should give the same reason as for the dismissal of Mr. St. Pierre because the hon. member for Mai-sonneuve (Mr. Verville) does not deny that Mr. St. Pierre was an organizer or was chief of a Liberal club.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Does the minister say
that Mr. Bohan was an organizer and that that is the reason for his dismissal?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: I say that Mr. Bohan has been dismissed for political partisanship.


Georges Henri Boivin: Why did you not put that in the return?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: The return states that
Mr. Bohan has been dismissed on the same ground that Mr. St. Pierre has been dismissed.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I want to give my hon. friend the minister a little more information. Mr. Bohan held another office under this Government and again political exigencies required that his head should come off. In the case of the other officer he was given an investigation and if my hon. friend will look at the evidence, which he will find in a return brought down to this House last year, he will see that the only evidence that was given against this man, Bohan, was that he was seen about a week before the election of 1908 going to the hotel in which I happened to be spending the night. On election day in 1911 he was seen

speaking to me on the street in the pres* once of probably three or four hundred people. That is the only evidence which they can find against Mr. Bohan.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Has he been dismissed?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Certainly. I want my hon. friend to remember that when the Conservatives want an office in the Maritime provinces they get it; it does not make any difference what it is. Sometimes they go through the form of an investigation; sometimes they do not, but the result is always the same. Oh, yes, Mr. Bohan was dismissed.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: I suppose that I have
authority myself to dismiss him.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think that kind of
evidence would suit my hon. friend.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: It was sufficient.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think that if he were seen speaking to the Liberal candidate, that would be quite sufficient, although surely in a free country like this, a man should be allowed to speak to whoever he chooses.
Mr. Bohan has a sister who was postmistress. She was dismissed, too, without any notice. My hon. friend the Postmaster General commences to look up now. He remembers that. He agreed to give her an investigation, but she has never got it yet. However, that will come up on another item.	.
It might be interesting to go down all the list of these nine men. We ought to have this return made complete. In the case of one man we are told that he was the partner of a man who, they were afraid, might be a political foe in the future. Another man was dismissed because he was seen speaking to the Liberal candidate on the street. I would like to know the . causes for the dismissals of the other seven men. The thanks of the committee are due to the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Boivin) for bringing this matter up.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: The total number of dismissals since I came into office is 84.


Georges Henri Boivin: Slowly growing all the
time.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: That is all. Many of these employees 'have been dismissed for cause..-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I thought you said 98.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: No.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Why then is there such a discrepancy? The minister brings down a return to the House saying that he has dismissed 98 men. Now he says that he has only dismissed 84.


Mr. L. J. GAUTHIER:: This is a second edition.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: The total number of dismissals from 1911 to 1912 are 84.


Mr. TOBIN:: Does the hon. minister
include in those 98 dismissals Mr. Des-marais, inspector of weights and measures for the district of St. Hyacinthe?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Yes.


Edmund William Tobin: On the list banded me this evening by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Boivin), Mr. Desmarais' name is inserted as having resigned. Would the minister be kind enough to inform me how he makes out that Mr. Desmarais has resigned?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Because he failed to perform certain duties. He was practically asked to resign because he refused to act,, and we put another man in his place.


Edmund William Tobin: I brought up this question of dismissal on March 21, 1912. The minister knows very well that Mr. Desmarais did not refuse to do his duty and he cannot produce any proof that Mr. Desmarais refused to do his duty. The Conservative candidate who was defeated in 1911 wanted to place one of his friends, Mr. Lemire, in this position and the deputy minister at that time wrote to Mr. Desmarais on January 18, 1912, as follows:
A. Desmarais, Esq.,
Temporary Assistant Inspector of Weights and Measures,
Bromptonville, Que.
Dear Sir,-I am directed by the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue to advise you that a charge has been brought against you of having, during the last federal election, acted as a political partisan.
You are therefore in consequence of this charge called upon to tender your resigantlon or show cause why your services should not be dispensed with.
I remain, sir,
Your obedient servant,
W. J. Gerald, Deputy Minister.
Mr. Desmarais wrote and said he had not interfered in elections, but he was forced to undergo an investigation. The minister told me that himself. They have a Conservative organizer in the eastern township who has been made commissioner to investigate all these charges. You can

imagine what kind of a trial a good Liberal would receive. The minister promised' me personally in this House that he would show me letters he had received making charges agains Mr. Desmarais. I went to the minister's office and he would not show them to me.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What reason did he
give?


Edmund William Tobin: He had one of his friends to place. This is what he gave in the House on March 21, 1912, in answer to my questions:
Mr. Ma ntel: A charge has been made against Mr. Desmarais by the Conservative candidate, Mr. D. Hayes, and acting upon that charge we gave Mr. Desmarais the notice that has been read. Since then Mr. Desmarais has left for Montreal and I have not heard of him since. We have been informed that he is working for a firm in Montreal and we have made no inquiry and decided on no dismissal.
Now, Mr. Desmarais had not left for Montreal ; but seeing that he had got this letter from the deputy minister and having a large family, he was trying to get another position because he knew what his fate would be if he had to pass through the hands of this particular organizer, Mr. Shurtliff who is employed the year round investigating charges made against Liberals. According to the return, Mr. Demarais resigned; yet my hon. friend the minister told us a few minutes ago that he had dismissed him.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: In regard to Mr. Demarais, an investigation was to take place, but to prevent the investigation against him Mr. Desmarais went to Montreal and refused to perform his duties. We have dismissed him because he failed to perform his duties. No investigation was made, but if Mr. Desmarais had continued to perform his duties as inspector of weights and measures we would have caused an investigation to be made in his case.


Mr. PACAIJD:: Did I understand the minister to say that he had not made any dismissals in his department since 1912? I have a letter here of August 14, 1913, as follows:
Mr. F. H. Prefontaine,
Quebec.
Sir,-I beg to inform you that His Excellency the Administrator by an Order in Council, dated the 8th instant, has been pleased to dispense with your services as Assistant Inspector of Weights and Measures in the Weights and Measures district of Quebec, on the ground of political partisanship, to take effect from the 1st August, 1913.	[DOT]

This letter was written on the 14th ci August and the poor man not only did not have one day's notice, but was told he had to get out on the 1st of August, fourteen days before he received this letter. Naturally, Mr. Prefontaine was very much surprised when he received this letter. He wrote to the minister; explained his surprise; asked him what evidence he had and asked for an investigation. There was no answer to this first letter of his. He then wrote another letter and the minister answers, undeT date 22nd September, 1913:
I am in receipt of your letter with reference to your dismissal.
Mr, Huard, the defeated candidate in
Megantic, ^demanded your dismissal, on account of political partisanship. Having received several declarations corroborating charges, I considered I was obliged to take action. I therefore recommended that you be dismissed and council has sanctioned my recommendation.
Now, I should like to know what these declarations are.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: It does not change the number, but an exact count has been made, and the number of dismissals in the department since I came into office is 84. Mr. Prefontaine was dismissed for cause- political partisanship-and no investigation was held.


Lucien Turcotte Pacaud: A request for an investigation was made, was it not?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: The case was sufficiently established and the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pacaud) himself will not deny that Mr. Prefontaine was a partisan.


Lucien Turcotte Pacaud: I do deny it.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: I received many affidavits from men upon whom I rely, proving that he v/as a partisan.


Lucien Turcotte Pacaud: Did the minister receive a letter from Mr. Prefontaine denying the* charges and requesting an investigation?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Certainly. But I was in possession of the affidavits and considered the case established.


Mr. CAR YELL:: By whom were they signed?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: By several persons.


Georges Henri Boivin: But they might have been contradicted. We have had affidavits read in this House and contradicted by contra-affidavits, and they have been considered

sufficient to vote down charges against Mr. NANTEL: Well, let us call them ministers in this House.	solemn declarations.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: I am sure these will not be contradicted.


Lucien Turcotte Pacaud: I know Mr. Prefontaine personally very well, and I know that he has never taken part in politics since he was appointed to office. More than that, he is one of the most respected citizens in the county of Megantic. He is a Papal zouave, a Papal knight. He is a very old man, and has a large family, and by the action of the Minister he is thrown out in the street. I think that of all the dismissals made by the Government we must single this one out as most unjust and as one that would appeal to the consideration of any man. I must make an exception of the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Nantel), because he is such a strong partisan that it would not appeal to him.


Georges Henri Boivin: Here is a man by the name of Prefontaine who is dismissed by letter dated the 14th of August. He is told that his services have been dispensed with on the ground of political partisanship, to take effect on the 1st of August. Did he get his salary for the fourteen days' service he rendered from between the 1st of August and the date when this letter was written?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Yes, so I am informed by the accountant of the department.


Georges Henri Boivin: This is a ve/y important matter. Here is an officer dismissed, who asks for an inquiry and is refused. We ask the minister why, and he says: We had affidavits. I think the committee has a right to know who signed those affidavits, what charges were laid, and before whom the affidavits were taken.


Lucien Turcotte Pacaud: I would like it if the minister would give at the same time the letters he received applying for the position.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: A return has been asked for; I believe it is in the hands of the Secretary of State. I have no objection to bringing down that return.


Georges Henri Boivin: I would like to look over the affidavits.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: I see no objection, they will be brought down.


Mr. LAFORTUNE:: I object to affidavits being read here, it is made a crime under the law.


David Arthur Lafortune: In that case I have nothing to complain about.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: I shall now read that of Mr. Jules Lapointe:
Canada,
Province of Quebec.
I, the undersigned, Jules Lapointe, of the parish of Ste. Julie, do solemnly declare:
1.	I am personally acquainted with Mr. Pr6-fontaine, of Lyster, in the county of Megantic, inspector of Weights and Measures.
2.	I overheard the said Prefontaine discuss
with much warmth and earnestness political questions, taking the Liberal view of them, on or about September 16, 1911.	.
And I do make this solemn declaration believing it to be conscientiously true and knowing that it has the same force and effect as if it was made under oath under the Evidence Act of Canada.
And I have signed: Jules Lapointe.
Received by me. .
d. McCullough,
Mayor of Inverness.


Georges Henri Boivin: By whom was that declaration received?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: 
David Arthur Lafortune: Where was the mayor? Was he within the limits of his own town?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: I cannot say.


David Arthur Lafortune: If tha mayor was not within the limits of his territory, he had no right to sign as mayor. The mayor of a parish is an ex-officio justice of the peace only within the limits of his town. I oh-

tained a ruling on that point from the Court of Appeal.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: The last affidavit which I read is dated Thetford Mines.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I wish to point out to hon. gentlemen that this incipient discussion over affidavits is out of order. The question could be dealt with, of course, before a court of justice. I understand it is an optional question and it is difficult to say who is right and who is wrong. I think hon. gentlemen should revert to the question.


Louis Joseph Gauthier: Will you allow me, Mr. Chairman, to state along what lines this discussion is taking place? Our contention is that an officer has been dismissed improperly. The hon. minister assumes the responsibility of this dismissal, saying: I dismissed that man because I had affidavits justifying such a course. To that we reply: Had you granted an enquiry, we would have shown that the charges brought forward against the officer whom you dismissed were without any foundation.


Georges Henri Boivin: The point of order which you have just decided, Mr. Chairman, was, perhaps well taken, but I think that we were perfectly justified-and I think the Chairman will uphold me in this-in asking the hon. minister to read to the committee the evidence upon which he based the dismissal of a government employee who had previously asked him for an investigation, and to whom an investigation was refused. The hon. minister read two documents which he first called affidavits, but which turned out to be solemn declarations. In these two solemn declarations the only evidence afforded is that the men who signed them heard the deposed employee, at some time or other, discuss politics. What the dismissed employee said, what arguments he put forward, in the interests of what candidate he expressed those arguments, was not stated. Are these the only affidavits the minister has, or are there other sworn declarations in connection with the same case?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: There are more than those two.


Georges Henri Boivin: I think this committee is entitled to hear the reading of the other affidavits upon which this man was thrown out of office.
Mr. Nantel: I shall now read a solemn declaration made by Mr. Edouard Roberge

and received by Mr. Thomas Legare, S.C. commissioner for the district of Arthabaska: Canada,
Province of Quebec,
County of Megantic.
X, the undersigned, Edouard Roberge, a merchant of the city of Sherbrooke, do solemnly declare:
X have for over twenty years been acquainted with Mr. I'rfifontaine, of Lyster, Megantic Co., the inspector of Weights and Measures. Ever since I have known hint, he has always been to my knowledge an ardent Liberal partisan, and I remember that in the early part of September, 1911, in the hall of an hotel in Thetford Mines, he discussed with me political questions in the presence of several persons, and that on that occasion he was defending the policy of the Liberal party.
And I make this declaration believing it conscientiously to be true, and knowing that it has the same force and the same effect as if it was made under oath, under the Evidence Act of Canada.
And I have signed,
Edouard Roberge.
Received by me, at Thetford Mines, this seventh day of February, 1913.


THOMAS LEGARE,
[Stage Direction]
S. C. Commissioner for the
district of Arthabaska.
Those are the affidavits on which I dismissed Mr. Prefontaine.
Mr. BOIVIN [DOT] In accordance with the rules of the House, the hon. minister will, I expect, lay on the table the affidavits he has just read.
Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Certainly, they form part of a return which was to be brought down to-morrow in answer to an address.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I do not think the rule is the same when we are sitting in Committee of the Whole.


Lucien Turcotte Pacaud: Was Mr. Prefontaine
given an opportunity of asserting whether or not this evidence was true or untrue? Were the declarations submitted to him''1


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: These are solemn declarations ex parte. I took the responsibility of dismissing this man because the evidence convinced me that I was justified in doing so.


Georges Henri Boivin: Was the minister reading from the original affidavit, or from the return which has been brought down?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: The return.


Robert Rogers: Now that the evidence is all in, perhaps we can proceed to make a little progress, and adjourn.


George Perry Graham: We have just begun with the evidence. Can the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue give the committee a state-

ment as to the success or failure that has been met with in connection with the experiments in the manufacture of peat?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: That is not under my
department.


George Perry Graham: I wish to obtain some information from the minister in connection with some correspondence I have received with regard to wood alcohol and methylated spirits. I intend to ask him about certain officials, what they have done and what their particular work is. I think we should also have full information as to the amount of spirituous liquors manufactured in Canada, the amount collected from each distillery, and what it costs to collect these amounts. We should have the same information in regard to the breweries, including the total output of each brewery and the total consumption of beer in the Dominion of Canada. This information is particularly interesting in view of the fact
10 p.m. that a large gathering of persons in Ottawa this week are discussing these very questions, and that the hon. member for Dundas (Mr. Broder) has a motion on the order paper with regard to the sale of cigarettes. I would suggest to the hon. gentleman leading the House that, with the understanding that we could discuss later some of these matters, we might pass the first item for the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue.


Robert Rogers: Let us pass a few items.


George Perry Graham: It would he better to
take one.


Robert Rogers: I do not think my hon. friend will be able to obtain any information that will be of interest to him in so far as the congress that is assembled in Ottawa this week is concerned, but I am sure my hon. friend the minister of Inland Revenue will be only too pleased to bring down any information he may have with respect to the questions my hon. friend has asked.


George William Kyte: I would suggest that the minister bring down also a correct return of the dismissals in his department. A return was brought down sometime ago and from the discussion this evening that return is evidently absolutely incorrect. Persons are set down in this report as having resigned or been dismissed because their services were no longer required whereas, as a matter of fact, they were dismissed on account of partisanship. I think the minister should be prepared with that corrected return the next time he applies for Supply.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: All right.


David Arthur Lafortune: I would like to know from the minister what Government employees have been dismissed in the county of Montcalm?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: I do not see any.


David Arthur Lafortune: And in the county of Joliette?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Henri Locas, of Joliette, excise officer.


David Arthur Lafortune: He is from St. Lin.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Medard Forest, of l'Epi-phanie, M. Granger and J. H. Lafortune, of St. Jacques. These officers are of the Joliette division.


David Arthur Lafortune: What crime had they committed?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Political partisanship.
Messrs. Louis L. Bazinet, C. Bourgeois, T. Rivet and L. P. Labelle, (dismissed for embezzlement), and lastly, Paul Ethier, of L'Assomption. I see no others.


David Arthur Lafortune: Are there any left for dismissal? Can you tell me who has taken Mr. Bazinet's place?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: He has been replaced by Mr. Lavallee, former legislative councillor.


David Arthur Lafortune: How old is he?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: I do not know. I found him quite capable of doing the work.


David Arthur Lafortune: Is he related to a member of this House?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Not that I know of.


David Arthur Lafortune: Who recommended
him?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: I believe it was the member for that county. In any case, I personally am well acquainted with Mr. Lavallee.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I suggest that the hon. member address the Chair.


David Arthur Lafortune: Well, Mr. Chairman, will you kindly request the minister to give me an answer and state who recommended Mr. Lavallee?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Offhand I cannot say; but he applied to me direct.


David Arthur Lafortune: You said he had been recommended by the member representing that county.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: I think the two answers are complementary.


David Arthur Lafortune: I would like to have a detailed statement of the increases which it is proposed to grant out of the amount of $13,471.75.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: The list of increases has already been given several times.


David Arthur Lafortune: I may point out that among the men who are to. get an increase there is one by the name of Barette. Is he related to the member for Berthier (Mr. Barette) ?


Mr. BARETTE:: No.


David Arthur Lafortune: I also find that there is a Mr. Olivier. I would like to know whether he is related to the hon. member for Joliette.


Mr. GUILBAULT:: Not at all; I am not even acquainted with him. Mr. Olivier lives at Berthier.


David Arthur Lafortune: Address the Chairman.


Joseph Pierre Octave Guilbault: There is no need of my addressing the Chairman; I know who are my relatives better than he does.


David Arthur Lafortune: From the minister's answer, I see there is granted a more substantial increase to a gentleman by the name of Larue of Quebec, an increase of $300. Is he entitled to get more than the others who get $100 only?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Mr. Larue's salary is $1,400 only. He was appointed long ago, he is a very good man, and that increase is only fair.


David Arthur Lafortune: He gets a larger increase than any of the others.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: He is a Liberal.


David Arthur Lafortune: There are so many kinds of Liberals, that it is a difficult matter to sort them out to-day.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: That man got an increase because he took the management of the Quebec office.


David Arthur Lafortune: That is not what I want to know. I am enquiring why he is getting more consideration than the others.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Because the amount is in proportion to what he earns. I must say I granted that increase despite some of my friends.


David Arthur Lafortune: The hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Sevigny) stated a moment

ago that, until 1911, Mr. Verville had not asked for any increase of the workingmen's salaries, and the member for Dorchester stated that the Government was going to show its good will by deeds, actual facts. I may state to the hon. gentleman that what the workingmen want is more money, not facts. The hon. member for Maisonneuve made a very good answer, when he said that in 1911 salaries were fair; but that in the meantime have changed to such an extent that what was sufficient then, is now inadequate.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: That is why I provided that amount in the estimates.


David Arthur Lafortune: I am in favour of increasing the salaries of these poor people. I know what I am speaking about. I see them at work almost every day. They complain, and rightly so. The Government to my mind, should take the necessary steps to have the law amended so as to secure a fairer rate of remuneration to these poor civil servants. If the wish is that these men should lead an honourable life, they should be put in a position to at least make both ends meets. The only way to keep them right is to pay them a salary sufficient to enable them to properly maintain their families. It is not a question of party politics, but a question of justice. I do not blame the present Administration any more than the former.
Reference has been made to the removal of Mr. Bazinet, of Joliette, an ex-mayor of that city.


Joseph Pierre Octave Guilbault: He was never mayor of Joliette.


David Arthur Lafortune: It was his brother then?


Joseph Pierre Octave Guilbault: Neither was his brother.


David Arthur Lafortune: I know that man, he is an honest citizen. I am satisfied, in spite of reports circulated, that he has not interfered in politics. He had his own views, and every man is entitled to that. So long as you keep the names of civil servants on the electoral lists, they will retain the right to express their political views. If you are intent on depriving them of that right, strike their names off the lists of voters, and then you may rightly say that they have no business to talk politics. You make them judges of the conduct of the representatives of the people, and afterwards it is claimed that they have no right to open their mouths. That is neither fair no equitable.
I recognize that a public officer has no

right to speak on the hustings in election time, and still less to insult his opponents. Whoever does so is responsible for the consequences, and should his party be defeated, he is bound to fall as well.


Joseph Pierre Octave Guilbault: Is the hon. gentleman aware that Mr. Louis Bazinet presided over political meetings?


David Arthur Lafortune: I know nothing of the sort; I would like to have the proof.


Joseph Pierre Octave Guilbault: Well, I am in a position to say so.


David Arthur Lafortune: I know very well that the hon. gentleman would not knowingly deceive us. But I lay down in the abstract that no one should be dismissed before a thorough enquiry has been made, and not on a mere affidavit addressed to the minister, or on a solemn declaration, which deprives the accused of all chance of vindicating himself. O tempora, o mores! Is it not generally admitted that the greatest criminal has the right to be heard? I say that under British rule such a thing should not be tolerated. It is to be regretted that the spirit of partisanship should exact such reprisals. If the poor man had been given an opportunity to defend himself, the minister would not likely have taken the stand he did take.
Mr. Wilfrid McBeth, of Montreal a friend of mine of forty years' acquaintance, has been dismissed. I am in a position to state that he never interferred in politics, and if an opportunity had been given to him it would have been an easy matter for him to clear himself of the charges. Knowing as I do the kindly disposition of the Minister of Inland Revenue, I am .satisfied that some influence has been brought to bear upon him and that he has been deceived. When a political friend is anxious to get a job and is informed that there is none available, the minister says: I would only be too glad to help you, you have made sacrifices, try and find out something and we will give it to you. That man starts out and, under the spur of necessity, demands the dismissal of a political opponent.
Before resuming my seat, I shall request the hon. minister to seriously consider the smaller salaries, the starvation wages with which a large number of Government men, temporary employees who have been in the service for a period of fifteen or twenty years, have to be content. When a member is absent for reasons of health, and is unable to get his indemnity, right away some enactment is made and the member,
often a rich man, who could dispense with the money, gets his full pay. This House passes a Bill to assist a member of Parliament. Why should we not do the same to assist these ill-paid Government employees? The country is prosperous. I should even like to see the members' indemnity increased, and the ministers themselves increase their salaries, which would be only right.
If it is deemed necessary, on account of the high cost of living, to increase salaries everywhere in every department, let us not forget the small wage earner; wealthy men are able to look after themselves. People in ill-paid positions have no one to protect them, they are dependent on their daily earnings, they live from hand to mouth, and a mere casualty, a loss of employment through illness, for instance, may deprive them of their home; they are sued by the baker, the butcher, the grocer, and they do not enjoy such protection as is afforded to permanent officers, because they are mere temporary employees.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: Their salary is not subject to seizure?


David Arthur Lafortune: With all due respect to the hon. member for Ohambly Verchbres, it has been decided that the salaries of those who are not appointed by commission are subject to seizure.
It seems to me to be the general opinion on both sides of the House that it is absolutely urgent the Government should do something for those men whose salaries are inadequate.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Pelletier, the House adjourned at 10.43 p.m.
Friday, March 6, 1914,