1914-05-29

PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 215, for the relief o.f Alberta Ring.-Mr. Morphy.
Bill No. 216, ior the relief of Bertha Lucinda Graham.-Mr. Blain.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Right Hon. R. L. BORDiEN (Prime Minister): I conceive it my duty to refer to ithe .appalling disaster of which tidings came to us this morning. In its awful suddenness, and the enormous toll of human lives which was taken, the disaster comes to us with a shook which, I suppose, was never experienced in this country before. I am speaking of the earlier reports of the disaster. There are some later reports which indicate that a very much larger proportion of the passengers may have been saved than was supposed at first. We all sincerely hope that the later news, which in some quarters has been received with incredulity, may in the end prove accurate. That a ship only a few hours out from Quebec, in the dead of night, with 1,300 persons on board, should have been so damaged as to sink within ten or twenty minutes, and that so many human lives should have been sacrificed, cehtainly comes to us all in this House, and to all in this country, as a most appalling shock.
I do not believe, from the reports which have come, that the disaster is one that could have been prevented by anytthing that the country could have done in the way of rendering the navigation of the St. Lawrence more safe. It appears that it occurred in a fog and was one of those accidents which are almost if not wholly un-prevcntable by any possible means that we could devise for the safety of navigation. ' In view of the apparent great magnitude of the disaster-according to the first report at least-it has been my painful duty to bring it to the attention of Parliament so that we may have the opportunity of expressing not only our deep regret for the disaster itself, but our profound sympathy with all those who have been bereaved in this way.
44.34
Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Mr. Speaker, the hand of late has certainly been very heavy against us for the last few months:	this is the third disaster which
has happened in the St. Lawrence since navigation has opened, and this one surpasses in horror anything that has occurred for many years-, certainly since the fatal calamity of the Titanic. The disaster which we have to deplore to-day approaches, in the loss of human life, the horrible proportions of the Titanic disaster. It is, of course, premature to-day to express any opinion, but it is very difficult to believe that such an accident, taking place in our own waters of the St. Lawrence, and so near the last station that we have, at Father Point, should not have been preventable. I do not pass any judgment upon this point at the present time, and I hope it will turn out, as hinted and hoped by my right hon. friend (Mr. Borden), to be one of those which could not have been prevented by any human agency. Our sympathies will go to the relatives and friends of those who have been lost, and possibly later on our sympathy may take a substantial form. In the meantime, I join my own voice to the voice of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister of Canada in extending to the victims and their families 

all that we can offer to -them under the circumstances-our most sincere and deepest sympathy.



OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS IN FRENCH.

Mr. LEMIEUX:: I wish to call the attention of my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) to something that has happened in connection, with the marine agency at Quebec-without his knowledge, I am quite sure; in fact, I am positive that it is without his knowledge. 1 understand that Mr. Tremaine has been appointed to supervise the work of the office pending the investigation that is taking place. I saw 1-a-st night by La Patrie, of Montreal, a good Conservative organ, that Mr. Tremaine had .sent instructions to the officials of the agency, and the captains and crews on board the Government steamers at Quebec, that all their reports should be made in English. Some of them had been made in French, and they have been returned with the order, says La Patrie, that the reports should be made in English. I am quite sure that my hon. friend has no knowledge of this; but I beg to inform him of what is taking place, >and
[Mr. Borden. 1
I would ask him to see that Mr. Tremaine withdraws -such a drastic order as that.


Mr. HAZEN:: Mr. Tremaine, who is inspector of agencies, is acting as agent at Quebec until the report is received from Mr. Doutre and Mir. de S'alaberry regarding the state of affairs there. If Mr. Tremaine has issued any such order as is stated in the newspaper, I say most unhesitatingly that it was improper on his part to do so. We have two official languages in this country, French and English, and any person in -Canada -has a perfect right to address any department or any official of any department in either of these languages and expect to receive a reply to his communication. I will take -steps, however, to ascertain the truth of the statement made by my hon. friend-


Rodolphe Lemieux: Not made by me, but
made by La Patrie.


John Douglas Hazen: -by La Patrie; -and if such orders were given, I will see that they are countermanded 'at once.


Mr. MARCIL:: In this connection will
the hon. Minister of Marine- and Fisheries allow me to call attention to a statement I made last session. I asked for a return concerning the dismissal of Louis Bujold, lightkeeper at Carleton Point, Quebec. All the correspondence was originally in French, but it had been translated and was. sent to me in English. I wanted it in the original language. The department went to- a great deal of trouble to put it in English. I asked the minister afterwards to gat it for me in the original language, but I never got it. The result was that when I got back to my people- I had to translate the English documents back into French. Apparently it is the custom of the department to translate -everything into English. If a document is submitted in French it should be allowed to remain in French.


John Douglas Hazen: I shall be very glad to get that information for my hon. friend and to see that he gets the correspondence as originally received. The- reason for the circumstance to which my hon. friend alludes is evidently that officials in the department who have to deal with these matters are perhaps not as familiar with French as they are with English, and -therefore these documents would have to be translated into English so that they would be absolutely certain as to the-ir contents. If my hon. friend last year made the request to which

he has alluded, evidently it has been overlooked. I shall be very glad to see that my hon. friend get all these communications to which he refers, in the language in which they were received by the department.



ALLEGED INCOMPLETE RETURN.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Charles Marcil: My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) brought down a return in regard to the dismissal of William Campbell. I notice that the papers in connection with the appointment of the new lightkeeper seem to be incomplete. There is no certificate of the last employer, clergyman, magistrate, or schoolmaster, and the interesting point abcut the matter is as to who gave the certificate for this, man's appointment. That has not been brought down.


John Douglas Hazen: I laid the papers on the
table of the House as they were delivered to me without examination, presuming that they cohitained the information which my hon. friend desired. I will find out at once.


Mr. WILLIAM CHISHOLM:: When may I expect the return in compliance with an order of the House passed the 16th of March, referring to the appointment of the collector of customs at Antigonish? The Minister of Customs undertook to make a partial compliance with the order, but the order of the House has not been com plied with inasmuch as papers which I happen to know are on file have not been brought down. I address my inquiry to the Secretary of State because the order calls for all papers or correspondence received by the Minister of Customs or any other minister of the Government, or any officer of any department of the Government.


Mr. CODERRE:: Am I to understand
that the return is not complete?


William Chisholm: There was a single
letter brought down by the Minister of Customs. There is a whole lot of correspondence, but the Minister of Customs arrogated to himself the right to say it is private, although it was not marked private and was not regarded as private by the sender.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. gentleman can make inquiry, but it is not in order to enter into a discussion of the matter now.


William Chisholm: I will later on test
the sentiment of the House as to whether the orders of the House are to be treated in the manner the Minister of ^Customs has treated this order in this particular instance.



INSPECTION OF PICKLED FISH.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. J. D. Hazen (Minister of Marine and Fisheries), the House went into Committee on Bill No. 182, to provide for the inspection and branding of pickled fish, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
John Douglas Hazen: This Bill was referred for
consideration to the Select Standing Committee on Marine and Fisheries, which considered the Bill most carefully at three or four meetings, and made some amendments which are recommended to the favourable consideration of the House.
On section 17-penalty for falsifying official documents:


Mr. McKENZIE:: Is not the penalty rather severe? Should not 'not less than' be * not exceeding '?


John Douglas Hazen: This is the penalty the committee have recommended. I am willing to reduce the term of imprisonment to two months.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Why not give some discretion to the courts?


John Douglas Hazen: There is a. minimum fine, and I think there should be a minimum imprisonment also. The committee have considered all this question.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I was in the committee, and I argued that there should be a discretion left to the courts, because there may be different degrees of offences, and there should be different degrees of punishment.


John Douglas Hazen: I would suggest that the term of imprisonment be not less than two months, instead of three.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 23-persons found committing an infraction of this Act:


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Does that leave the power of arresting without a warrant to a constable? This section was held over once or twice in the committee.


John Douglas Hazen: It was practically unanimously decided at the last meeting of the committee to leave this section as it stood. An officer can arrest without warrant only

a person who is actually found committing a crime. The committee felt that this power was desirable because, unless this power was given, there would be very great difficulty in enforcing this legislation in certain districts in the north.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I would not object very much to this section if the power of arresting without a warrant were left to an inspector. I think this is too wide a power to give to a constable.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 25-fixing of venue:
Mr. SINCLAIR:: Will it be in the discretion of the inspector or the officer bringing the prosecution to decide where the venue will be laid? The minister will understand that there are three places where a venue may be laid. Who is to decide that question?


John Douglas Hazen: If the venue is laid in any one of the three places, it will be considered to be properly laid under this legislation, and I presume the inspector laying the complaint is the one who will decide that question.


John Howard Sinclair: If the officer chooses, he can select whichever of the three places he chooses. If an offence were committed in the town of Yarmouth, and the officer discovered it and procured a warrant in Halifax or St. John, he could summon the man from Yarmouth to Halifax or St. John to stand his trial. Is that the way it is to be understood ?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: What result does the minister expect to get from this legislation ? What good will it produce ?


John Douglas Hazen: The hon. gentleman evidently was not in the House when I, on several occasions, explained the reasons for this legislation. If my hon. friend will refer to ' Hansard,' he will find a very clear description of what we expect to gain by this legislation. We hope to develop the business of curing herring in this country. At the present time the herring cured in Canada, although the raw material is just as good as the Scotch herring, commands a price of only $3.50 a barrel, whereas the Scotch cured herring commands a price of $10 a barrel.


James Joseph Hughes: Where does it command that price ?


John Douglas Hazen: In all parts of the world.
We believe that, if proper methods are

adopted in the curing of our herring caught by our fishermen, they can get quite as good a price for their cured herring, when they once establish its reputation, as the. price obtained for the Scotch cured herring. The trouble with the Canadian herring is that they are improperly put up. They are put up in barrels that very often leak when they are carried long distances; the herring become rusty, and there is no guarantee that the barrels will be put up in such a way as to command the confidence of the purchasers. We are providing for a system of inspection under which any one, who puts up his herring in barrels made according to regulations that will be enacted and who cures them according to regulations, may ask an inspector to inspect them. If the inspector finds the herring are put up in that way, he puts his mark on the barrels guaranteeing that such is the case, and the merchant buying the herring has the guarantee that they are put up in such a way as will make .the public have confidence when they buy fish of that class. That, in brief, is the object of this legislation. It was under legislation of a very similar character that the Scotch fisheries were developed. When the legislation passed many years ago relating to the Scotch herring fishery, the herring there were selling at very low prices, and for the very same reasons that keep down the prices here-there was no guarantee that the fish were put up under proper conditions, no inspection, and in most cases no uniformity in the product. The result of the legislation was to develop the industry and make the herring fishery a profitable one to the people of Scotland. We 'hope, by a campaign of education, with a proper .system of inspection, and with experts instructing the people in the best methods of packing, that our fishermen will develop this industry. And, .while the herring is the principal fish, this legislation is not confined to herring, but relates to mackerel and salmon also. As a result of this legislation we hope to build up an industry much larger than that which exists at the present time.


James Joseph Hughes: I hope that good results will be obtained from this legislation, but I must say frankly that I very much doubt it. Some years ago we experimented with packing herring in the most improved way, according to the Scotch system. Mr. Cowie was on his way to the Magdalen Islands, and stopped off at the

port of Souris for a short time with a number of men and girls who had been trained in this industry in Scotland. Mr. Cowie told me himself that the herring he got there was equal in quality to anything he had ever seen in (Scotland. These herring were put up entirely by the staff accompanying Mr. Cowie, and were sent to New York, but the price realized was extremely low, in fact, we did not get the freight out of the shipment. At the same time our fishermen put up herring in tne old method to which we were accustomed, and these were sent to the West India Islands, where we got $4 or $5 a barrel .for them. Any one who goes to a restaurant and orders Loch Fyne herring, will be served with something which he can hardly eat.	At
least, I know I cannot eat them; 1 think they are not to be compared with the herring put up by our fishermen in our own way. Perhaps some better results may be obtained in the future than have been obtained in the past. I do not know what was wrong with the herring put up at Souris on the occasion I speak of. They were put up by the men and girls who were trained in Scotland and who worked under Mr. Cowie's own direction. So, I do not know what better could be done. There are so many officials now instructing the people how to work, and their number is increasing so rapidly, that soon there will be very few left to pay the salaries. The expense is enormous, and yet poor results seem to be obtained. I am afraid that that is what will happen under the present Bill.


John Howard Sinclair: Of course, I have the very best wishes for this proposed development, but I confess I do not expect much from it, especially under the present management of this portion of the department's affairs. Mr. Cowie admitted that he had not succeeded in four years in training anybody to pack a barrel of herring. That would seem to show that he is not the man to put in charge of this branch of the department. If the minister can find a man who understands something of packing fish and will put him in charge, I should think good results would be obtained. The reason I hesitate about this Bill is that it will cost a good deal of money, and if we get nothing out of it it will be unfortunate. The old experiment of which we all expected something cost us a large amount of money, and there was no result. Now, it is proposed to branch out in a new way, 280
yet with the same person at the head of the work. Under the new arrangement he will have less opportunity of achieving results than before. For, as the programme was described to us in committee, it is proposed, by circulating printed matter among the fishermen, to cause them to put up herring in the Scotch or European fashion. But, if Mr. Cowie could not succeed in this education by means of actual demonstrations and experiments, having the fish, the salt, the barrels, and with girls trained in the industry that he himself had brought from Scotland-if he could not train our people under these conditions, I do not see how he is going to do it by means of printed circulars. I hope that something good will result from this legislation, but I think it is unfortunate that the minister does not put some capable person at the head of the work.
Bill as amended reported, read the third time, and passed.



CIVIL SERVICE ACTS AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. W. T. WHITE (Minister of Finance), the House went into Committee to consider the following proposed resolution; Mr. Blondin in the Chair:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend and consolidate the Civil Service Acts to change the classification of members of the inside service ; and to increase the salaries and annual increases in certain cases both in the inside and outside service; and to provide that during the present financial year there may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada, such sums as have not been voted by Parliament but are required for the payment of such increases of salaries as may be prescribed by the proposed Act to consolidate the Civil Service Acts.
Rodolphe Lemieux: Would my hon. friend please give us an outline of the proposed measure?


Mr. WHITE:: My hon. friend has asked me to give an outline of the Bill to be founded on this resolution. The Bill I propose to introduce is, in the main, a consolidation of the existing Acts, and preserves the provisions and language of the present legislation as far as is consistent with the amendments made. I think it will be generally agreed that it is desirable that there should be a consolidation of the legislation relating to the Civil Service. Sir George Murray, in his report two years ago upon the system of administering the Canadian Civil Service, made the following observations with regard to our legislation on this subject:



The provisions of the law are extremely difficult to follow, as the Civil Service Act (R. S. 1906, chapter 16) has been amended in 1908, 1909, 1910 and 1912. In the latter year, indeed, no less than seven Acts amending it in various respects were placed on the statute book.
The Bill, therefore, will be a consolidation of existing legislation respecting the Civil Service. Some important amendments, however, have been introduced. The legislation will provide for the organization of the several departments to be determined and defined by Order in Council, regard being had to the importance and responsibility of the work of each division. Such organization is to be considered and reported upon hy the Civil Service Commission, which is, of course, retained, before being approved by the Governor in Council.
I might draw the attention of the House to the chief changes' to be made by the proposed legislation. There is to be a change in classification of the inside service and a rearrangement of the salaries of certain classes in the inside and in the outside services. The present classification is as follows:
First division-subdivision A, $2,800 to $4,000; subdivision B, $2,100 to $2,800.
Second division-subdivision A, $1,600 to $2,100; subdivision B, $800 to $1,600.
Third division-subdivision A, $900 to $1,200; subdivision B, $500 to $800.
And then there are the messengers, sorters and packers not now in a class, with salaries from $500 to $800.
That is the classification, and the maximum and minimum salaries under the existing Civil Service legislation. We are, as I stated, making a change in the classification of the inside service and we propose under the new Bill that there shall be four classes, with three grades in each of the first three classes. The salaries in these grades will be as follows:
First division-Grade A, $3,500 to $4,000 "	"	"	B,	2,900	''	3,400"	"	''	C,	2,200	"	2,800Second division-Grade A, $1,650 to $2,100 "	"	" B,	1,350	"	1,600"	"	" C,	1,000	"	1,300Third division-tirade A, $1,250 to $1,800 "	"	"	B,	1,050	"	1,200"	"	"	C,	600	"	1,000
The fourth class, which is to consist of messengers, packers and sorters, is graded as to salary from $500 to $1,000.
The new classification will apply to new entrants into the service. Those who are 
in the first division, grade A, to-day will proceed as they do now from $2,800 to $4,000 without any intermediate break at $3,400; in other words, we are not interfering with the existing situation. Under the new legislation ail those entitled to an annual increase will receive $100 a year, which iat the present time is only given to those in the first division, all others receiving only $50 a year increase. With regard to the lower divisions of the service, it is found difficult to get men to accept appointments at the minimum salary now provided, $500,


Wilfrid Laurier: You find it
difficult?


William Thomas White: We find it difficult to get men of promise and ability to accept appointment at the minimum grade of salaries of the lower divisions. I am sure I need not elaborate that point; we all know the demand throughout the country for young men of promise and ability in commercial, financial and industrial walks of life. It is a fact that it is increasingly difficult to get men of the right quality and promise to enter the Civil Service in the lower grades at the minimum salary provided by the existing legislation. That legislation may have been proper or not at the time it was introduced. I pass no opinion as to that; but conditions have changed since then. We therefore propose to increase the minimum in the. second class to $1,000 and in the third class to $600.
The salary of deputy heads has been left at $5,000. I may say that I had under consideration the question of increasing the salaries of deputy heads, but I find that there is such a variety in their employment, such varying responsibilities in the different positions they occupy, that, in my judgment, it would be better that individual cases requiring special consideration should be dealt with by Parliament rather than that a salary rate should be fixed at the same sum for all occupying the position of deputy heads. There is a provision in the new legislation that any deputy head whose duties are of la professional or technical character and involve great responsibility may be paid such larger salary as Parliament may provide. It is my observation that there are deputy heads in the service who are paid too small salaries.

Mr. McKEiNZIE: Does the minister mean that these eases would have to be provided for by a vote being placed in the Estimates?


William Thomas White: It would have to be initiated in that way, as in' the past. My point is that in my judgment it would not be proper ro establish a salary rate of $5,000 far all the members of the Civil Service at present occupying the position of deputy heads, because their responsibilities vary greatly. I know some deputy heads who,
12 noon. in my view, are paid too little, having regard to their abilities and the responsibility ol their positions. On the other hand, there are those occupying the position of deputy heads to whom the $5,000 is, in my opinion, a fair remuneration. The same remarks would apply to the assistant deputies. The duties and responsibilities of their position vary greatly.
I express only my own opinion; I have 'an assistant deputy head in my department, and I have no hesitation in saying that he is not paid the amount he should be paid. The matter of salaries of deputy heads, in my opinion, may better be dealt with by legislation in the usual way and the Govern ment will take that matter under consideration in the next session of Parliament. The new law also provides-I am sure this provision will meet with the approval of the House-for a separate class to consist of technical officers and such other classes of persons and officers possessing professional skill and having technical experience as may be specified by the Governor in Council. The Dominion at the present time is under a great disadvantage in the engagement of experts possessed of technical knowledge as compared with commercial, industrial, and railway corporations who are not fettered as to the salaries which they may pay such officials. The maximum salary that can be paid in the first division at the present time is $4,000. I need not say to this House that under modern conditions it is not possible to obtain, say, a first-ciass engineer or a barrister ot solicitor of repute and of experience at the bar for a salary of $4,000. This new provision was, I -think, recommended by Sir George Murray.


Rodolphe Lemieux: At what page in his
report?


William Thomas White: My recollection is that this provision was recommended by Sir George Murray, but whether recommended by him or not I think it is wise legislation if the
280}
Dominion is to carry on efficiently its business throughout the country. Provision is also made in the new legislation for control of the employment of temporary clerks and for regulating holiday's and sick leave.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I suppose this new legislation extends the time during which a temporary clerk may be continuously employed. I understand that the present regulations limit his employment to a period of six months.


William Thomas White: We are not extending the period, but if it is desirable that that question should be considered I shall be glad to consider it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I understood my hon.
friend to say there was a change in that respect?


William Thomas White: No.


Rodolphe Lemieux: They remain under the Commission?


William Thomas White: We have not modified the powers of the commission. The commission will still examine applicants under the competitive system, and will continue to issue certificates in connection with promotions. The new legislation provides for the control, under the Treasury Board, of the number of temporary clerks that may be employed, the idea being to exercise a greater measure of control than is possible under existing legislation.
When my hon. friend interrupted me I was about to speak of the provisions as to compulsory retirement. At present, there is no provision in the Civil Service legislation for compulsory retirement of officials. It has been thought desirable that an age limit should be fixed. There is much precedent for a provision of this kind, and I believe it is generally the view of those competent to express an opinion on the matter that it is not possible to have an efficient Civil Service unless there is provision for compulsory retirement at a certain age and provision for a retiring allowance. When we have disposed of this resolution, I will refer to that matter at greater length on the next resolution, and also deal with the question of superannuation. The new legislation fixes the age limit at 65, but persons now in the Service of 55 years or upwards will be permitted to remain until 70, and those now 70 may be given two years' additional service. We desire to interfere as little as possible with the status of those now in the Service, tout to
*5441)

enact legislation which will be for the benefit of the Service in regard to new entrants.
It is proposed to extend the competitive examination system to the Outside Service at Ottawa and to such branches of the several departments as may be practicable. The Government will give consideration to that question during recess and in the future.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Why Ottawa more than any other city?


William Thomas White: One reason is that the
commission has its seat at Ottawa. To extend the sysiem to all the cities of the ' Dominion would not be practicable at the present time, although it might be possible to extend it further than to the city of Ottawa. I hope to see the system extended to the Outside Service in respect of certain branches, with a view to gradually enlarging the scope of the commission with respect to the Outside Service.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Why not extend the
system to Toronto and Montreal as well as Ottawa?


William Thomas White: We do not regard it as
practicable at the present time. I had not intended to go so much into detail with respect to the Bill, but upon the request of my hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) I have done so, and perhaps it is just as well, for it will not be possible for the Government to proceed with the Bill this session. That is quite apparent from the amount of legislation which stands on the order paper for consideration. This, to me, is a matter of very sincere regret. During the past two years-in fact, ever since I came here

I have been interested in the Civil Service. I have not approached this matter from any political standpoint. I shall hope that this Bill will be regarded entirely on its merits, and I believe that wall be the case. It appears to me that it is of supreme public interest that the Civil Service should be made as efficient possible. Governments may come and governments may go, ministers may appear upon the scene and disappear, but the Civil Service, changing only in individuals, remains from week to week, from month to month, and from year to year, carrying on the business of the Dominion.


Mr. CARVELL:: And their salaries are increased proportionately.	.


William Thomas White: There may be some members of the Civil Service whose salaries are too high.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is a question of geometrical progression.


William Thomas White: In a service of this kind
that is inevitable. My own view of the Civil Service is that it is on the whole a body of which the Dominion might feel proud. I have been very much impressed, speaking of my own department-and I have had some experience in a business way-with the spirit with which the work is carried on. I have never had an officer fail to respond with alacrity at any hour, day or night, that I might requisition his services. I am very glad indeed to pay that tribute to the officers of my department. Personally I have a high opinion of the public service of the Dominion as a whole. In any service there will be defects; there will be elements of injustice; some will be overpaid and some underpaid; but, speaking on the whole, I do not believe that the service is overpaid, and I believe that it is an efficient service, That is my individual view.
As I said, I have been greatly interested, not from any political standpoint, in the Civil Service, and it has been my desire, in so far as I could accomplish it, to render it more efficient by taking suelj steps as might be suitable to put it upon a proper basis. There cannot be a proper basis unless (hat basis is founded on justice and equity. On account of my illness during the month of February, I have been unable to proceed as I had hoped with this legislation and to carry it through this session. Probably my legislative programme was too ambitious. If I had been an older parliamentarian, 1 might have been wiser, but it is impossible in my view to carry this Bill through during the present session. It is a most important measure, which will require careful consideration on the part of the House and on the part of the committee to which it may be referred. This is legislation which affects a very numerous and widespread service, a service with a variegated classification, existing under legislation that is quite complicated, and I think a measure of this kind might very well stand from one session to another in order that any defects in the proposed legislation may be detected and remedied.
During the recess I shall be glad to take into consideration any representations that may be made on behalf of the service, or any classes of the service, as to the Bill. When the matter comes before the House next session, I shall, therefore, have had the advantage of such criticism as may be directed towards the Bill in the meantime. The Government will be ready

to hear any representations that may be made, and give them fair consideration, because our desire is to introduce a Bill which will be beneficial to the service and in the public interest. As certain salary .increases have been provided in the lower division, and as the annual increase has been made $100 instead of $50, il think it might be proper, by reason of the fact .that there has been delay in introducing this measure, and that it cannot be enacted at this session, that the Government should take into consideration, when the .Bill is introduced next session, the advisability of making it retroactive from the beginning of this fiscal year. That is something that we shall consider.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I understand that there is an organization among civil servants such as we find in other classes of labour throughout the country. I presume that organization is composed of competent and efficient men, and, while I would not expect that the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. White) would be entirely guided by what they would say, I think it would be a fair proposition to submit this legislation to the executive of that body in} order that they should have a voice with the minister in framing the regulations that govern their lives, wages and conduct, just as any other organization of the kind would have in the country. The voice of labour in any kind of service throughout the country, whether it is employed in mines, factories or any other place, must be heard. Legislation as to wages, life and conduct generally, is submitted to it in order that its opinion may find expression. The Civil Service servant is not the independent individual that the man who works in the coal mine is. There is, happily, a strong vein of independence running through our labour classes. I can understand that the civil servant is not in that class. He is under surveillance, so to speak, all the time. He does not possess that independence which characterizes other departments of labour; at all events, if he does possess it he does pot exercise it. The minister may be an autocrat in the department if he wants to be; what he says is law, and there cannot be very much disputation about it. The personality of the individual civil servant should be recognized as much as possible, because .such recognition will have a tendency to promote the efficiency of the service. For that reason I would respectfully suggest to the minister that the executive of this organization, composed as
fill
it is of capable men, should have some opportunity of suggesting to the minister possible amendments to this legislation. The minister mentioned a moment ago that the entrance salary was too small. 1 think it is entirely too small; under the present conditions I do not think the minister should expect any capable young man to go into the service at $500 a year. I certainly think the salary should he made .something substantial, and, if necessary, increase the requirements accordingly, get a good man and pay him a good salary. I think that is what the minister should have in view. I remember when the Prime Minister was leading the Opposition a very terse and laconic statement made by him about the Civil Service, which was, that the Civil Service was overmanned and underpaid. I would suggest to the Minister of Finance that he should bear that in mind. I am not so particular about the overmanned part of it, but I certainly feel interested in whether or not men are underpaid. I hope the minister will bear in mind that a living wage should be paid to every man who is with capacity serving the country.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the Minister of Finance, and while I sympathize with him in his statement that owing to illness during this session he has been unable to promote this legislation, I must regret that, even at this late hour of the session, he cannot give the civil servants the relief they were expecting from the Government. The hon. gentleman has been able to promote legislation involving huge sums of money, such as the $45,000,000 to the Canadian Northern Railway Company, such as the $14,000,000 which will be spent this year for militia purposes, such as the millions in the main and the supplementary Estimates, all of which will add greatly, I am afraid, to the net debt of Canada; but when the time comes to give the army of civil servants the much-needed relief that they have been clamouring for during these days of high cost of living, the Government simply says: Oh, we will introduce the Bill, but the civil servants must wait until next year to get the benefit of that Bill. That is a very sorry substitute for the expectations of our civil servants.
The Minister of Finance can perhaps well afford to delay the increase of salaries in the higher divisions, but I am speaking now for the under dog; I am speaking for the messengers who receive $500 a. year; I


William Thomas White: What about the deputy
Minister of Justice last year?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Exactly. You have
differentiated between the Deputy Minister of Justice and the others. IE I mistake not, there is a marked difference in their salaries. In the case of the deputy Minister of Justice, Mr. Newcombe, you have given him a larger salary than his minister, a salary equal to that of the Prime Minister; but do you believe that the other deputy heads are satisfied with that? If you persist in differentiating, you will accumulate on your head any amount of trouble. I cannot say that I shall be sorry for it.


William Thomas White: What about the Deputy
Minister of the Department of Naval Service and the Deputy Minister of the Department of Agriculture, who is also Deputy Commissioner of Patents, under the late Government?


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is always the ' tu
quoque ' argument.


William Thomas White: Had you purgatory?


Rodolphe Lemieux: No, we had something
better than purgatory. If the hon. gentleman differentiates and lays down the prin-

ciple that some deputy heads must remain at $5,000, while some others shall get $6,000, $7,000, or $8,000, I can only predict for him all sorts of trouble in the future, but it will be his own fault.
I hope that the hon. gentleman will change his mind. He might wait until next year to frame a schedule of salaries for all the classes of the Civil Service; but surely this year, with the hard times, the high cost of living, he should think of the under-dog-the messenger at $500, the other poor fellows at $800, $900 or $1,000. Can he afford to leave them with these salaries? My hon. friend has a tender heart, and will surely think of the families of these poor civil servants, and give them this year the much-needed relief.
In a memorial sent by the Civil Service Federation there are some good suggestions.


William Thomas White: I have that memorial.


Rodolphe Lemieux: As regards promotion,
the memorial states:
The present method of effecting promotions is discouraging and unsatisfactory; influence and favouritism being frequently more potent factors than merit. The remedy desired is the appointment of an independent promotion board with power to investigate and report upon all recommendations or applications for promotion -promotion to depend upon a favourable report. The Civil Service Commission, reconstituted with three members and endowed with all necessary powers, would be an acceptable board, though in the opinion of many the scheme would be incomplete without provision being made for an appeal from the decisions of the board.
I would ask my hon. friend to consider well this proposal of the Civil Service Federation during the vacation. I am glad to hear that he intends spending some time during the summer and the fall in looking after the Civil Service, but he should at once do something for the lower division .of the service.


Mr. FRIPP:: I feel that 1 ought to say a few words on this question, which is of very great importance, not only to the Civil Service of Canada, but directly to a large section of the people in the city of Ottawa whom I have the honour to represent.
I would like to congratulate the hon. Minister of Finance on submitting this resolution. No one living in the city of Ottawa knows better than he does that the civil servants have been suffering for some years on account of their salaries, and the divisions under which they find themselves under the present Civil Service Act. I do not know of any class of persons upon
whom the high C03t of living has fallen more harshly than upon the salaried class, and that, of course, affects about 3,500 of the civil servants of Canada who are living in the city of Ottawa. I would like to emphasize what the hon. member for Rou-ville (Mr. Lemieux) has so well said, and with all of which I agree.
There have been placed in my hands some statistics with which I think the House ought to be acquainted, because I intend to urge, as he did, the absolute necessity of coming to the aid of the lower grades of the service. This is a statement showing the number of employees of the inside service at the maximum of their respective grades at different times:
1909-10. 1910-11. 1913-14.
Lower grade messengers, etc.. ..	.. .. 20	111	147
Third Division,	grade		
A	181	322Totals., i..	.. .. 62	292	469
When it is remembered that, of the whole Civil Service, at least 87 per cent earn on an average only $1,942 a year, the House will see how important it is to recognize the just claims of those in the lower grades. If you take the messenger grade and the third division, they represent over 50 per cent of the Civil Service, with an average salary of $821.24.
If you add to that the second division, you find that over eighty-seven per cent of the service are receiving an average salary of only $1,042.28, or about $158 less than the maximum salary of the third division. In view of that fact, it does seem to me that, while the Bill goes very far and will assist the people of the lower grades, as they ought to be assisted, still it is plain that they are suffering under practical grievances now, and I would urge upon the Minister of Finance and the Government the absolute necessity of bringing in some measure of temporary financial assistance, at least for those of the lower grade. The Civil Service Act of 1908 might be amended even at this late day of the session in order to give these people the benefit of this increase. Every one of these people-87 out of every 100 in the service-will lose $50 in hard cash if the Bill goes over. Of course, if it is made retroactive, they will not lose it.


William Thomas White: We will save it for them.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: Yes, but present needs are pressing. And I would strongly urge-


Mr. W. H. SHARPE:: What proportion of
these are females ?


Alfred Ernest Fripp: A very small proportion.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is my hon. friend opposed to the employment of females in the service ?


William Henry Sharpe: No.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: No distinction is made in the Bill as between males and females. It is very delicate for one to make observations upon the question as to whether a discrimination should be made or not.


Rodolphe Lemieux: They are good officials.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: They are, so far as I know, good officials.


William Henry Sharpe: Is there any place in Canada or on this continent where officials are receiving a larger amount of money for the amount of work done than right here in Ottawa ?


Alfred Ernest Fripp: Oh, yes.
Mr. SHARPE; I would like to know where.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: You cannoit get a body of men and women who are doing as good a work as the Civil Service of Canada for the same money.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, Oh.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: Hon. gentlemen who do not live in the city may doubt the accuracy of that view. But it must not be forgotten that when a young man goes into the Civil Service his future is practically mapped out for him. He knows that he can only attain a certain position at best, and only one out of hundreds can reach the top rung of the Civil Service ladder. And they muslt live well; they must pay their way; they must dress well and maintain an appearance which is not demanded of young men in other walks of life. I venture to , believe that the average earnings of the Civil Service in Ottawa are away below the average earnings of mechanics.


Rodolphe Lemieux: And the cost of living in (the city of Ottawa is higher than in smaller towns.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: Very true. I have figures in my possession which I will Jay before the House when the matter i.s up for fuller discussion, showing that the earnings of tne bricklayer and labourer have increased fifty per cent and sixty per cent above the salaries of the Civil Service. [DOT]


William Henry Sharpe: Why not?


Alfred Ernest Fripp: I do not object to such increases, but I want justice for It he civil servant of Ottawa, who works as hard as any professional man, to my knowledge.


An hon. MEMBER:: Four hours a day.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: No, they work six, eight and ten hours a day. I am afraid my hon. friend does not understand the situation, he is not acquainted with the facts, or he would not make these statements.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: Give him your
constituency, and he will change his mind.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: I will change constituencies with the hon. gentleman, though I am not so sure that he could be returned as that I can. I urge upon the Government the granting of some immediate relief for the civil servant. I agree with the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux), and will stay with him to keep the House in session if thereby we can pass this Bill. Temporary relief might be given this session, and the Bill in its main features laid over until next session. With regard to putting the outside service under the Civil Service Commission, I am heartily in accord with that. Any one who knows the facts will agree that the two representatives of the city of Ottawa are employment agents more or less, and we will welcome the extension of the powers of the Civil Service Commission so as to take over at least the outside service in Ottawa; and in that way the experiment might be tried.
I do not wish to resume my seat without pressing upon the House and upon the minister my firm belief that there are many, many cases of actual distress among the civil servants to-day. I know a messenger who is at the maximum of his class. He has five children, and he must pay at least $25 a month for rent. It is absolutely impossible for him to educate those children on his salary of $800 a year. He needs assistance, and he needs it now. And his case is one of hundreds. This matter affects not only the service, but also our merchants and the business of the city. I would like to see, if possible, some measure of relief. for the lower grades of the service at this session of Parliament.


Mr. VERVILLE:: If there is a class of
people who deserve an increase it is the outside Civil Service. When Civil Service matters are discussed in this House we generally have in mind the inside service-I do not know why unless it is that we are here at the capital. I am very far from being opposed to an increase for the inside

service, because they also have to face the difficulty of the increased cost of living. Last year I quoted figures made up by the Ottawa men themselves to show that the cost of living in a very moderate way was over $900 a year, and the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Fripp) tells us that the average salary is below that. If we pay the Civil Service lower than a living wage, we are really inviting these men to dishonesty. It is a wonder that there is not more dishonesty in the Civil Service, for we know that it is imposible to live in this city on the wages some are receiving. But in the outside service we find some men receiving $600 a year, and we cannot but wonder how these people can possibly bring up their families. We may ibe told that at times they receive remuneration for overtime. But it seems to me to be most unfair for the Government, in fixing salaries, to consider what a man may earn in extra hours at night, and sometimes late at night. And if we give the man in Ottawa who works six or eight hours a day $1,000 a year, the man who works for an equal number of hours in another part of the country in the outside service should receive as much. Whatever a man makes in overtime should not be considered in his salary. Comparison has been made of the capabilities of those in the outside and those in the inside service. We have heard also something about the employment of females in the service. I claim it makes no difference whether it is female or male help in the Civil Service, there should be equal pay for equal work.
Mr. PROTJLX. But if they have no families to support?


Alphonse Verville: That makes no difference. If we were to argue in that way, we would pay the unmarried man only half what we pay the married man, and so fill our service with the unmarried and let the married starve. In this House we have a minimum rate of wages. Everybody admits that some members are more competent than others and also some follow more conscientiously than others the routine business of th,e House. Yet all receive the same salary. If we are to follow the principle of grading pay to merit, then we should pay the more competent members of this House a larger salary than we pay the other. As to this question of female help in the service, one must go back many years to understand the presence of women in industrial life. I do not wish to go into that history. Women have been forced to work by
economic conditions, and under those circumstances if a woman performs as much work as a man, she should receive the same remuneration for it. If all employers, both the Government and private employers, were to pay female help at the same rate as they pay the same kind of male help, you would see more men at work and probably more women staying at home. I shall not review the history of this matter, because it would be necessary to go back to 1763, and that is too far back. I hope the minister will consider the conditions now existing in the outside service, and grant some aid to those employees. It was my privilege, while the Estimates of the Inland Revenue Department were before the House, to state to the minister that he was forbidden by law to give more than $600 to some men in his department, and this is surely an opportune time to do something to remedy that condition.


William Thomas White: I should have stated, in speaking on the resolution, that provision has been made for certain increases in the range of salaries in the Customs and Inland Revenue Departments.


Alphonse Verville: I hope my friend will not forget also the Department of Public Works, the Department of Railways and Canals, in fact all the employees in the outside service of the Government. We know that the messengers in this House, for instance, are employed only for the session. There are many men working in the outside service to-day who are earning only $600 a year. That is not a sufficient wage in any large city, particularly in Ottawa. I do not know of any city where the cost of living is as high as it is here. I believe it is from ten per cent to fifteen per cent higher in Ottawa than it is in Montreal. But in my own city, where there is a large number of outside civil servants, we are asked every day: Why do you not have the Government do something for us? In view of the high cost of living, it is evident that we must do something. Even supposing we do increase the salaries of the outside service, perhaps next year they may be in the same position as they are to-day owing to a further increase in the cost of living. I believe that we are starting at the wrong end, that what we should do is to increase the purchasing power of working men. If we grant them $100 a year increase, and if it costs them next year $100 more to live, of course they will have no benefit from the increase. We do not think sufficiently of the neces-

sity of increasing the purchasing power of the dollar. I would strongly urge the minister to think seriously over the condition of the outside service and to improve it as much as possible by the Bill which he proposes to bring before the House.
At one o'clock the committee took recess
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Mr. J. L. CHABOT (Ottawa):: I desire to congratulate the Minister of Finance on the fairness and general excellence of the Civil Service Bill w'hich he has outlined. I only hope that he will make a great effort to bring the matter to a head during this .session. Knowing as I do the many details that legislation of this kind entails, I can readily understand that a measure of this kind requires a great deal of consideration and discussion, and under these circumstances the minister may feel it his duty to lay the matter over till next session. I think such a step will not be unacceptable to the civil servants of the country, especially of Ottawa, in view of the fact that the minister has promised that the legislation will be retroactive. The Minister of Finance has given this legislation a great deal of thought and careful preparation, and from what I know I am satisfied that the Bill when carried into effect will be eminently satisfactory to all concerned. The Civil Service of this country, especially of Ottawa, is composed of men of integrity, initiative and ability, and they are certainly entitled to generous treatment at the hands of the powers that be. I do not mean to say or even insinuate that all civil servants are overloaded with excellence in the performance of their daily duties, but as a whole the Civil Service of Canada compares favourably with that of any other country in the world. I sincerely trust that the Minister of Finance will make a great effort to put the legislation through this session, and if that is not possible that he will take .the earliest opportunity next session of having it carried into effect so as to satisfy the civil servants of the country, who are certainly entitled to generous treatment. There is no doubt that Government employees in the lower grades are underpaid, and in view of the high cost of living they are certainly justified in asking for an in-*crease of salary and a better classification. I am sure the Minister of Finance will deal with these matters not only fairly but generously. %


Mr. EDMUND PROULX (Prescott):: The minister has referred to superannuation or

a pension fund. Is it the intention of the Government to create a superannuation fund to which the Civil Service will have to contribute, or is it to be a non-contributory system?


William Thomas White: It is my intention to introduce a Superannuation Bill based upon a system under which the members of the Civil Service will contribute to a fund at rates varying according to the age at which they commenced to contribute. The Government will also contribute an equitable proportion, and the fund thus constituted will provide for a retiring allowance to those members of the services who contribute.


Edmond Proulx: I approve of that plan, and I think this contributory system of superannuation might also be extended to the judges. I have never approved of judges getting a pension without contribution, and I suggested to the Minister of Justice last year that he should create a fund to which the judges could contribute and which would provide them with a retiring allowance; and now that he has the example of the Minister of Finance before him, I hope he will create some such fund for the judges. The Minister of Finance also said this morning that he thought there should be an age limit, and with that I agree. Some of the civil servants, on account of their old age, are unable to efficiently perform their duties. Last year, the age limit of the county court judges was fixed at 75, and I think a similar provision in the Civil Service Act would be well placed. I know I am voicing the sentiments of the hon. members for Ottawa and the hon. member for Rou-ville when I ask for higher pay for the low'er officials. Those in the higher grades are already sufficiently well paid, but the lower officials certainly deserve higher salaries. Many of them have to support families, and in view of the high cost of living they cannot properly educate their children and support their families on $500 or $600 a year. What I do not like is to see some female officials in the Civil Service, with no families to support, getting $1,000 or $1,200 a year, and in some cases $1,500 or $1,600, while officials in the lower grades with families to support are only getting $500 or $600 a year. It may be true that these ladies can do just as good work as men getting similar salaries, but it must be remembered that most men have families to support, and I think it is simply putting an embargo on marriage to

pay these female officials such high salaries.


Mr. J. D. REID:: Some female officials have families to support.


Edmond Proulx: They are paid high
salaries, are given a holiday in the summer, buy nice clothes and do not think about marrying; and, if they should think about it, they want a man who can afford to keep them in the style to which they have been accustomed. Another objection is that the teaching profession is thereby drained. Many of these female employees in the Government service formerly earned their living as school teachers, but when they found they could get higher salaries in the Civil Service they left the teaching profession, passed the examination, and entered the Government service. No doubt females are adapted for some kinds of work, such as shorthand and typewriting, but many ladies are occupying positions in the Government service that ought to be occupied by men. When the work can be done just as well by men, they should be given the preference. I repeat that one of the reasons why the public and separate schools of Ontario cannot get teachers, is because the teaching profession is being deserted for the Civil Service. No doubt some of them go to the West, where the salaries are higher. I know that when I was a ministerialist some of these lady teachers asked for and got positions in the Civil Service. That was before the Civil Service Act of 1908 had been passed.
I have another suggestion to make. I think that instead of the commission requiring candidates for the higher grades to have a knowledge of Latin or the higher mathematics, they should insist on a better knowledge of both official languages, French and English. That is almost a necessity in the higher grades. I would not require that for the officials in the lower grade, those getting $500 or $600 a year; but for the higher grades I think the examination should be changed. A knowledge of the French language is more important and more necessary than a knowledge of Latin and the higher mathematics. We had the experience the other day of an officer of the Department of Marine and Fisheries in the province of Quebec holding an investigation and not being able to understand the witnesses who gave evidence in their own language. The French and English languages are 'both official in this country, and the Government should oblige the higher officials of the different departments to comply with the requirements of the law in that regard. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance should make a suggestion to the Civil Service Commission that the examination should be changed so as to conform to this requirement. The other day we (had a Bill passed through the House to change the naturalization. A fortiori, a knowledge of both languages should be made a condition of obtaining a position in the higher grades of the Civil Service.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I cannot agree
with the remarks which my hon. friend to my left (Mr. Proulx) has just made with respect to women in the public service. The world is moving rapidly, and the views which my hon. friend has expressed in regard to the position of women in the Civil Service are practically obsolete to-day. The measure which my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. White) has given notice of this morning is a very important one, and I am sure that when it is presented to the House it will receive the most generous and just consideration which this House is capable of giving it. The public service is extremely important to the country. I cannot imagine anything of greater importance than that we should have a capable, progressive, and efficient public service. I think that in the last analysis the government and administration of the public service, depend upon the Civil Service. Ministers go and ministers come, and even while in office, I think their success depends largely upon the efficiency of the Civil Service in theiT particular departments. There are a great many men whose fortune it is to become advisers of the Crown whom all of us, on both sides of the House, know not to be too well qualified for the honour and distinction given them, and in such cases the administration of public affairs by the minister of that department is absolutely dependent upon the Civil Service of that department. I submit there is only one way to have an efficient public service, and that is by giving strict observance to proper methods of promotion and by paying the members of the Civil Service properly for the service rendered. It is quite true as was suggested this morning by by some of the members of the House, that some civil servants are not capable. That is unfortunate, but it is the duty of the Government, it is the duty of Parliament, to eliminate any such men from the service. It may be true that the service is overmanned, but it is our duty to rid ourselves of this condition of affairs, employ only the

requisite number, and make sure that those who are employed are capable and efficient. It is perhaps unfortunate that the minister was unable to present his Bill earlier in the session. I think, however, that it is a part of wisdom at this stage of the session that the consideration of the Bill be postponed until the coming session of Parliament. In the meantime, in my judgment it would be desirable to print the Bill and have it annotated and circulated among the members of Parliament, so that during the recess they may have an opportunity of giving consideration to it and next session be in a position to deal with it intelligently and expeditiously.


William Thomas White: For the most part I agree with the views expressed by nry hon. friend (Mr. A. K. Maclean) as to the Civil Service and the position it occupies and should occupy in the administration of the affairs of the Dominion. I shall be glad to have the Bill printed, as he suggests, and circulated generally among the members in order that it may have the full and mature consideration which it undoubtedly deserves before it is introduced next session. My hon. friend from South Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) requested that we should hear the Civil Service Association in respect to the provisions of the Bill.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Plave you not heard
them?


William Thomas White: Yes; I may say that a memorial from the Civil Service Association of Ottawa has been presented to the Government and has received very careful consideration. We shall be prepared, as I stated this morning, to hear such further representations as the association, or any class, or even individuals, of the Civil Service, may be disposed to put forward in order that the legislation, when introduced next session, may be in as satisfactory a form as it is possible to make it. I was a little disappointed with the utterances of my hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. I.einieux) this morning. As far as I am concerned, there is no politics in this Bill. The Civil Service will hear nothing from me as to politics, and I shall expect to hear nothing of politics from the Civil Service. The less politics that enter into the dealings of the Government with the Civil Sei>
vice the better for the Government, the better for the Civil Service, and the better for the public generally. I would point out to my hon. friend, who has urged that the Bill should be taken up this session for

the reasons which he advanced, that the Bill, which has not yet been before him, consists of some thirty-five pages and nearly one hundred sections.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend misunderstood me, and I am very sorry that I did not make myself clear. I quite understand that the Bill is a very important one and comes rather late in the day to be considered properly; but what I was urging was, and what I now urge is, that the lower grades are really deserving of some special treatment in view of the high cost of living, and if my hon. friend could have seen his way clear to give any lift to the lower grades I would certainly have said to my hon. friend that we could afford to wait until next year to take up the whole question of the Civil Service.


William Thomas White: The Bill cannot be dealt
with piecemeal; it must be dealt with as a whole. In a piece of legislation of this kind affecting a body such as the Civil Service of Canada, no doubt there will be many defects. All the provisions should have mature consideration, and such representations as may be put forward by the various classes in the service should be heard and considered. I do not wish to deal with this matter from a political standpoint, but I would suggest to my hon. friend that there is room for his reflection in the fact that during 1909, 1910 and 1911, the Government of which he was a member could have introduced legislation if they regarded the salaries in the various grades of the service as insufficient.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Does my hon. friend
remember the general increase that was given?


William Thomas White: In what year?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I cannot exactly tell the year, but not long before the Liberals went out of office.


William Thomas White: I do not desire to enter
into a political controversy over this matter. The Bill consists of some 35 pages and nearly 100 sections, and very important amendments have been introduced. My own view at the present time is that the Bill should at the next session of Parliament be referred to a special committee composed of members of. both sides of the House, although it might be found more convenient to deal with it in Committee of the Whole.


Rodolphe Lemieux: May I suggest that during the recess a sub-committee of the Privy Council should deal with the matter and have the Civil Service represented before it.


William Thomas White: I have so much confidence in toy own ability that I will continue to handle the Bill myself, because then I am sure it will be right. If I consulted with others it might not be so perfect as I hope it will be when I am finished with it. While I take my hon. friend's suggestion in good part, I think I shall continue to labour with the Bill after my own fashion in the hope of presenting a good piece of legislation when the House assembles next year. Having regard to the late date of the session, and the amount of business still remaining on the Order Paper, it is, I think, obvious to the House that it is impossible to proceed with a measure of this kind and enact it into law in the short time which remains. There are many members of this House on both sides who would naturally desire to speak upon this Bill, and its chief provisions will, I have no doubt, be debated at considerable length, because legislation connected with the Civil Service is a matter upon which a variety of opinion must exist. In fact, during the discussion today upon this resolution it has become apparent that many suggestions will be put forward. There will be an advantage, therefore, in the Bill standing over until next session, and, in order that no injustice may be done to the service, the Government will take into consideration the advisability of making the Bill retroactive so as to date from the beginning of the present fiscal year. It seems to me that this is a just and equitable method of dealing with the question.
^ Mr. LEMIEUX:	Will the Bill be introduced and distributed, and will the civil servants be heard on it through their representatives?


William Thomas White: The Government would
welcome representations made on behalf of the Civil Service Association.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Hear, hear.


William Thomas White: Or representations from
classes of the service or even from individuals; I cannot go further than that. Until a Bill is presented to the House, my view is that it should not be made public and discussed outside. I may say that we have
had the benefit of representations made by the Civil Service Association, and have discussed the matter generally with many of the gentlemen occupying prominent positions in the service in the city of Ottawa.


Air. FOWLER:: If it is the intention of the Government to hear the civil servants in regard to this Bill, is it the intention also to hear the taxpayers who have some interest in this Bill? Or will the Government itself undertake to represent the taxpayer in the matter?


William Thomas White: In my own person I believe there is a continuous representation of the taxpayer; that is what I am here for. While I shall hear with pleasure the representations of the civil servants, at the same time I shall not be, I hope, entirely obvious of the fact that my colleagues and myself represent the taxpayers of the Dominion. I think my hon. friend need have no fear on that score, although, of course, it was a very proper question for him to ask. I had hoped to be able to present the Bill to-day, and I would ask the committee, in view of the representations I have made, to defer the discussion until I can present the Bill, and all its provisions are before the House.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Just one word. I think there are two very good reasons for leaving this Bill over until next session. One reason might be advanced on behalf of those -who would like more time to consider its various provisions, and the other reason is in the interests of the civil servant's themselves; because the fact is that the nearer you get this Bill to the next election the better it is for the civil servants who are asking for increases. However, the granting of these increases will have no definite or settled effect, because the civil servants will come here periodically a few months before election, as they always have done in the last fifteen or twenty-five years, and they will become more urgent as the day of election approaches. The Minister of Finance denies that there is any politics in this Bill, and, of course, in that very pious expression he will be backed up by the independent from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux); but, nevertheless, I hold the opinion that there is politics in it from the first page to the last. There is politics in it from this side of the House, and there is politics in it from the other side of the House, and, when the Bill is brought up close on

an election, the politics of it will manifest itself in this way: that those who are promoting the Bill on this side of the House will say beautiful things of the civil servants, and those gentlemen on the other side of the House will he afraid to say anything else. Consequently, from the standpoint of the civil servants, their interest will be advanced by leaving this Bill over until next session. But, I want to call the attention of the Minister of Finance to this fact, that the hours of the civil servants, as I have seen them in the city of Ottawa, are mighty short, and their wages-


George William Fowler: Pretty long.


William Cameron Edwards: And their wages fairly high, considering the hours they put in. That is my opinion, and I venture to say that is the opinion of most people outside of this House and outside of this city.


George William Fowler: And in the House, too.


William Cameron Edwards: I would ask the minister to compare the salaries of civil servants in Ottawa with those of civil servants outside of Ottawa-with the salaries of customs officers, for instance, from one end of the country to the other, who are collecting the money with which to pay these civil servants, and who are receiving from half to a third the salaries that the young ladies and young gentlemen in the Civil Service in the city of Ottawa are receiving. It is a fact that at the present time a young man can start in the Civil Service and make better wages from the day he starts than any man can in any other profession in the Dominion of Canada, supposing that, they have the same amount of education. The college graduate, the man who has J;aken a course in the university, and who has spent years in hard study and training for his profession, starts at a very small salary and has to work his way up, and it is years before he reaches the salary that many civil servants start at in Ottawa, although they may be beardless boys with hardly any down on their upper lips. Salaries in Ottawa for civil servants are out of all proportion to the salaries paid from one end of Canada to the other to nen and women who are doing the service of Canada just as well and efficiently as these young men and women are doing it in the city of Ottawa. As the hon. member for Kings and Albert (Mr. Fowler) has very properly said, it is well, while considering this matter from the standpoint of salary, to consider it also from the standpoint of the man who pays these

salaries, namely, the taxpayer. On the one hand, the hon. member for Rouviiie puts up a plea for the underpaid lower grade in the Civil Service.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Hear, hear.


William Cameron Edwards: My hon. friend is very sympathetic now, and he will be more sympathetic about twelve months hence. He puts up a plea for those in the lower grade on account of the high cost of living. When it comes to the higher grades, the plea is slightly changed; it is the cost of high living then. That is about the size of it.
Not only is there the question of rearranging these salaries periodically and increasing them every two or three years, or in less time than that, but there is the question of superannuation. Who is going to superannuate the farmer and the artisan and the labourer? They have to make provision for their old age during the productive period of their lives. I would like to know why it is that men in the Civil Service cannot do the same thing. You are placing before young men and women the opportunity of getting into the Civil Service at a good salary, at a better salary than many of the teachers in our high schools and collegiate institutes are receiving, a-nd you are adding to that the fact that, after putting in so many years, they will be protected in their old age. You are putting a premium upon them; you are inviting them to spend every dollar of the salary they make during the years they ought to be putting by money, as the rest of us have to do, if we are going to make provision for our old age. I am sick and tired of this buncombe about the civil servants being underpaid and halfstarving. It is simply political clap-trap from this side or from the other side of the House.


William Thomas White: There would seem to be a real need for defe:ring the consideration of this Bill until next session. My hon. friend has his own views as to the motives whioli have prompted me in bringing down this Bill; I have mine, and they are not the same as those which he has expressed. This, however, is a free country, and every one is entitled to his own views and opinions.
With regard to the upper grades of the Civil Service, we are not increasing the salaries. We propose to increase the salaries only in the lower divisions. In the course of our administration we have found that we cannot get men of promise and ability to enter the Civil Service at the minimum salary provided under the present legislation. It is desirable that that condition should

be remedied, and that the Government of Canada should be in a position to recruit and build up over a course of years an efficient and capable Civil Service. I believe the service, speaking of it as a whole, is reasonably capable and efficient; but it can be improved. I believe that legislation of this kind and of the kind I have in view with regard to superannuation will do a great deal to bring that about and to promote the efficiency of the service, and by doing that to promote at the same time the public interest; because it is in the interest of the public that the Civil Service of Canada should be made as efficient as possible.


George William Fowler: I would suggest to the
minister that during recess he take into consideration the question of disfranchising the Civil Service. If that were done, the complaint of my hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) would have less weight. There is a very great deal in what my hon. friend from Frontenac has said, and I agree with nearly all his observations. Some of them I might tone down a little, and some other parts of his remarks I might strengthen somewhat;	but	I really think	that,	ifthe Civil Service were disfranchised, it would be a good thing and would save the members for Ottawa from a great deal of trouble and annoyance. It would also save the hon. members from points outside of Ottawa from a great deal of trouble and annoyance. I have had a great deal of trouble from persons anxious to be promoted	or	to get higher	salaries.Sometimes, in the kindness of one's heart, one	will recommend a	man	fora higher salary simply because he asks one to do	so	and one has known	his
father, or mother, or sister, or brother, or some of his relatives, although at the same time, while making the recommendation, one knows in one's heart that the man is getting from two to four times more than he would get if he had to struggle in the world, as the rest of us have to do. In the Civil Service there are some very estimable gentlemen; there are some who are perhaps receiving less remuneration to-day than they could earn if they were battling for themselves in the world. I think, however, I am safe in saying-and I say it with all courtesy to the Civil Service-that the majority of the civil servants in Ottawa are receiving much more than they could get if they had to work for private firms. There is a very considerable percentage of the civil servants in Ottawa who take no interest whatever in their work, and who are utterly useless so far as the efficiency
of the public service is concerned. Some one suggests four hours a day; they do not put in two hours a day in actual work. They probably straggle along to the office about ten o'clock in the morning. If the civil servant happens to be a man, he lights his pipe and smokes and reads the morning paper until about half-past eleven. Then he looks at the clock, and says: 'It is eleven-thirty and I must go to lunch at twelve, so I had better go now, as it is not worth while working only half an hour.' He goes to lunch and returns at two o'clock. He probably smokes and reads the afternoon paper until about three-thirty, and then he looks at the clock and says: ' It is not worth while working now until four o'clock, as it is only half an hour until then '; and he knocks off for the day. This is a sample of the poor civil servant for whom my hon. friend the member for Rouville is so sorry.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I must say my hon. friend is very unjust to the civil servants.


George William Fowler: I am not unjust to the civil servants. I said in the beginning that there are men and women in the service who are doing good work.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If the facts are as my hon. friend suggests, this is certainly a matter for a Royal Commission to investigate.


George William Fowler: A Royal Commission would not be a bad thing, if it were composed of men who would investigate the matter thoroughly, and who would sift out the bad from the good or the good from the bad, as the case might be; but I do not think there is anything more absurd than the present Civil Service Commission, and the sooner the Government abolishes it the better in every way. I think it would be better to have the Civil Service as it was before.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend wants
to cut it Shortt.


George William Fowler: I would cut him so short that there would be nothing left of him; because I think the commission is not doing the work it was intended to do. No doubt the intention of the Government in establishing the commission was along the right line, but the commission has not fulfilled its idea and is not fulfilling it to-day; as I said it is a perfect farce as at present constituted. I do not want to be unfair to anybody, and I am not unfair, but I fear that my hon. friend from Rouville, in his anxiety to protect the Civil Service, forgets

the larger class of people of this country, the men who earn the money that pays for the Civil Service.
My Iron, friend the senior member for Ottawa (Mr. Fripp), almost with tears in his eyes, spoke of the eighty per cent or more of the Civil Service actually receiving only $1,040 a year. Do eighty per cent of the wage-earners of this country outside the Civil Service make $1,040 a year? They do not make an annual income of $700 a year, and yet in capabilities they will average up pretty well with the Civil Service. The men and women who are doing the work of this country, who are the producers of this country, are not making pay equal to that of the civil servants of Ottawa. We hear of the high cost of living. In what respect has the cost of living increased? Flour is cheaper; groceries are no higher, and in many instances lower than they were; clothing is as cheap. The only increase, perhaps, is in the matter of rent. The crazy, foolish land boom that struck a great many towns of this country has caused rents to advance in order that the few may be enriched at the expense of the many. Outside of the articles produced by the farmer, there is but little in the high cost of living; there is more in the cost of high living. Plain living is much better than that, and 'plain living and high thinking' would be a very good plan to adopt.


William Thomas White: That is the policy I adopt.


George William Fowler: I am glad to know it,
and I am glad to know that the policy succeeds so well; the success attained by the hon. gentleman shows that this policy is a good one to recommend. When the Government revives their schedule of Civil Service salaries, the object should be to provide that those who are worthy should receive their proper reward 'and those who are unworthy should be eliminated. If such a Royal Commission could be appointed as would eliminate the deadwood and give to the worthy ones the reward which it is meet they should receive, we should have a commission that would be of some benefit; and you would have a Civil Service made up of not more than two-thirds as many as are to-day badly performing the work of that service. That is my opinion, and I ask the Government to look into this question, so that we may not have this periodic coming here, just previous to elections, with both sides afraid to offend the Civil Service. I suppose I should be afraid too if there were many civil servants in my constitu-

ency; but there are not, so I can speak out. I do not profess to be better than my neighbour who represents a Civil Service constituency, but those of us who do not represent such constituencies ought to be ready to express the plain facts and plain truths, so that the Civil Service may not be deceived. If I can measure the temper of this House, the vast majority of the members on both sides are very much in favour of the line taken by the hon. member for Frontenac ('Mr. Edwards).
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Hon. W. T. WHITE (Minister of Finance) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 217, respecting the Civil Service of Canada.


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

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. L. BORDEN (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of Bill No. 214, respecting the Canadian Northern Railway system.
Wilfrid Laurier: Does my hon, friend intend to take that up now? The Bill has just been distributed; I have only now received a copy.


Mr. BORDEN:: We will not go on if my right hon. friend seriously objects. I mentioned the matter last night, and did not know there would be any objection. The Bill had been printed in English and in French before. If it has not been distributed-
-Sir WILFRID LAURIER:	I have received it only this moment.


Robert Laird Borden: It is in precisely the same terms as the resolutions.


Wilfrid Laurier: Are there no alterations?


Robert Laird Borden: None that I am aware
of. But I am desirous of meeting the convenience of my right hon. friend.


Wilfrid Laurier: Let it stand.


Robert Laird Borden: The right hon. gentleman prefers to let it -stand? Then, I ask leave to withdraw the motion. Or, could we read the Bill a second time, go into committee, and report progress?


Wilfrid Laurier: Pro forma?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
National Transcontinental railway-construction, $8,000,00.
Mr. C'ARVELL: Can the minister inform us when he expects the road to be completed from Edmunston to Levis-when we may expect to have trains running?
['I have had numerous letters from secretaries and presidents of the local divisions of the Catholic Mutual Benefit Association in my constituency, objecting to an increase of premiums for the old members of the institution. I presume that the Bill will be discussed in committee, but I wish to bring the attention of the promoter to the fact that it is meeting with very great opposition amongst the old members in my part of the country. If the Department of Finance thinks it is necessary for the life of this institution to increase the premiums on those who became members previous to 1907, it will be necessary, of course, to do so, but I wish to put on record the protests I have received from various divisions of the Catholic Mutual Benefit Association in my constituency of South Cape Breton and in other parts of Nova Scotia.']
John Dowsley Reid: As I understand, the
road from Edmunston to Moncton is completed and has been under operation for a year and a half. The other part of the road, from Quebec east, the contractors expect to have completed and ready to hand over to the commission about the 1st of August, and after that it will be ready for operation through from Quebec to Moncton.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Have any arrangements been made for the operation of the road between Quebec and Moncton when it is completed?


John Dowsley Reid: No- arrangement has been
made for the operation. That would not be taken up until the road was ready to be handed over.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That would seem to be a very poor policy on the part of my hon. friend. He will have a hiatus, I am afraid, in the operation. There seems to be a great demand that that road should be operated.
I am speaking now largely from the standpoint of the people of the province of New Brunswick. We have thought for a long while that it would be a great advantage if that road were opened up in order to afford arother outlet for lumber and agricultural products, and I would think that the minister would get busy and have an arrangement made before the railway is actually completed so that when it is handed over a train service could be operated over it. I think we should have some announcement from the minister as to what will be done.


John Dowsley Reid: As the hon. member knows, that part between Moncton and Edmunston has been operated for the last year and a half. During the last year, and until a few days ago, that part from Quebec to a station called Monk was operated by the Quebec Central railway. When the road is corn-281	KEVISED
pleted the Grand Trunk Pacific will have the first right to take it over and operate it if they so desire. But if they do not wish to take over this portion arrangements will be made that the road will be operated between Quebec and Moncton until the Grand Trunk Pacific are prepared to take the whole line over. Arrangements will have to be made with the Grand Trunk Pacific to take over a portion of the road on certain conditions. If they do not wish to take over that portion there will be no trouble about the operation of the road, either by the Intercolonial railway or by some arrangement with the Grand Trunk Pacific until the whole road is completed.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I feel that the Government have not accomplished what might have been accomplished in the way they have managed this road in the past year and a half. I am not saying this in a faultfinding spirit; I am only pointing out to the minister wherein he has failed to make its operation of benefit to the public and to the road itself. I complained a year ago about the hard and fast rules by which the road seemed to be bound in regard to freight rates. The difficulty seems to be that it is being run as a purely local proposition. If a man has lumber to ship to Boston-and usually all lumber produced along the line of the road goes to the American market-the road will not give* a through rate and take their proportions of that rate. The only thing they will do is take a local rate from point to point that will be three or four times as great as the proportions for that distance on a through rate. I had a case of my own which, I pointed out to the Hon. Mr. Cochrane, where I was charged six cents a hundred pounds for hauling lumber some twenty-three or twenty-five miles. I could get that lumber transported to Boston, 500 miles, for about 13 cents; but I was asked to -pay a local rate of 6 cents. The result was that I did not ship the lumber over the Transcontinental. I was able to haul it fifteen miles over toad roads and ship it by the Canadian Pacific railway. Last year they cut the rate down to 4 cents, and we then shipped our lumber over the road. I think probably we saved a little by doing so. It always has struck me that while it is -admitted tfhat there must be a slightly higher charge in proportion for a short haul than for a long haul, a charge of 4 cents for twenty-three or twenty-five miles is entirely out of proportion to a 13 cent rate for nearly 500 miles. If the management would quote



[Stage Direction]
a through rate from any point on the road to Boston and charge us only a reasonable proportion of it, I am satisfied that a greater amount of business could be developed. I also think that daily passenger trains each way would pay. My experience in public utilities has been that the better the service you give the public the more business you obtain. Give people the opportunity to patronize your utility and they will patronize it. rue present arrangement is very unsatisfactory. The train leaves Moncton in t..e morning, runs to Edmunston and returns the next day. That is a pretty slow method of transportation. The result is that the Canadian Pacific railway get practically all the business. If a better service were given, with better freight rates, 'I believe the minister could prob-
4 p.m. ably make more money. In saying this I believe I am voicing the sentiments of the business people of that district.
John Dowsley Reid: The service, of course, could hardly be expected to be satisfactory with a train going up one day and down the next. I agree that through rates should be given; but the Grand Trunk Pacific refuse to take the road over and temporary arrangements were made with the Intercolonial railway to operate to Edmunston. While it has been operated by the Intercolonial railway, there has been a serious loss every month, and the rates probably have been a little high for that reason. Now that the road is practically completed, or within a couple of months of being completed, trains will be running through from Quebec to Moncton and I think the grievances that the public must have had in the way of inadequate train service and high freight rates will be overcome. I understand that the Intercolonial railway have made arrangements to take out some four million feet of lumber from that road, a lumber which has been there for a couple of years. An arrangement has been made to move that lumber.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: From what point?


John Dowsley Reid: Some place near Edmundeton. I forget the name of the people who are moving out the lumber but they are doing everything to satisfy the people along the line. As I have said, the road will be finished in a couple of months and the Intercolonial or the Grand Trunk Pacific will operate it through to Quebec.


Mr. McCREA:: What arrangements were made with the Quebec Central?


John Dowsley Reid: The arrangement was made last fall. Of course, the contractors could not go on with the work in the winter months and so an arrangement was made with the Quebec Central to operate the road during that time. The contractors were to resume wrork on the first of May, but I think the time has been extended', to the 15t,h of May. Within a couple of months at the most the road will be completed and handed over to the commission.


Francis N. McCrea: I think that the section of the road that the Quebec Central are' operating is about completed now. I saw the general manager of that road a short time ago and he told me that they were able to draw out a train of sixty-six loaded cars with the little engines they use on the Quebec Central, but when they get the train on their own road they 'have to break it up into three or four sections. It would seem therefore, that that section of the road is in pretty good shape. I am one of those who have some material along: that line which I would like to have hauled out, but the Quebec Central are charging from four to six and seven cents a hundred to haul the stuff out over the Grand Trunk Pacific, and then there is the through rate, in addition. Lumber and pulpwood is a class of freight that cannot stand high rates and when four cents to six cents a hundred is added it takes away all the profit and a little more. Inasmuch as this road is completed for over 100 miles I should think the Government could arrange for the Grand Trunk Pacific to take over and operate it as part of their new system and to give us through rates. A large amount of lumber is waiting along that section of the road to be hauled out and we are suffering very much on account of the present rates. People went in there expecting that the road would have been completed and taken over a good while ago. They have cut a considerable amount of lumber, but they cannot move it out on account of the freight rates and that is a style of business "we do not like. We like a margin of profit on our work but none of us will be able to ship out our lumber till we get better freight rates. I hope the Government will make some permanent arrangement whereby we can ship out our stuff.


John Dowsley Reid: Of course, the hon. member understands that the Government has no power to compel the contractors to carry the freight at any special rate.


Francis N. McCrea: Has not the time expired during which the road was to be completed?


John Dowsley Reid: It is quite usual for the Government to extend the time and that has been done in this case. So far as the operation of the road is concerned, undoubtedly the Grand Trunk Pacific are the first ones that should operate that road and everything will be done to persuade that company to take it over; but if by any chance they do not do so, some other arrangement will be made for the operation of the road between Quebec and Moncton. I agree with the hon. gentleman that the lowest possible freight and passenger rates should be given, and also the very best accommodation that the rates can justify. The contractors have been urged, I myself have urged them, to finish this work as quickly as possible. The hon. member states that a certain section of the road is in first-class shape, but I may say that some of the stations and water tanks have not yet been built on that 100 miles. The contractors inform me that the road will be handed over to the commission some time in July or at the latest by the first of August. The Government will then be in a position to make an arrangement with the Grand Trunk Pacific for the operation of the road.


Francis N. McCrea: I am not speaking in any fault-finding spirit, but as one of those affected. I know I am not alone and that there are a large number of lumbermen who cannot stand the high rates. My reason for bringing this matter'to the notice of the minister was that he might do everything possible to relieve the situation as quickly as possible. We are really suffering for want of reasonable Tates, and we will not get them until the road is permanently taken over by some one who will give us through rates.


Mr. MICHAUD:: Undoubtedly we need a better service from Moncton to Edmundston and from Edmundston to St. Eleuthere. At the present time a mixed train runs from Moncton to Edmundston, and although it leaves Moncton at a fixed hour you never see it back at a fixed hour. It is due at eight o'clock but never arrives until midnight or one or two in the morning. I know there is sufficient business on that line to warrant a daily train from Edmundston. From Edmundston to St. Eleuthere we have a tri-weekly service. This service is not sufficient to meet the demands of the business men, for they run a special train once in a while. They ran one or two special trains last week. I would like to see the suggestion of my hon. friend adopted and a good service established between Moncton and Levis. On the first day of August I hope we will have realized our ambition to have first-class trains running between these two points. There is a large quantity of lumber along the line of the road from Edmundston to St. Eleuthfere, and I believe that a large business could be done in the transportation of this lumber. The lumbermen living along the line have endeavoured to make some arrangement whereby round logs can be shipped from Edmundston down to St. Leonard. The road could earn a large amount of money if it could secure this business, but the management could not agree with the lumbermen as to the freight rate, and m>
arrangement was arrived at. However, I hope to see a daily service established.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am not at all surprised to find that other members of the House have had the same experience as I have myself. It is important that this matter should be settled at once. I represent an estate and we have been trying to carry on a lumber business for the last two or three years. If we had the assurance of a satisfactory freight rate, and that we could get the lumber away, we could do business next year. But without that assurance we cannot do anything. You have to commence operations in September or October to make a success of the lumber business, and in. my own case it is absolutely necessary that-some arrangement should be made at once-I presume that that would apply to the-case of my hon. friend from Sherbrooke-(Mr. MoCrea), and every other member who has any business connection with the road. I would like to ask the minister whether there is any truth in the report that is freely circulated around the corridors that the Grand Trunk Pacific people have practically refused to take over this road and that this intimation has been received within the last week I would be very sorry to learn that it is true but I have been told that a great many times during the past week by people who are supposed to be in the confidence of Mr. Smithers, who, I understand, is now in Canada. I hope it is not true and I hope the Government will be able to assure us that steps will be taken by which the Grand Trunk Pacific will take over and operate the road. I think we need it for competition if for nothing else. Now I am going to make a suggestion to my hon. friend the acting Minister of Railways and Canals. If the Grand Trunk Pacific will not take it over how would it do to try the experiment of runnljrg^a few first-class
445G

trains from Moncton to Levis, and then to Montreal, and see what the possibilities of this road would be as compared with the Intercolonial railway? If the Grand Trunk Pacific will not take it over it may be possible ehat the Government will find it of some advantage. It might be an opportunity of testing out the matter and of seeing what the time and cost would be, what the general traffic conditions are, and whether we have been justified in assuming .that a railway with a -04 grade is a cheaper road to operate than a railway with a higher grade.


John Dowsley Reid: This is the first time I have heard the rumour mentioned by my hon. friend that the Grand Trunk Pacific has refused to take over this portion of the road.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am very glad to hear
it.


John Dowsley Reid: 
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: -should try the experiment of running through trains, is a good one and I have no doubt that when my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Cochrane) is considering the matter that is a suggestion that will be acted upon.


Wilfrid Laurier: I was surprised a moment ago to hear my hon. friend the acting Minister of Railways and Canals state that the portion of the line between

the St. Lawrence and Moncton has not yet been completed. It is practically complete, although I understood him to say that there were a few new stations to be built. These should have been built long ago because they do not involve any heavy work. The public was under the impression that the road is as complete for all practical purposes as it can be. There may be a few station houses to erect and a few other things to be done but for all practical purposes we understood that the road was complete. The section from Quebec to Winnipeg is to be completed this summer, I understand.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is expected that the portion between Cochrane and Winnipeg will be completed in September and that between Cochrane and Quebec in November or thereabouts. There also the work can be done with absolute certainty and the road can be put in a position to be handed over to the Grand Trunk Pacific, but there is this condition that has not been fulfilled-the ferry at Quebec has not been completed and may not be completed this season although I hope it will be. But whether it can be or not, it is painfully certain that the terminals at Quebec have not even been commenced. Nothing has been done for the last three years to provide a station in the city of Quebec. Three years ago nearly, when my hon. friends took office a contract was let for the building of the station. That contract was cancelled two years ago and the station which we were told was to be erected on the Champlain market has not yet been commenced. An arrangement has been made by the Grand Trunk Pacific, behind the back of the Grand Trunk, to which the Grand Trunk has not been a party, to build a union station to be used jointly by the Canadian Pacific railway and the Transcontinental railway. You cannot operate a railway without shops, and the Government have located the shops of the Grand Trunk Pacific eight miles away, without any connection with the main line. Under such conditions the Grand Trunk Pacific may say that the -line is not complete and that they will not take it. If the hon. gentleman has any information to give to the country, we will be glad to hear it, but I am afraid this is the fatal truth.


John Dowsley Reid: The right hon. gentleman is aware that tenders have been called for the station at Champlain market?


Wilfrid Laurier: When?


John Dowsley Reid: The tenders are to be received the first week in Jnne.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is only
for a freight station.


John Dowsley Reid: That is for a passenger
station.


Wilfrid Laurier: Are yon going
to have two stations in Quebec?


John Dowsley Reid: There has been an arrangement come to with the Canadian Pacific railway by which we are to have joint terminals at the Palais; there is to be a union station there.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has the Grand Trunk Pacific been consulted about that?


John Dowsley Reid: It has been done through the chairman of the Trane continental Railway Commission. When I mentioned the matter to Mr. Chamberlin, he made no objection to it. There is no trouble about that.


Wilfrid Laurier: There is every trouble about that.


John Dowsley Reid: 
Wilfrid Laurier: I always
thought the shops were to be built for the Grand Trunk Pacific and- not for the Canadian Northern.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: This is an important matter and it should be thoroughly threshed out. Apparently nothing whatever has been done since last session towards having the Grand Trunk Pacific operate the sections of the line in New Brunswick which have been completed. Last session of Parliament I called attention to the fact that the portion of the line completed in New Brunswick had been operated very unsatisfactorily, and without any parliamentary authority. I also referred to the Transcontinental Railway statute under which provision was made that an agreement should be entered into with the Grand Trunk Pacific for the operation of portions of the road as they were completed from time to time, pending the completion of the whole line and the entering into a lease for the operation of the whole line. I called the attention of the Minister of Railways to the fact that it would be very desirable to have the Grand Trunk Pacific, which is to operate the line, enter at once upon the
operation of the completed sections, because that company being interested in making the road as profitable as possible would be interested in developing traffic, in giving accommodation to the people, and in encouraging industries along the line as any sensible railway company would do. I called the attention of the minister to the fact that previous to September, 1911, the Grand Trunk Pacific had made a propo*i* tion to the late Government to operate any sections completed, which would include the portion completed in New Brunswick, on terms mo?', favourable to the Government. They offered to operate these sections and to keep an accurate account of the receipts and operating expenses, and if there should be any deficit that the amount of that deficit should be added to capital account on which the Grand Trunk Pacific would pay interest. That was a most favourable arrangement for the country. I asked the Minister of Railways if the Government had approached the Grand Trunk Pacific since this Government came into office and invited them to enter into such an arrangement, and he said that the Government had not done so, and that they had not given consideration to the provisions of the statute 'bearing on that matter. At page 6835, * Hansard ' of last year, I said:
Mr. Pugsley : My reason for emphasising the matter is that I hope the Minister of Railways will enter into a lease with the company.
Mr. Cochrane: For the fourth time I say I shall.
And yet, it appears to-day 'that up to the present time no effort has been made to enter into an arrangement with the Grand Tunk Pacific to operate the completed sections in New Brunswick. In that respect the Government is guilty of negligence and total disregard of the interests of the country. The sections in New Brunswick are being operated by the Intercolonial railway management temporarily. The management of the Intercolonial railway has no interest in developing traffic for the Grand Trunk Pacific, which might compete with the Intercolonial. After the solemn promise made by the Minister of Railways last session, there is no excuse for the acting minister saying now that nothing has been done, that the Grand Trunk Pacific has not been approached, and that the Government has not attempted to carry out in the slightest degree the pledges made to Parliament last session. The idea the late Government had was that the Grand Trunk Pacific should begin to operate the


'4458 COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
line down to Moncton, that they would get their running rights over the Intercolonial to Halifax and St. John, and that long before this we would have the Grand Trunk Pacific trains running from Edmundston to Moncton and on to Halifax and St. John. Had the late Government remained in power, the work on the terminals at St. John, and also at Halifax, would have been started long ago. So far back as 1910, the Grand Trunk Pacific bought some forty acres of land at the head of Courtenay bay with the view of making terminals there. They sent their engineers down, and had plans very carefully prepared, intending to begin the work of construction, but since this Government has come to power, evidently this whole matter of the operation of the eastern division of the Grand Trunk Pacific has been allowed to drift. The Grand Trunk Pacific apparently do not know where they are at so far as doing business through Maritime provinces ports is concerned, and not a thing has been done since September, 4911. That land is lying idle and not a dollar s worth of work has 'been done during the two years and nine months that this Government has been in power. What excuse can the acting minister offer for not having the promise which the minister made last session carried out? The Grand Trunk Pacific were willing four years ago to make the arrangement I have mentioned; they were willing to make it when this Government came into office, and they are willing, so far as I know, to make it now, and yet the Government pay so little attention to this matter that it has not thought it worth while to take the trouble to approach the president of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company on the subject.
As il have said, this delay is inexcusable. At the last session of Parliament the Government secured an appropriation of $130,000 for the purpose of building a spur from the Intercolonial to Courtenay bay, which it was supposed might be used to a certain extent by the Grand Trunk Pacific trains.; yet not a dollar of expenditure has been made. The Government came to Parliament and got the $130,000, I suppose, with a view to leading the people of St. John to believe that at last the Government was going to wake up and do something. Nevertheless, nothing has been done except to make a few surveys and to put in a few stakes. I would like the hon. minister to explain these matters to 
the House. We are now called upon to vote money; and we, who represent those people who are interested in the early operation by the Grand Trunk Pacific of these completed portions of the railway, have a right to be informed as to the reason for this apparently wholly inexcusable delay and as to the intention of the Department of Railways with regard to the matter.
John Dowsley Reid: So far as the operation of this portion of the road by the Grand Trunk Pacific is concerned, I remember the discussion last year with the Minister of Railways and Canals, and I have no doubt that he took the matter up with the commission and with the Grand Trunk Pacific.


William Pugsley: Did he?


John Dowsley Reid: I have no doubt that he did.


William Pugsley: I think we have a right to be informed upon that point.


John Dowsley Reid: I am not in a position to say definitely that he did, but I am of this opinion that the Grand Trunk Pacific are not anxious to operate that portion of the road until it is completed between Quebec and Moncton.


William Pugsley: What grounds has my
hon. friend for believing that?


John Dowsley Reid: I am of the opinion that they were not very anxious to do it, for the reason that they were not anxious to operate any other portion of the road.


William Pugsley: They offered to do this.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member states that
on his own authority. I do not know whether there was any offer in writing or not.
Mr. PUGSLEY r I stated it at the last session of Parliament.
Mr. RE'ID: My hon. friend has made the statement, tout I have never seen anything on record in the department to show that the Grand Trunk Pacific were willing to operate on the terms a3 suggested by the hon. member for St. John.


William Pugsley: The Minister of Railways at the last .session gave his pledge to Parliament that the Grand Trunk Pacific would be asked to enter into an agreement for operating the portion of the railway in New Brunswick. Have they been approached in accordance with that promise? What has taken place, and what is their answer?


John Dowsley Reid: I am satisfied that, if the Minister of Railways gave that promise, he approached the Grand Trunk Pacific, and the result was that they were willing that it should be operated by the Intercolonial.


William Pugsley: Does the acting Minister of Railways know that?


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member knows that the road is being operated at a loss by the Intercolonial.


William Pugsley: In a half-hearted way.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member states that the Intercolonial shows no interest in the development of that part of the country. So far as the Intercolonial is concerned, the Government are behind the operating of the Intercolonial and the development that may be done by that railway, and are anxious to develop not only that part but any part of Canada through which the Intercolonial runs. Therefore, if anything can be done, in so far as developing that part of the country is concerned, the Government will make the Intercolonial management do what is necessary.


Mr. CARY ELL:: I am afraid that is a pretty serious statement, namely, that you will make the Intercolonial management do anything.
Mr. REiID: Of course we will. As I understand it, a train leaves Moncton, goes up the line one day and back the next. If there were sufficient traffic to justify the operating of a daily service, or more than one train a day each way, there is no doubt at all that the management would have the necessary service put on. I understand, however, that the train that is now doing the work does not have a full load either way each day, and that, therefore, the running of more trains would only increase the loss now being suffered each month under the present service. The delay in not having the road completed is not the fault of this Government. The contracts were let some years ago. The contractors have been pushed and pressed by the commission, the Minister of Railways and Canals and myself, while I was acting during the absence of the Minister of Railways and Canals, to get them to complete the road at the earliest possible date. There are other parts of the road between Winnipeg and Quebec where the contractors have not finished their work. The original contracts were let, I think, in 1907 or 1908.


William Pugsley: But this portion from
Edmundston to Moncton was completed long ago.


John Dowsley Reid: But my hon. friend is complaining that the other portion of the road between Edmundston and Quebec is not completed.


William Pugsley: I am complaining that the portions of the road that are now completed are not being operated by the Grand Trunk Pacific in accordance with the terms of the statute. Parliament expressly provided for this several years ago, and I want to know why the Government is absolutely ignoring the provisions of the Act of Parliament. The deputy minister ought to be able to inform the acting minister whether or not, since this pledge was made to Parliament last session, the Grand Trunk Pacific has been approached with a view to operating the line between Edmundston and Moncton. If there is correspondence on the subject, it ought to be brought down; but the acting minister ought to be informed, as to why this extraordinary state of affairs exists to-day, namely, that a solemn pledge given to Parliament at the last session has been apparently wholly ignored. The acting minister does not profess to have any knowledge on the subject at all, and simply says that he believes that the Grand Trunk Pacific has been approached. His only reason for believing that is that he thinks they would not be anxious to operate the road. There is the fact which I state as an ex-minister, namely, that the president of the Grand Trunk Pacific met with my right hon. friend, then leader of the Government, the ex-Minister of Railways, ex-Minister of Finance and myself at a conference at which he distinctly offered to operate portions of the Transcontinental, as completed, on the terms which I have mentioned, so that the country would not be obliged to sustain a loss as it is doing now by the operation of the Intercolonial, but that any deficit in the operation would be charged up to capital account of the Transcontinental, and upon that the Grand Trunk Pacific would pay interest just as they are to pay interest upon the cost of the line when it is fully completed. iSurely my hon. friend should give the committee the information.	If he cannot do it now, I think this item should stand until after recess. The people of St. John, the people of New Brunswick, are anxious to see the Grand Trunk Pacific

trains coming down through the province; to realize that their expectations are about to be fulfilled and that the Grand Trunk Pacific is to operate all the eastern portions of the line as well as the western portions. They are anxious to see an enterprising corporation that is interested in the future development of the road taking hold of it and operating it. My hon. friend says the Intercolonial management would be anxious to develop traffic over the Transcontinental, because they have the Government behind them. The boast has been made that the management is to be non-political, non-partisan; and we find that, when the management does things which are horribly unpopular, which are very much against the public interest, and which have aroused the people of St. John and the people living all along the line of the Intercolonial, and made it so that, if the people could realize that the Government are responsible for what the management has done, the Government would not be able to get any support in the counties through which the Intercolonial runs, the Government hide themselves behind the statement that the management is independent of the Government and that the Government is not responsible. Take that famous-or infamous-agreement between Mr. Gutelius, the general manager of the Intercolonial, and Mr. Bosworth of the Canadian Pacific railway. That matter was put up to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ha^en) in St. John. His friends* apologized; they said: It is an outrageous and indefensible agreement; but Mr. Hazen had nothing to do with it; it was done behind his back; Mr, Gutelius had power to do what he liked, and neither Mr. Hazen nor the Government could prevent that outrageous agreement coming into operation. I say' the management of the Intercolonial is entirely opposed to the development of traffic upon the Transcontinental, if you look upon it as a business proposition, because the Transcontinental is going to compete with the Intercolonial.


Mr. PELLETIER:: Whose fault is that?


William Pugsley: It is nobody's 'fault.'
It is to the credit of the late Government, for the reason that it gives competition. We want the Transcontinental to compete with the Intercolonial and hope that the result of having the two roads will be to give to the people advantages which they did not enjoy before. I might as well ask the Post-

master General whose ' fault ' it was that the Canadian Pacific railway was built from St. John to Montreal. We had the Intercolonial before, and it was the ' fault ' of the Government, but very much to their credit, that this competition was established with the advantages it involved in competitive rates and otherwise.


Mr. McLEOD:: Does the hon. gentleman, say that the National Transcontinental give's competitive rates?


William Pugsley: It will.


Harry Fulton McLeod: Not at all.


William Pugsley: Of course it will. Today it does not give competitive rates, nor a competitive service; it gives a wretched service, one that is entirely- unsatisfactory. But what we want

I presume that the people in the various portions of the Dominion where sections of this road are completed are alike in wanting it-is to get the Grand Trunk Pacific at work, to get competition, to get them interested in the development of eastern Canada. The day when the Grand Trunk Pacific trains go through the central part of the province to Moncton and St. John and Halifax the people will have new heart and new hope, because they will see that a new day has dawned. The Intercolonial is ignoring the Grand Trunk Pacific and is giving this wretched and inefficient service.


Sir WILFRID LAURIE  R@: The acting Minister of Railways said that there was still some work to be done to complete the section from Edmundston to Moncton, tnat there were a number of station houses to be built. Could he give us information now .as to how many station houses are tp be built, and when they will be completed?


John Dowsley Reid: I have not that information, but I will have it before we go through any of the Transcontinental Estimates. The information I have as to the condition of the road is gained in part from discussing with the contractors two or three times within the last month or two the question when the road will be ready to hand over to the commission. The contractors stated that they expected to get to work about the 1st of May, and that there would be about two months' work in finishing up a number of little things that are to be completed. I will have the details when we meet after dinner.


William Pugsley: Will the hon. gentleman also bring the information I asked for?

iMr. REID: Yes. I have no objection to this item standing, but there is another item as to the operating of the road, and-


William Pugsley: Bnt will the hon. gentleman himself keep it in mind?


John Dowsley Reid: There is this other item of the operation of the line from Moncton to Levis.


William Pugsley: This is just as good.


John Dowsley Reid: I have no objection to letting this item stand.


William Pugsley: We want to know what communication has been had with the Grand Trunk Pacific?


Mr. GAUVREAU:: I want to say a few words before we leave this item. Do I understand the acting minister to say that if the Grand Trunk Pacific does not take over the operation of this line from Edmundston to Levis, it will fall into the hands of the Intercolonial railway management?


John Dowsley Reid: What I said was that if the Grand Trunk Pacific refuses to take it over, then it falls into the hands of the Government to arrange for its operation in some other way. It could be put under the management of the Intercolonial railway, or an arrangement could be made with some other parties to operate it.


William Pugsley: On what ground would the Grand Trunk Pacific refuse to operate it? Oould it be on any other ground than that the Government has departed from the contract, has degraded the eastern section of the Transcontinental and has made changes without the consent of the Grand Trunk Pacific? Certainly it is a curious thing for the acting minister to suggest the possibility that they might refuse to operate it. It is rather an argument in support of the view that he knows that the Government has departed from the terms of the contract and has given the Grand Trunk Pacific the excuse which we have always urged they would have in consequence of the changes made.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman knows
that if the Grand Trunk absolutely refused to take over the operation of this portion until the whole road is completed, they may do so, as I understand the terms of the contract. Of course, the hon. member is a shrewd lawyer and understands the legal position better than I do, but I think he will agree that we cannot compel them to
take this portion of the road from Moncton to Levis by itself. So, if the Government approached the Grand Trunk Pacific and tried to make an arrangement concerning this portion of the road, which is what we would naturally do, and if we could not make an arrangement with them that we could justify to this Douse, surely, we must take some other means of operating this portion of the line.


William Pugsley: Has the hon. gentleman tried to make any other arrangement?


John Dowsley Reid: I do not think it is the
proper time-not until the road is ready to be operated.


William Pugsley: The whole road?


John Dowsley Reid: No, this portion.


William Pugsley: But the portion from
Moncton to Edmundston-
Mr. 'REID:	I speak of the road from
Quebec to Moncton. The hon. member is getting back to the part between Edmundston and Moncton. We agreed that that was to stand until after dinner, when 1 shall have the information to answer him.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: I am not through. I want to add a few words. I am sorry the hon. acting minister cannot understand me in French, but I will do the best I can to say what I mean in English. I wish to protest at once against the idea of having this part of the Grand Trunk Pacific in the hands of the Intercolonial railway. We have heard too much in this House and outside about this American, Mr. Gute-lius-


John Dowsley Reid: He is not an American, he
is a Canadian citizen.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: He is a Canadian
now, but I do not think that he will ever forget that he was an American.


John Dowsley Reid: He has been eighteen years in this country.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: He is paid $20,000 a
year for the management of the Intercolonial railway. You cannot get it out of the minds of people outside of this House that Mr. Gutelius is under pay by the Canadian Pacific railway to let the Canadian Pacific railway profit by every pound of freight that can be diverted from the Intercolonial railway to the Canadian Pacific railway. On my responsibility as a member, I say that you cannot take that out of the minds of the people, that Mr. COMMONS
Gutelius is under pay by the Canadian Pacific railway, by special fund, to work for the benefit of the Canadian Pacific railway. I know that is a strong accusation, but I say it is in the minds of the public, and you cannot get it out of their minds. If Mr. Gutelius is going to have the management of that part of the National Transcontinental railway, we shall not see that part from Edmundston to Levis in operation inside of two, three, four or five years; why? Because, as long as the traffic comes up from Moncton to Edmundston by the National Transcontinental railway, it must go on from Edmundston by the Canadian Pacific railway. Having in mind what Mr. Gutelius could do for the Canadian Pacific railway, he will do his best to keep that part from Edmundston to Levis closed to traffic. More than that, we need only to read the conclusion of his report to see that he has condemned that part from Levis to Moncton, and even the assistant to the Minister of Railways has adhered to that part of Mr. Gutelius' report, that this part of the road should not have been constructed because it would interfere with the Intercolonial. I for one-and I hope I will be joined by some hon. members through whose ridings that part of the Transcontinental runs-I see the hon. member for LTslet in his place, and I hope he will join me in protesting against that man being allowed to put his hands on the Transcontinental from Edmundston to Levis. It is his duty to the public to do so, if he wants uiat road to serve properly the constituency that sends him here. He snould stand up and say: I want this road to be operated as soon as possible, not by Mr. Guteiius, but by the Government.


John Dowsley Reid: As I stated, when the road is completed between Quebec and Moncton, which will be within a couple of months, the Government will do all they can to give satisfactory arrangements, which they can justify, with the Grand Trunk Pacific. It should first be approached to operate this road; but if we cannot make an arrangement with the Grand Trunk Pacific, then an arrangement may be made -with the Intercolonial railway, and a satisfactory service will be given. If the road is operated between Quebec and Moncton by the Intercolonial railway, or under any other arrangement that may be made by the Government, a satisfactory service will be given. I do not think that the Minister of Railways could do anything more than I have suggested.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I think it is my
bounden duty not only to protest against what has been said by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Gauvreau), but, as far as possible, to prevent the people from being induced to believe what some of our friends on the other side-and our friend from Timiscouata is to the forefront in that respect-


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: I boast of it.
Mr. PELLETIER-are trying to make the people of the country believe that we have, in the manager of the Intercolonial railway, an enemy of this country who. is bound, hand and foot, to the Canadian Pacific railway.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Hear hear.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: -and wdio is protecting the Canadian Pacific railway against the interests of this country. I want to protest emphatically against such an accusation.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: How do you know?
How can you say?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: If my hon. friend will wait a minute I will show-


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Come down and tell the people about it.


An hon. MEMBER:: Sit down.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Who said sit down?


The CHAIRMAN:: Order.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: If the hon. member has anything more to say I am quite willing-


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: It is your friend beside you who says, sit down, I want to know who it is. Oh, yes, it is the hon. member for Chambly (Mr. Rainville). He is not worthy of the name.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: A movement has been been started in the province of Quebec, all along the Intercolonial railway, which I think ought to be condemned. It is to the effect that in order to gain
5 p.m. political advantage, to try to make the people of our country believe that we have appointed as manager of the Intercolonial railway an American, to use the word which my hon. friend has used. This gentleman is not an American. His interest has been with this country for eighteen years, and he is at the present moment trying to do his level best for the Intercolonial railway. I have risen not to defend Mr. Gutelius


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: You cannot.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: -but to enter my strong protest and to tell this House at this very opportune moment that I have had occasion to test the feelings of Mr. Gutelius as between his duty and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company; and I am going to give that experience to the House now. If it can put a stop to the things that are being said against Mr. Gutelius and render some justice to him, I shall be happy in having done so. When, as Postmaster General, I was confronted with the demands of the railway companies of Canada for an increase in the amount which they received for the transportation of the mails of this country, and when I had the Canadian Pacific railway, the Grand Trunk, the Quebec Central, the Canadian Northern railway and other companies uniting to. try to get from this country an increase of $4,000,000, so that they would have $6,000,000 altogether instead of the $2,000,000 which they had been receiving,
I was obliged to have recourse to somebody who knew (something about these matters. I went to my colleague and friend the Minister of Railways and asked him if he could not give me somebody who would help me from a railway point of view to ascertain what the -cost of the transportation of the mails was and to try to strike the best bargain possible for Canada. Who is the man whom Mr. Cochrane gave me for that purpose? He gave me Mr. Gutelius.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sure.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: And Mr. Gutelius stood by the Post Office Department, stood by the interests of this country, and put before us , figures which could not 'be controverted by the Canadian Pacific railway. He fought the battle of the Post Office Department and of the country against the Canadian Pacific railway. If I have been able to settle with the railways on the basis oi ;$780,000 a year increase instead of the $4,000,000 which the Canadian Pacific railway and the Grand Trunk demanded, a debt of gratitude is due to Mr. Gutelius who helped me to accomplish that. When last year a question arose about what road was to transport the ocean mails during the winter season, the Canadian Pacific railway did their best to secure that contract; but Mr. Gutelius fought the battle of the Intercolonial railway and was able to induce the Post Office Department to send the mails by the Intercolonial railway as
against the Canadian Pacific railway. Tnese are two points that may tend to prevent these-I cannot say calumnies, but if I were speaking of any person outside of the House I would say that Mr. Gutelius, for political purposes, was being calumniated.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: I think the Postmaster General will receive the gratitude of Mr. Gutelius in the next general election, and he will need it.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I may need it less
than you.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: As to the accusations brought forward against Mr. Gutelius, I am here representing a part of the public. Not only have I heard statements myself, but I have received many letters from citizens, not only of my riding, but of other ridings, and from many men on the Intercolonial, prominent men of both parties, asking me if I could ascertain really whether Mr. Gutelius was not under pay by the Canadian Pacific railway to make business for the Canadian Pacific railway against the Intercolonial railway, The Postmaster (General knows something about Quebec and the feeling in the ridings \ through which the Intercolonial railway runs. He knows that nearly half the men employed on the Intercolonial railway were laid off last winter, and many of them without a single day's notice. And why? Because the traffic from Moncton and St. John had been handed over by Mr. Gutelius to the Canadian Pacific railway instead of to the Intercolonial railway. The Postmaster General will hear something about that at the next general election, and I am sure that in my county and in his own county he will be told that the people of Temis-couata think the same as the hon. member for Temiseouata. I hope the hon. member for L'lalet will speak out some day and tell the Postmaster General that the same feeling prevails in his riding. We all know he is a great admirer of the Postmaster General because one day he said that the Postmaster General was worthy to wear the mantle of Sir George Cartier, and if he wants to be fair and frank he will advise [DOT] him to see to it.
Item stands.
Quebec bridge-construction, $3,000,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Can the minister say
approximately when the Quebec bridge will be completed?


John Dowsley Reid: In 1917.
Hudson bay railway-construction of railway terminals and elevators, $4,500,000.


Mr. OLIVEE:: I would like to get some information in regard to the progress of the work on that railway. Will the minister give the House a statement as to present conditions and future prospects in regard to construction, and in regard to the terminal at Port Nelson which, I understand, is under his department.


John Dowsley Reid: I think the hon. gentleman is aware that the Hudson Bay railway is divided into two sections and that J. D. McArthur and Company have the contracts for both.


William Pugsley: Does the Government
allow subcontractors on that line?


John Dowsley Reid: So far as I know there are no subcontractors. I think McArthur is doing the work himself. Bails have been laid for nearly 110 miles, and the road has been graded for 158 miles. Bails will be laid on the newly graded portion within the next two or three months. The right of way has been cleared as far as Split lake, and the contractors are proceeding with the work as quickly as possible.


Frank Oliver: How far is Split lake from Le Pas?


John Dowsley Reid: The distance is 253 miles,
and from Split lake to Port Nelson is 165 miles.


Frank Oliver: What is the condition of the work up to the 158 mile point and from there on to Split lake?


John Dowsley Reid: The right of way has been
cleared and partly graded.


Frank Oliver: Is the work in hand all the way to Split lake? My hon. friend says the work is all being done by one contractor but he might be working within a mile or two of the end of the graded portion.


John Dowsley Reid: The whole road up to Split
lake is under way, and the contractors expect to complete that portion of the road this year.


Frank Oliver: Will rails be laid to Split lake this summer?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Frank Oliver: Split lake is at the first crossing, is it not?


John Dowsley Reid: Manitou Portage is the first crossing.


Frank Oliver: How far is that from Split lake?


John Dowsley Reid: I do not seem to have the
distance here, but I can get it for the hon-gentleman.


Frank Oliver: I only wanted the best
available information. There will be two-bridges across the Nelsion river. Will there be any delay in connection with the erection of those bridges? Has the material for these bridges been ordered?


John Dowsley Reid: There will be no delay. The
contract includes the substructure for these bridges. Plans are already being prepared and the contracts will be let as soon as possible, so there will be no delay in connection with the bridges.


Frank Oliver: Have they started work on the substructure of the bridges yet?


John Dowsley Reid: I do not think so. Nothing has been done in so far as the permanent substructure at the crossing is concerned. It is only a temporary work in the meantime.


Frank Oliver: Do I understand grading *work is now progressing from the first crossing of the Nelson?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


William Henry Sharpe: I was talking with the contractor, and also with the chief engineer, while in Winnipeg at Easter, and they assured me that they will have steel laid to Nelson by the fall of 1915. They figure it out that they will reach Manitou, the first crossing of the Nelson river, with steel this fall.


Frank Oliver: What is the mileage to the crossing from Le Pas?


William Henry Sharpe: Something over 280 miles-. They have a lot of the grading and a good deal of the rock cutting done now between where steel is at present1 and the first crossing of the Nelson river. They will reach the first crossing of the Nelson river this fall.


Frank Oliver: With the steel?
Mr. SH'AEPE: With the steel. They will put up the bridge during the winter. The grading will be done between the two crossings of the Nelson river during this summer so that the moment spring opens up they will be able to run the steel from one crossing to the other. During next spring they will put up the second bridge,.

and the following summer they will go right into Port Nelson.


Frank Oliver: Are the bridges across the Nelson serious engineering matters?


William Henry Sharpe: They are large works.
iMr. REID: They are large bridges, but *not serious as far as the engineering is concerned. .


William Henry Sharpe: They figure on taking part of the substructure up over lake Winnipeg, and that way before they reach the first crossing of the Nelson with the steel.


Frank Oliver: I understand that there is a wireless station at Port Nelson, so that the department will be in direct communication with it all the time?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Frank Oliver: Has the season sufficiently advanced at Port Nelson to allow work to begin there yet?


John Dowsley Reid: We have had a large number of men employed there all winter at the terminals, and the reports we get are that everything is going along satisfactorily as far as the terminals are concerned. The men were kept busy all winter, and the latest reports were that the ice would be *out of the river before the end of the present month. The chief engineer told me that the reports that he got from Mr. McLaughlin, the engineer in charge there, were that everything was going along very well.	,


John Howard Sinclair: Is there any news about the dredge which was said to have been wrecked last fall?


John Dowsley Reid: The dredge is all right, and they will proceed with the dredging as soon as the ice is out of the river.


Frank Oliver: It was reported that the dredge was on the ground and its back broken.


John Dowsley Reid: There was no truth in that report. They ran the dredge on the beach for the winter, and she was perfectly safe. She*-was just laid up in that way for the winter. The report is that everything is all right as far as the dredge is concerned.


Frank Oliver: There were one or two vessels wrecked. What is the final story in regard to these vessels and their cargoes ?


John Dowsley Reid: There was one boat called the Allette that arrived at Nelson all right but, the captain or the crew, as I understand,
allowed the vessel to drift a little and damaged her. The vessel started to come back with part of her cargo, but they decided that it was better to return. They were probably afraid they would not get out and they beached the vessel on the shore and she took fire. I think they were able to put the fire out and save nearly all of the cargo. The vessel, of course, was in a damaged condition. I suppose she has been abandoned to the underwriters. There was another steamer called the Cearense. I think the crew were not careful enough in taking soundings while trying to enter the harbour, and they ran her on a shoal and abandoned her. According to the reports I have, the vessel is there just in the same condition as when they abandoned her; they are taking the cargo out of her, and there will be no loss as far as the Government is concerned.


John Howard Sinclair: Has any claim been made against the Government on account of these wrecks?


John Dowsley Reid: No. The Government had the cargoes, and the cargoes were insured, so that the Government lost nothing. The Government were not responsible for the vessels.


John Howard Sinclair: 
John Dowsley Reid: No claim has been made.


Frank Oliver: What is the programme of work at Port Nelson for the summer? Seme time ago I asked the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, or the Minister of Railways, what the scheme of improvement was and what it was likely to cost. I was not able to get the information at that time. Could the minister now say what it is proposed to do at Port Nelson and what it is expected to cost to make it a satisfactory port?


John Dowsley Reid: The work being proceeded with there is the construction of about a mile and a half of pier out into deep water, so that vessels can come alongside the pier, discharge and take on cargoes. That is a considerable work in itself.


Frank Oliver: A mile and a half out?


John Dowsley Reid: The pier work will extend out into deep water and will then run a mile and a half along the shore.


John Howard Sinclair: To what depth?
446(5


John Dowsley Reid: Thirty-five feet.


Frank Oliver: I understand the pier will run a mile and a half along the shore, and then how far from the shore will it extend until it reaches a depth of thirty-five feet.


John Dowsley Reid: It is a short distance from the shore to deep water.


John Howard Sinclair: The minister means
thirty-five feet at low water?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


William Pugsley: Why is the pier to run a mile and a half along the shore? Why not carry the track along the dry land until it reaches the pier extending out to deep water?


John Dowsley Reid: The pier runs diagonally out into deep water, and it is expected that there will be a lot of business, and that we will require extensive piers and terminals at that particular point.


Frank Oliver: How many miles of dredging will there be and what will be the width and depth of the channel to be created?


John Dowsley Reid: It is hardly correct to say
that any number of miles of dredging will be necessary. The channel is all right now for light draught steamers of eighteen or twenty feet, but on the completion of the railway large steamers are expected, and dredging will be necessary. The channel should be at least 300 feet wide.


Frank Oliver: The minister is courteous but not definite. I was under the impression that a great deal of dredging would be necessary at Port Nelson to make that harbour available for traffic, and my impression was that the total cost would run into the millions. I take it for granted that before the Government decided to establish Port Nelson as the terminus of the Hudson Bay railway they satisfied themselves as to what the cost would be. If the Government has no definite information as to the work required to be done there and the cost of it, then it was premature in deciding on the terminus.


John Dowsley Reid: Last year the minister explained that he had sent Mr. Hazen, an engineer, to look over the whole situation at Churchill and Nelson, and Mr. Hazen reported in favour of Nelson as the terminus of the railway. The minister himself went to Hudson bay and he also came to the conclusion that Nelson should be the port. The hon. gentleman will understand that as we have to depend on wireless com-

munication for our information from there, I am not able to give the House that information to which it is entitled. The hon. gentleman would be justified in coming to the conclusion that there would be a great deal of dredging at Nelson were it not for the fact that we are building the piers out to deeper water in order to save dredging. My information is that there is not so much dredging to be done as the general public-seem to think.


Frank Oliver: The Government has undertaken a serious responsibility, and if they can tell the House how much work is to be done and what it will cost, the people, will know what merit there is in the enterprise. I am bound to assume, from what the minister has said, that he is not in a position to say how much dredging is necessary to make the port satisfactory, or how much that dredging will cost.


James Joseph Hughes: Is there any report from Mr. Hazen or from any one else which shows what kind of material has to be-dredged?


John Dowsley Reid: The report shows that it isclay, not rock.	.


James Joseph Hughes: Is it not sand?


John Dowsley Reid: Some of it is sand but it is mostly clay.


James Joseph Hughes: I have been informed
by seafaring mem and by experienced officers of vessels who have been there that it. is largely sand and that it will require continuous dredging to keep a channel open.


John Dowsley Reid: Had the sand been lodging,
there every year, there would hardly be any channel left now, but there is a channel into Nelson, and a very good one, except at a few places where it is said the clay will have to be dredged.


James Joseph Hughes: I understand the ships
are to anchor out a long distance from the harbour.


John Dowsley Reid: They go in opposite Nelson.


James Joseph Hughes: The usual condition with sand in such cases is that you will always have a channel some place, but it will be continually changing its position and is not reliable.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Last year a certain number of men were hired in Nova Scotia to work at Port Nelson in connection with the terminals, and it was under-

stood by the men that their wages were to be paid to their wives, and for that purpose powers of attorney were duly executed, and as I understand, left with the Bank of Montreal at Halifax.
I am sorry I cannot avail myself of some papers which I have in my possession in relation to this matter, but unfortunately I cannot put my hands upon them at the moment. The fact that these wages were not paid promptly by some officials of the Railway Department caused a great deal of want on the part of the families of the men who were in the Government service at Hudson bay, and to whose families the Government had promised promptly to pay these men's wages. It is hardly worth while my detailing to the ex-minister the vast amount of suffering that this has brought about. Families were actually broken up at Halifax on this account. I know of a case where one family was left without a home, and in other cases public subscriptions had to be taken up to keep the families of some of these men from actual want. One case of delayed wages was called to my attention last summer by a friend of one of the interested parties, and I wired the Minister of Railways. The department took the matter up very promptly with some officials of the department at Winnipeg. Later on the money canne to the party on whose account I had communicated with the Minister of Railways, and I discovered that this matter had been absolutely neglected by everybody until the attention of the department had been called to it by me. I am not exaggerating the deprivation and the want that these delays 'brought about. This matter has been woefully and disgracefully neglected by somebody. I do not say it was the fault of the minister, but it was the fault of some one.
Further let me say this, in regard to the men engaged in the work at Port Nelson last season. A contract in writing was entered into between them and the Department of Railways, in which agreement the amount of wages which they were to receive was specifically stated. The men were dissatisfied with the conditions under which they were working and claimed-whether correctly or not I do not know-that the Department of Railways was violating its contract, and they still so claim. Many of them left Port Nelson and returned to their homes in Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and elsewhere. A large number of them later on associated themselves together
in order to press their claims against the Department of Railways for moneys which they said were improperly retained by the department, and their claims were put into the hands of a solicitor for prosecution against the Department of Railways. It was necessary for them to proceed by petition of right and to receive a fiat from the Department of Justice. The petition asking for leave to commence action has been before the Department of Justice now for many months, and I understand that the solicitor for the applicants has yet received no satisfactory Teply from the Department of Justice or from the Department of Railways. I have been advised' by the Minister of Railways himself that the delay is due to the Department of Railways, he giving the reason that he wanted some direct and positive information which he could obtain only from some of his officers at Port Nelson, and that he was awaiting that information. That may be a very good reason or it may not; I do not know; but what I want to ask the acting Minister of Railways to do is this, that he take a little interest in the matter andjook into it promptly and seriously; or if he does not propose doing so, that he call the attention of the Minister of Railways, who, I understand, has resumed his duties, to this matter. I want to assure the minister and the acting minister that, although it may appear a trivial and inconsequential matter to the department and departmental officers, yet it is quite a serious matter and one of much consequence to the parties interested. I am willing now to leave the matter in the hands of the minister, if I can have, not the ordinary perfunctory promise that he will take it into consideration, but his promise that he will direct that some person in his department will take the matter up in a businesslike and expeditious way and dispose of it one way or the other.


Mr. McCURDY:: I would like to bring
to the attention of the minister a case which has to do with the hiring of the men at Hudson bay, but which is somewhat dissimilar to that stated by my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean). A number of workmen, who were engaged under contract to work at Hudson bay for a. year, accordingly went there and began work. I understand there was some difference between the labourers and officials in charge of the Government work as to the

[DOT]duties which the workmen were to perform, and as a consequence a large number of the men quit work and asked to be sent home.
One case in particular of which I have heard was that of a man who was engaged as engineer, and who claims that, when this difference among the men developed, he was along with them ordered to be sent home. He did not object so strongly to that; but he found, when he came to get his pay, that he was docked $100 for his passage from Hudson bay to Halifax. Representations were immediately made to the department to have that amount of money refunded. Had he refused to work at Hudson bay, he says he would have no complaint and would not expect to have his passage money refunded; hut under the [DOT]circumstances, not having been consulted as to whether or not he was to continue to work, but having been told by the officials to pack up and go home, he claims he has a right to this $109. I have brought the matter to the attention of the department; I can quite understand, in view of the fact that the department is in touch with Hudson bay only by wireless, that such matters in the rush may be left over, but I would ask that this matter which is, as the hon. member for Halifax has said, a serious matter to la/bouring men, should receive attention as early as possible. It is simply a matter of fact to determine whether his story is correct or not, and I think the representation that this matter be investigated . and an early decision be arrived at is most reasonable and should have immediate attention.


John Dowsley Reid: I am glad the hon. members have brought this matter up. As I understand it, a written contract was entered into between these men to go to Port Nelson, and they went there on certain terms. These men returned after having been there for a very short time, and the result was that the' steamer by which they returned made a charge to the Government for the return fares of these men. The department, having a contract with these men and being without any information from Port Nelson, felt that they had violated that contract, and therefore $100 was retained from each of their wages towards the payment of their return fares. Representations were made to the department and came before me from the men at this end that the fault was not theirs, as has been mentioned by both hon. members who have spoken on this matter. But

it has been impossible for me to get any information from Nelson-for the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Cochrane) to get such information, for the matter was brought before him, of course, prior to his leaving his office. The wireless was not working until late in the winter, and since that time I have been trying to get some further information in order so that we might decide how these claims should be disposed of. But we will have that information at the earliest possible moment, and if the fault is in any way that of the officials of the department, the claims certainly will be paid. On the other hand, if the men refused to carry out their contracts, it is hardly fair that the Government should be expected not only to pay for their time and expenses but also all tlieir claims. The matter has not been delayed in any way by the department or by the Minister of Railways and Canals.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Why not give
these men the right to bring an action against the department if they want to?


John Dowsley Reid: The only reason, I suppose, why they should be held for a little time is that, if we could get the information and if it were to turn out that the claims were good-that the fault was with the department-the matter could be settled without going to the courts. On the other hand, if the claims did go to the courts, we should need evidence from Nelson, and so it would be almost impossible to get the claims through the courts at an earlier time than within the next month or two. I am in hopes that we can get the information that wiil enable us to settle this matter without going to the courts.
Mr. MoKENZIsE: I have a somewhat similar line of complaint from men who were engaged by the Government in connection with the work at Hudson hay. The claim is that of four seamen of Montreal who happened to put the case in my hands in Sydney last fall. It is an easy matter for the Government to deprive a few poor men of money that is coming to them. If a sailor gets into trouble with an ordinary shipmaster, there is a certain line laid down by the law of the land for him to follow in order to get his money. But the Government can shelter itself behind its ability to refuse the seamen the opportunity of suing. For that reason more care should be taken on the part of the department, I should say, to maintain true relations between themselves and their

employees in matters of this nature, that the country and representatives of the minister may not take undue advantage of the disabilities of seamen.
The case which I wish to present to the minister is not that of foreign seamen, although foreign seamen would have just the same rights as natives of Canada. These men, at least some of them, were bom and bred in the city of Montreal, and gentlemen in this House must know them, because they have given to me the name of the wards in the city of Montreal where they live, and some of them gave me the names of the members who represent their wards in this House. I therefore bring the case to the notice of the minister, with the hope that some remedies will be granted to these men.
In the first place, I would point out that there is a difference between the means by which the Government employs seamen and that by which the ordinary masters employ them. When men are employed by the Government there is a certain course to be followed, a certain book known as the Government shipping book, in which the names of these men are entered. They are not to go through the form of signing articles, as they do in joining to an ordinary ship. But, in the case of the official of the department who engaged these men, he did not choose to follow that course. The ship had no book, as is provided for in chapter 111 of the Revised Statutes-chapter 113 is the Shipping Act which provides the mode under which seamen are ordinarily engaged. These men were employed to all intents and purposes under the ordinary articles. I have copies of the articles which they signed, the ordinary, every-day shipping articles. These men were hired by a gentleman by the name of Jones, who was master of the vessel, the Port Nelson. These men signed in the ordinary way and first joined the ship at $2 a day, with the understanding that they should be paid their fares back to the city of Montreal if the master should not take them north. When they got to the port of North Sydney, he found that he could not get other seamen, and made a further agreement with them to take them to Hudson bay at $2 a day. After they had been under that agreement for a couple of days, but before the ship left, the master discovered that he could get other men who probably suited him better, and he immediately discharged these poor men. When they asked him to pay 282
their way back to Montreal according to his agreement, he refused to do so. There was nothing left for these men to do but to bring action. They brought action in a competent court in the town of North Sydney, and after hearing the captain and the men, under the ordinary shipping agreement the court gave judgment in favour of the men for a certain amount of money-I think it was $76. What did the captain, do? The ordinary captain, I think, would have communicated with the Government and found what was to be done. The ordinary master of a privately-owned vessel would have communicated with the owners and found out whether he was authorized to pay the men or not. But this gentleman who represents this Government took these poor men and put them in jail on some pretext, saying they were trying to desert. And while they were in jail, without a trial, he put out of port, got up steam on his craft and started for Hudson bay, leaving the poor men in jail. After they had been in jail over Sunday [DOT]-for he had cleared out on Sunday-these men were brought before a stipendiary magistrate, Mr. Archibald, a very eminent gentleman, a K.C., and a gentleman who knows his business well, when the men came before him, he found that there was nobody to sustain the charge, so there was nothing left for him to do but discharge them. Then they were left wandering about until they got another position. But they were without their money and they are without it to-day so far as the Government is concerned. What did the Government do in the matter? They never inquired into the facts, so far as I know, as to whether these men had carried out their part of the arrangement and whether they had done the work they were engaged to do or not. The Government simply took advantage of the fact that the men were in the service of the Government and should have been engaged under chapter 111 of the Revised Statutes instead of being hired under chapter 113. They certioraried the case and took it up to Halifax, and the judge there held, merely on the technical point, that the men were really in the employ of the Government and should have been hired under chapter 111, and decided that the court had no jurisdiction. As to that decision the judge did not go into the merits. But the judge held, upon facts, that these men had earned their money, that they had not been paid, and should be paid. What I want to point out is that while technically they



should have been hired in under chapter 111, as I have said, they were hired in the other way. It was not their fault. They were not aware that there was any difficulty about it; there was no course open to them except the course they followed. They went into court and got judgment, and that judgment is still outstanding. This Captain Jones who had put these men in jail and left them there, came back after a while, and it wias supposed that there would be some remedy when he got to North Sydney and that the men would be paid. But this distinguished gentleman, the most respectable officer, from the time he came to North Sydney, wa3 in hiding somewhere so that the men could not do anything with him, and so these poor sailors were obliged to leave the country.
Now, the- minister may say: Captain Jones says one thing 'and the men another, and we have the right to believe Captain Jones. But I would submit that there is not much conflict as to the facts between the men and the captain-hardly any at all. They say they were to be paid their way hack to Montreal; the captain says they were not.
It is admitted in evidence by the captain that two others who were in the same crew had their way paid back to Montreal. There were six. He paid the way of two back to Montreal, but refused to pay the way of the other four, and they were stranded. The captain says in his sworn testimony, which I have here, that he paid the way of two of these men and that he would have paid the way of the other men, hut that they were not as good men as he thought they ougt to be. That is a question of opinion between the men and the captain; but here is the evidence that they performed the services and were not paid. There is the further consideration that he engaged those men to go to Hudson bay. A copy of the agreement is here, which was signed by the captain and the four men. They were four days in the vessel waiting to start out, but on the expiry of the four days he dismissed them without the slightest reason, except that he had got the other men that he was looking for. I do not know whether the minister is familiar with the Shipping Act, but it contains a provision governing dealings with sailors which says that if you hire a seaman and discharge him before he has been a month on the vessel he is entitled to a month's pay. These men were taken on and hired to go to Hudson bay. They were aboard the vessel for four days, ready

to go out; but before the ship started they were told that they were discharged. In any case, under our Shipping Act, they would be entitled to a month's pay. I submit that they are entitled to no less favourable treatment from the Government than they would have received from an ordinary shipowner. This being a question of fact, and the minister having had no opportunity of hearing the facts from the parties, I shall have to read to him briefly after eight o'clock the testimony of the captain taken under oath and the testimony of the men, with the hope that I shall make such a case before him as will enable him to see his way clear to pay these men. They are not like men who have gone beyond jurisdiction, they are still in this country.
At six o'clock the House resumed, and then took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee on Bill No. 186, respecting the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Company, and to ratify and confirm its purchase of a portion of the property of the Carillon and Grenville Railway Company.-Mr. Gnilbault. Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Frank Oliver: Vvhat is the object of this Bill?


Mr. S. SHARPE:: They are merely
asking for an extension of time. The particulars are set out in the Bill.


Frank Oliver: Nothing more than an
extension of time?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: No.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee on Bill No. 80, respecting the Canadian Northern Railway Company.-Mr. W. H. Sharpe. Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
On section 1-ratification of agreements:
Frank Oliver: What is this?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: This Bill provides for the confirmation of an agreement between the Mount Royal Tunnel and Terminal Company, Limited, which is constructing

terminals and three other companies. The agreement has been confirmed by the Governor in Council upon the recommendation of the board.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee on Bill No. 187, respecting the North Shore Power, Railway and Navigation Company, and to change its name to Gulf Pulp and Paper Company.- Mr. Fripp. Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
' On section 1-name changed:
William Pugsley: The word ' Limited ' is not used in connection with this company, I see.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: This company,
which was originally incorporated by a private Bill, carries on business in Quebec and employs about 800 men. They wish to extend their operations outside of Quebec.


William Pugsley: Although railway companies never use the word ' Limited ' after their names, limited liability commercial companies always do, and as the name of this railway company is being changed to the Gulf Pulp and Paper Company, the word ' Limited ' should be added in accordance with universal custom. Under the Joint Stock Act the word ' Limited ' must be added to the names of all commercial companies, and so particular is Parliament that it requires that they shall use the word in all thedr advertisements and signs so that the public will know that they are limited liability companies. I think my hon. friend will see that it is desirable that the word ' Limited ' shall be added.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I do not see any objection to that.


Mr. MACDONELL:: The hon. gentleman's objection is sound provided a company is incorporated by letters patent under a general Act. Then, as the hon. gentleman said, it is necessary to give notice to the public by using the word ' Limited.' But this company was incorporated by Act of Parliament, and there is no more need for using the word * Limited ' in this case than in the case of a railway or other great undertaking. This Bill was dealt with thoroughly toy the committee and it was also before the Senate Committee and 2821
no objection was made; in fact, the Bill went through the committee unanimously. If we make any change now it will probably involve laying it over till next session, as there is hardly time to have any amendments agreed to by the Senate. I have never heard the objection taken before in this House that the word ' Limited ' should be affixed to the name of a company incorporated by Act of Parliament. The hon. gentleman is quire correct in saying that a limited liability company must use the word ' Limited ' in its name if it is incorporated under any general Act. The same may be said about the companies incorporated by the legislatures in the various provinces. I know of no case where the word ' Limited ' is used. It is used as an affix to the name of any company incorporated under the general Act by letters patent.


William Pugsley: Can my hon. friend point out any Act which has been passed in recent years incorporating a commercial or manufacturing company without having the word ' limited ' added? There is the same reason for adding the word ' limited ' where the incorporation is by Act of Parliament as where it is by letters patent. This is a company which might have been incorporated, leaving out the railway part of it, by letters patent. They chose to drop all the provisions of the Bill as far as the railway part of it is concerned and they come and ask Parliament to change their name and define their powers, which are simply those of a manufacturing and trading company. The powers which they ask could have been conferred equally well under the Joint Stock Companies Act. If there is any reason for requiring companies incorporated under that Act to have the word * limited ' after the name, the same reason applies if they choose to disregard the provisions of the Companies Act and come to Parliament for incorporation. I do not think my hon. friend can find any case in recent years of Parliament incorporating a manufacturing or commercial company with that word left out. I recognize that an amendment would have to receive one or two days' notice, but with the unanimous consent of the committee the change which I suggest might be made. My hon. friend (Mr. S. Sharpe) is the chairman of the committee, and I would like to hear his opinion with regard to that.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I was not present when this Bill was considered by the com-

mittee, but I understand that the president and general manager of the company were present and desired the name that is in the Bill. I think my hon. friend is in error when he says that no private companies have been incorporated without the word ' limited ' being put after their names.


William Pugsley: I said private companies for manufacturing or commercial, purposes.


William Henry Sharpe: I think the St. Lawrence Power Company was incorporated without the word ' limited ' and trust and loans companies have been incorporated without the word ' limited.' Perhaps the hon. gentleman will defer to the wishes of the company and leave the name as it is?


William Pugsley: The Prudential Trust
Company of Montreal is the Prudential Trust Company, Limited. I think all the trust companies have the word ' limited ' after their names.


William Henry Sharpe: Some of them have not.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I was present in
the committee when the Bill was passed and temporarily acted as chairman in the absence of the chairman and that is why I rose to my feet a moment ago. The president and solicitor of the company were both present. As a matter of fact, the Bill was discussed at very great length on two occasions. The Bill was left over from one meeting to another to consider the question of adding restrictions as to the right of the company to act as a power company. There were no restrictions as to these rights and on the second occasion that the Bill was discussed the company accepted the suggestion of the committee and consented to the addition of the *clause that is now practically considered as a general clause in incorporations of this kind. The matter was very fully discussed and no question was raised about the word ' limited.'


William Pugsley: I suppose it did not come up at all?	.


Angus Claude Macdonell: My hon. friend is
quite right, it did not come up at all. The name of the company is an unusual one, which is not likely to be confused with the name of any other company-the Gulf Pulp and Paper Company. It is doing business under this name in the province of Quebec. Amongst all the loan companies incorporated by this Parliament, I

have not in my mind at the present moment any case where the word 'limited' was used. I have seen many loan companies incorporated in the last ten years, and I can recall no company with the word 'limited' affixed to the name. Nor can I recall a similar use of the word 'limited' in the case of the incorporation of any trading company. I think it would be unfortunate if this Bill were thrown out, because the president of the company, who was before the committee, stated that he had an investment of $5,000,000, and that for five months in the year operations were held up because of their not being able to -make shipments after the close of navigation. II feel that it would entail a great hardship and loss to this company if this Bill were not put through this session.


Mr. BRISTOL:: I really cannot see why we should bother about the matter, for the reason that the word 'limited' was put in the Joint Stock Companies Act for the protection of the shareholders, to notify the world at large that there was no personal liability on the part of the shareholder. If the contention of my hon. friend is right that the word 'limited' is going to protect the shareholders of this company, the insertion of that word is not going to give the country as much protection as if the word were left out. If it is left out the creditors of the company will have personal recourse against the shareholders.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend is
entirely in erroT as to my position. If Parliament incorporates a trading company without the word 'limited,' as is the case with this company, it does not extend the liability of the shareholders at all. But the trouble is that people, knowing that in the catse of limited liability companies the word ' limited ' is usually required to be added by Act of Parliament, and seeing a company advertising without the word 'limited,' have the right to assume that it *is a company without any limit as to the liability of the shareholders, and it is for the protection of the shareholders that Parliament has required the word ' limited ' to be added. If my hon. friend the chairman (Mr. S. M. Sharpe), and the acting chairman (Mr. Macdonell), on consideration, and knowing that the question was not raised in the committee, ask this committee to pass this Bill in this unusual form, >and to pass it contrary to what has

been the practice of this Parliament, I have nothing further to say.
iMr. BRISTOL: The hon. gentleman has been making the assertion that this is an unusual form, but if my hon. friend will turn up the Acts of Incorporation passed by Parliament, he will find that this form is quite a usual one.


John Dowsley Reid: I have the statutes before me, and I see the E. B. Eddy Company and the Grand Falls Water Power and Boom Companies without the word ' limited.'


William Pugsley: Can the hon. gentleman find a case in which a trading or manufacturing company was incorporated in recent years without the word 'limited'?


John Dowsley Reid: The Eddy Company.


Mr. STEVENS:: In one case we changed a name containing the word ' limited ' to a name without the word ' limited.' The Eastern Canada Savings and Loan Company, Limited, had its name changed to the Eastern Canada Savings and Loan Company without the word ' limited '; an Act respecting the Imperial Life Insurance Company was passed without the word ' limited '; an Act respecting the British Trust Company without the word ' limited,' and there are many others which have been passed by this House.


William Pugsley: Then, I suppose we had better change the Joint Stock Companies Act?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Many companies come to Parliament for the purpose of getting a title without the word ' limited ' attached to it.


William Pugsley: That is a surprise to me.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 197, for the relief of Robert Markle Richardson.-Mr. T. J. Stewart.
Bill No. 199, for the relief of Florence Merritt.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 203, for the relief of Gustav Oscar Lindquist.-Mr. W. M. Martin.
Bill No. 208, for the relief of Margaret Van Dusen.-Mr. Schaffner.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the further consideration of amendments made byi the Senate to Bill No. 97, to incorporate the Labrador, Quebec, and Southern Railway Company.-Mr. Fripp.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Senate amendments have 'been reported by the Railway Committee, with the recommendation that the first amendment be not agreed to, because it appears to tacitly admit that Newfoundland has rights along the Labrador coast, which it is not desirable for this Parliament to admit; and that the second amendment be agreed to in the following consequential amendment: substitute the Quebec Railway, Light and Power Company for the Quebec Railway, Light, Heat and Power Company.


John Dowsley Reid: When this Bill was before the House exception was taken to it by the Prime Minister, the right hon. the leader of the Opposition, and the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), that its passage as worded might raise some doubt on the questions before the courts as to the respective rights of Canada and Newfoundland in Labrador. The Senate amended the Bill, by saying that the works of the company are declared to be for the general advantage of Canada, and the Railway Committee having reported on the amendments, I beg to move:
That order No. 58 be discharged, and that the said Bill be withdrawn and the fees paid thereon be refunded.
Section 8 of the Bill reads as follows:
The company may lay out, construct and operate a railway of the gauge of four feet eight and one-half inches from a point on the boundary between the province of Quebec and Labrador, west of Cape St. Charles.
We hold that the whole of the territory covered by the Bill is in the province of Quebec and therefore within the Dominion. The Bill would seem to assume that it is between Quebec and Labrador as part of Newfoundland.


William Pugsley: Does the hon.. gentleman deny that there is a strip of land on the coast belonging to Newfoundland?


John Dowsley Reid: I am not in a position either to deny or to admit. The matter is now before the courts, and under the circumstances, if this House declares by this Bill that Newfoundland has rights therte, it might interfere with the decision of the courts.


William Pugsley: Has anybody ever denied that Newfoundland has a strip of land on the coast?


John Dowsley Reid: As I understand it, Newfoundland is at present giving rights or leases to cut timber far into the province of Quebec.


William Pugsley: Of course, I understand there is a dispute as to the boundary.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. C. MACDONELL (South Toronto) moved second reading of Bill No. 202, respecting the Grand Council of the Catholic Mutual Benefit Association of Canada.
Mr. CARROLL:: Explain.


Angus Claude Macdonell: This Bill is intended practically to save the life of this insurance company and to put it on a basis on which it can continue to do insurance business. At the present time I understand the company has not the required reserve; and unless it gets legislation that will enable it to increase its rates, I understand the insurance department intend to discontinue the granting of a license to it. This legislation is similar to that obtained last session by the Imperial Order of Foresters. The Bill will be fully discussed in committee.


William F. Carroll: I have had numerous letters from secretaries and presidents of the local divisions of the Catholic Mutual Benefit Association in my constituency, objecting to an increase of premiums for the old members of the institution. I presume that the Bill will be discussed in committee, but I wish to bring the attention of the promoter to the fact that it is meeting with very great opposition amongst the old members in my part of the country. If the Department of Finance thinks it is necessary for the life of this institution to increase the premiums on those who became members previous to 1907, it will be necessary, of course, to do so, but I wish to put on record the protests I have received from various divisions of the Catholic Mutual Benefit Association in my constituency of South Cape Breton and in other parts of Nova Scotia.


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

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 210, for the relief of Frederick Dwight Chesley.-Mr. Baker.

Bill No. 211, respecting a certain Patent of Frederick Sinclair Corrigan.-Mr. Mac-donell.
Bill 212, to incorporate the Title Insurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Baker.
.Second Reading of Bill No. 209, respecting certain patents of F. W. Burt Company, Limited.-Mr. Macdonell.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Hudson Bay railway-construction of railway terminals and elevators, $4,500,000.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: When the committee
rose at six o'clock I was presenting the case of certain seamen to the minister. I am aware that it is tedious to be taking up the time of the committee; but it seems to be a responsibility that I must discharge, because these poor men, who cannot come here themselves, have placed their case in my hands, and I have no other place to go with it than to the minister. After I have presented the facts to the minister, the responsibility is his and not mine. If these men are not paid, that will be for the minister and the department; but if I do not put the facts before the minister, it will be my responsibility so far as these men are concerned.
Shortly before six o'clock I was pointing out to'the minister that the decisions which these men obtained in the court at North Sydney were set aside on a certiorari by one of the judges of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia on a technicality, namely, that these men, while they were in the service of the Government on this dredge, came within the provisions of chapter 111 of the Revised Statutes of Canada. Section 3 of this chapter reads as follows:
Every vessel employed by the Government of Canada, either temporarily or permanently, shall be deemed to belong-, while so employed, to the Government of Canada for the purposes of this Act.
This vessel, the Port Nelson, was not, I believe, the property of the Government, but at the time these men were aboard her she was temporarily in the service of the Government and for the purposes under discussion was the same as a government-owned vessel. The next section says:
The master of every vessel belonging to the Government of Canada shall cause every person engaged for service in such vessel, after having had this Act read to him, and before he enters upon the discharge of any duty on board of such vessel, to sign his name in the

proper column of a book to be kept by the master for that purpose.
That book, under this statute, takes the place of the articles. These men were not signed under the provisions of chapter 111, but under ordinary seamen's articles of which I have a copy and which are referred to under chapter 113 of the Revised Statutes, the Shipping Act. When a difficulty arose about the wages of these men, of course they proceeded in the courts under the provisions of chapter 113. Now, if these men had been hired under chapter 111, the Government might well say that the men had no recourse against the Government in the courts. But the Government themselves having waived the provision of chapter 111 and having entered into agreement with the men under chapter 113, I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, the men must have their remedy under the law under which they were hired, and it was not open to the Government to deny them that right. It is a well-known principle of law which should be binding between the Government and another party that you cannot approbrate and reprobate-that is, you cannot accept that part of the agreement which suits you and deny the part which provides a remedy against it. It was under these conditions that these men had to support their rights in a court of law. There are four affidavits here, all pretty much the same. I am obliged to read two of them.


John Dowsley Reid: Put them on ' Hansard.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am not permitted to do that under the rules of the House, except by common consent. If it is agreed to, I will certainly-


John Dowsley Reid: I think the House will consent.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have certainly no
desire to take up time in reading them. If they are not put on ' Hansard,' if the minister will read them, my purpose' will be accomplished.


John Dowsley Reid: I shall be glad to read them, but I have no doubt they will be put on ' Hansard' with the consent of the House.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Then, I shall be glad to hand these affidavits in. (Affidavits filed with the Clerk of the He use). One thing I wish to point out to the minister. It may Ibe said: Why did these .men go to the courts? Well, of all people on earth, the Government should be bound by the laws enacted by Parliament. Seamen are told by the laws of this country that they must go
a certain way to collect wages that are denied them. Section 187 of the Shipping Act shows that way, and section 188 contains a provision which I particularly wish the minister to note:
Any order for the payment of wages made under the provisions of this section shall be final.
This court, this stipendiary magistrate for the county of Cape Breton, had authority to try that case if these men were engaged under seamen's articles. And that magistrate's decision, under the law, is final. But it was taken by the Government under certiorari, and the court, on a technical point, as I have said, held that the magistrate had no jurisdiction. The principal of estoppel comes in here-and I am speaking in the presence of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty)-and should have been invoked on behalf of these men. The Government waived their rights in hiring these men and hired them under seamen's articles, and when the time came for these men to claim their rights under these articles the time was passed when the Government could claim the exemption which in the first place they might have insisted upon. They should have been stopped and the point raised that they could not blow hot and Iblow cold at the same time. The Government are not bound to go into articles, but having gone into them they must stand by what they have done.
I	am glad to shorten the time by not reading these affidavits. I have put the case of these men as completely as I can. One point I wish to bring to the attention of the Minister of Justice especially, and that is that one of these men is evidently a constituent of his, and so he will understand that while I am presenting this case it should be in abler hands. This Mr. Murphy, who makes the affidavit, says he was, born at Point St. Charles, Montreal, and I understand that that is in the constituency of the Minister of Justice-St. Anne's division. This Mr. Murphy [belongs there; his home is there now. He and these other men were sent to me in North Sydney; I did not go to seek them. As they have come to me, I am bound to take their case as far as I can.


John Howard Sinclair: What did the captain
do?
Mr. McKENZIE He refused to pay them, taking shelter under the fact that he was a government employee. He put them in jail and cleared out for the North, leaving

them in jail. Then, when he came back, he kept ahide. I do not think it was a very dignified spectacle to see a gentleman representing the Government of the country hiding behind barns and outhouses, keeping away from a few seamen who had a claim against him. There is a Montreal man, Mr. Parent, whose wages are looked for here as well as those of Mr. Murphy. Mr. Parent says:
I belong to Montreal; X was born at Grand Island, below the city of Montreal.
The other gentlemen live in Montreal but are English by birth. I submit that when the acting Minister of Railways goes through the evidence, while he will find some slight contradiction between the men and the captain, he will find that the second agreement written on the back of the articles here carries out everything that the men say as to the agreement that was made in Montreal. Before concluding, I wish to read a letter which I received the other day from one of these men:
Quebec, May 16, 1914.
Dear Sir,-Just a line to tell you that I got in here on the ss. Calgarian Friday. Would be very pleased if you would write and let me know how you got on with the case. I cannot tell you where the other three are because I have not heard from them for four months. I will he pleased to hear from you next week. Please write me care of secretary of Catholic Seamen's Club.
I remain.
(Sgd) Daniel Murphy.
That is the same Daniel Murphy whose affidavit I read, who belongs to St. Anne's division in the city of Montreal and whose people must be well known to those who are familiar with that city. I trust that the case will be considered and that these men will be found out, wherever they are, and their money paid to them.


John Dowsley Reid: I shall he very glad indeed to look into this matter; in fact I shall see that the affidavits and the remarks made by the hon. member are placed before the Minister of Railways himself, who will look into the matter thoroughly. I made a little inquiry into this matter on hearing from the hon. member with reference to it. My information was something to the effect that these men whom they arrived at Sydney were paid off and they did get in some trouble with the captain and were arrested. They were released and I think sailed on another steamer, the Aldershot, within a day or two for England. They did not return to Montreal. I have a letteT of ex-

planation with reference to this matter from Mr. Bonham, of Montreal, who engaged these men. With reference to the suit that was taken by these men in which the hon. member acted for the men, as I understand it was -taken without the knowledge of the Department of Railways and Canals. It is -a well understood fact that in all oases against the Government a fiat must first be obtained from the Government or some notice given to the Crown.
'Mr. McKENZIE: We had no knowledge until the trial that the Government was in this at all; these are the ordinary seamen's articles between the captain and his men.


John Dowsley Reid: As soon as the suit was over and it came before the department, the deputy minister, Mr. Campbell, telephoned to Mr. P. C. Bonham of Montreal, and his letter in reply reads as follows:
Montreal, Canada, Sept. 15, 1913. Mr. A. W. Campbell,
Deputy Minister, Railways and Canals, Ottawa, Ont.
Re dredge Port Nelson.
Dear Sir,-Referring to your telephone conversation of Saturday, and replying to your request re conditions on which crew were engaged on dredge Port Nelson from Montreal to Sydney.
Crew were signed on by customs officer for trip from Montreal to Sydney with no reference in articles being made for return fare to Montreal and upon arrival at Sydney crew were mustered on deck and introduced to Captain Saunders who was then taking charge. Crew were then asked how many were willing to proceed to Port Nelson, as before leaving Montreal we made verbal agreement with crew that if Captain Saunders did not have crew at Sydney and he was satisfied with crew I had shipped they would he given an opportunity to proceed to Port Nelson, and upon being asked by Captain Saunders, all hut three volunteered to complete voyage and Captain Saunders framed up a new agreement allowing men the same rate of wages as paid from Montreal to Sydney with return fare from Port Nelson, and under full pay until arrival at port of shipping. All crew willing to proceed then signed articles as per new agreement. Crew then asked for advance of wages from Montreal to Sydney and on the afternoon of September 2 we advanced men from $2 to $10 each, men claiming they required this money to provide themselves with necessary outfit to complete voyage. On the morning of September 3, it was found that a number of crew were not in condition to go to work and Captain Saunders then came to the conclusion that men were not a fit crew and he requested me to pay all crew up to date of September 4, which I did and at same time had all crew sign off on articles, which we consider released owners of any further responsibility on part of crew. All crew signed off in presence of Captain Jones, and at time of signing not one man made any statement or asked for return fare to Montreal, and we

were surprised to learn just before leaving Sydney that some of crew had placed the matter in the hands of attorney, asking for wages and fare and we cannot understand why judgment should be given after crew signed off on articles as they did on September 4.
We left articles in possession of Captain Saunders and we presume same are still on dredge. When hiring crew at Montreal we made verbal agreement with two men for their return fare to Montreal, but same did not appear on articles, but fare was paid them at Sydney for their return passage.
Trusting this will be satisfactory.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd P. C. Bonham.
That is the only information we have in the department. However, I have given instructions to the deputy minister to go carefully into this whole matter and try to get at the bottom of the whole
9	p.m. case in order that the Minister of Railways and Canals may look further into it and come to a conclusion as to what should be done..
It was understood that the Minister of Justice was to go on with his Estimates this evening and I would therefore like to let him proceed. If any further discussion of this item is desired, I shall be willing to let it stand.
Mr: PUGSLEY:	The minister was to
give me some information with respect to the National Transcontinental railway.


John Dowsley Reid: I was not able to get that information.


William Pugsley: I am sorry that it was not stated before six o'clock that the Estimates of the Railway Department would not be gone on with this evening. I gave up several engagements in order to be present here.


John Dowsley Reid: I am awfully sorry, but I could not get the information. The chairman of the commission is away from the city and it was late so that I could not get the correspondence. Of course I shall not ask to have the item passed, if the hon. member wishes it to stand, until I get the information asked for.


William Pugsley: The members of the
House who are particularly interested in the Railway Estimates made a point of being present to-night and certainly until shortly before six o'clock it was clearly understood that the Railway Estimates would be continued.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not wish it to appear that I am not anxious to go on with them.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman
says it was understood that the Estimates
of the Minister of Justice were to go on. I question that statement, because we did not so understand.
Mr. BOIV1N: Probably it was understood on the other side of the House.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I wish to bring up a matter of great importance to the constituency of Northumberland, and that is what the Government is doing in regard to removing the rails from that portion of the Intercolonial from Chatham Junction to Blackville. My hon. friend will know what I refer to. The matter was discussed in this House about a year ago, and we found that they had actually started in to move the rails when there was a hitch of some kind. It is a cruel thing to take a railway away from 1,400 people. It means that they will be practically deprived of their means of livelihood. I have a letter here from a Mr. Coughlan-I do not know him-who tells me that the people along the line of railway will simply have to abandon their farms and make a living in some other part of the world. The road has been there for 30 or 40 years, and industries and the business of the country have grown up around it, and now this department is actually taking up the rails and depriving those people of their means of transportation.


John Dowsley Reid: I think what the hon. gentleman refers to is a line of railway about 20 miles long, if I remember correctly.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: From Chatham Junction to Blackville, in the county of Northumberland.


John Dowsley Reid: Two branches of the Intercolonial run parallel to each other on different sides of the river at that place. The bridges on the railway my hon. friend has referred to became dilapidated, and, rather than spend the large amount that would have been necessary to repair them, the Minister of Railways decided to take up the rails on a portion of the road, as there was no necessity for two railways running alongside each other. Bridges are now being built across the river, or it is intended to build them; so the people on both sides of the river will have railway facilities for the whole distance. The rails have not been taken up in the more settled portion of the district. I do not know what the intention of the minister is. The hon. member for Northumberland, who was down there lately, probably knows the situation better than I do.


Mr. LOGGIE:: This matter was brought
up in the House last year, and on that occasion the Minister of Railways said that he had not decided to remove the rails and that nothing would toe done in that regard before the matter had been given the very fullest consideration. Very shortly afterwards the minister went over that line and decided, as I understand it, to go on with the removal of the rails. Last year I protested on behalf of the people who live along that portion of the road from which it is proposed to remove the rails and for this reason: That portion of the road had received aid from the local Government, and the people along that line had enjoyed transportation facilities for some forty years. While it is true that the local traffic was not very large, there were some considerable lumbering interests in that district and there was also a mill near the line of railway. Last year, I drew the attention of the Minister of Railways to the fact that the Hon. John P. Burchdll, of Nelson, owned a large tract of land there, and wished to cut the timber in proximity to the line so that he could haul the manufactured article to a shipping point.


John Dowsley Reid: Is it not true that there is
only one mill on that railway and that the rails still go up to that mill? If there is anything to bring and the railway can fetch it.


William Stewart Loggie: I think that is true
enough, but that cannot toe done if the rails are taken up as I understand they are going to be.


John Dowsley Reid: I think the hon. gentleman is only imagining trouble. It is time enough to complain when the rails are taken up.


William Stewart Loggie: I am not imagining
trouble. Will the minister say that the rails between Chatham Junction and what is known as the Maloney mill will not be taken up?


John Dowsley Reid: Is it not true that that mill manufactures only for local purposes, and that it does not ship probably more than one car a month?


William Stewart Loggie: That is not correct. They ship a great many carloads, and last year nearly all their business was done in Ontario and Quebec markets.


John Dowsley Reid: Do they ship it over this
road?


William Stewart Loggie: To a great extent. It is true the Intercolonial railway did run in an engine to bring those cars out, but the dis-

tance is about five or eight miles and it could hardly toe expected that they would keep eight miles of track in repair to draw the product of one saw-mill. The Hon. John P. Burchill through myself, pleaded with the minister not to take up the rails between Blackville and the timber limits I have referred to, because of his interests in the way of timber limits in that locality. The timber is hardwood which, as the minister knows, is difficult to float to a point where it can be sawn into boards. But it is not altogether on that point that I wish to protest. The point I wish to make is that 140 families who have enjoyed for some forty years the privilege of a railroad constructed to some extent toy the public moneys of the country, are to be deprived of their means of transportation. The Government have bought the road at a low price and say that there is no necessity of operating lines on both sides of the river. Is it fair to the people who live on the other side of the river, and who have had these railway services for the last thirty or forty years? The minister talks of the possibility of connecting the other side of the river by bridges. That was mentioned last year, and the minister told us that it was the part of the local government to provide bridges to connect with the railway on the north side of the river. That is absolutely true, but if rails are to be taken up I do ask the minister to make provision for a bridge to connect the two sides of the river. People living along that river are practically without any facilities. The bridge over the Barnaiby river was carried away about one year ago. This bridge over the Barnaby river, that the local government are supposed to keep in repair, has not yet -been rebuilt. There was also a bridge some five or six miles down the river, but that, too, has gone.	It is impossible foT the residents on the south .side of the river to maintain communication, except by canoes, with the other side of the river where the railway is being operated. I protest in the name of the people who have enjoyed these privileges for thirty or forty years. I ask the minister again to reconsider the matter and see if anything can be done to meet the views of the people. I am sure the minister has had this matter presented to him in a strongly and numerously signed petition. The case is quite familiar to the minister, if not to the acting minister, and I know it is to the deputy minister.


John Howard Sinclair: Are they all Grits on that side of the river?


William Stewart Loggie: I would expect that they would be all Grits next time if the rails are removed. There is a section through which that railway runs which cannot get any railway privileges because it is east of Chatham Junction and away from the river altogether. The people in that location, known as Reynolds, will have no railway facilities whatever. Quite large quantities of pulpwood are shipped from this region to the pulp mills that are located on the opposite side of the river. The people have a grievance, and they will resent very keenly when the opportunity is given them the removal of the rails that they have had the privilege of using for so many years. The minister ought not to go on with this matter without giving it his fullest consideration. I can do no more than draw his attention to it, and once more I protest in the name of the people living between Nelson and Blackville numbering about one hundred families.


John Dowsley Reid: The matter did come up last fall, but I do not think anything has been done of late. I do not know what condition the question is in at the present moment. I will bring it, together with the remarks which my hon. friend has made, to the attention of my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals. He knows about the matter much better than I do, and I will ask him to give it further consideration.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Do I understand that the acting Minister of Railways and Canals does not intend to proceed further with his Estimates?


John Dowsley Reid: I would like to let my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) go on this evening if it is agreeable to hon. gentlemen, because my hon. friend told me that he had arranged that he was to go on with his Estimates. I did not know it myself when I mentioned it this afternoon.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am in the position of my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley); I declined an engagement this evening in OTder to be here and I think there is every reason why the Minister of Railways and Canals should proceed with his Estimates instead of the Estimates of the Justice Department. The latter Estimates are not as a rule contentious, they are largely statutory and I do not think will engage a great deal of time. In view of the fact that we are approaching the conclusion of the session.
and having in mind the relative importance of the Estimates of these two departments, I think that the Minister of Railways and Canals should remain in Supply.


Mr. DOHERTY:: 
Mr. KYTE:: I desire to ask the hon. acting Minister of Railways and Canals if he has any further information to give me witn respect to the report that surveys are being made on a line between St. Peters and Sydney. The minister said yesterday that he was not aware that surveying was being done in that part of the country with a view to building a branch of the Intercolonial in that direction -but that he would give the information later on.


John Dowsley Reid: I have to get the information from Moncton and I have not received it ye-t. I do not know whether these surveys are being made by the Intercolonial; they are not surveys by the department.


George William Kyte: This is not along the line of the Intercolonial railway at all. There is a line of railway owned by the Cape Breton Railway Company operating between St. Peters and Point Tuppei. It is reported that negotiations are going on between the company and the Government with a view to purchasing that railway and, furthermore, that a corps of engineers is at present engaged by the department working on the location of a line of railway between St. Peters and Sydney. That is altogether separate from the Intercolonial.


John Dowsley Reid: That is a matter with reference to the revision of the grade. The deputy minister tells me that he sent the .question of the hon. gentleman to Moncton to get the information -but he has not yet got a Teply. I will have the information for the hon. gentleman before we get through the Estimates.


George William Kyte: I have been asking these
questions several days, and no information is forthcoming. I repeat that this survey, which it is said is being made, has nothing

to do with the Intercolonial. If they are making a survey it must be with the view of building a line from St. Peter's to Syd-k ney.


John Dowsley Reid: No independent survey has been authorized' by me since the 1st of February last, when I became acting minister. If there is any such survey it must be authorized by Moncton, and I will have to get the information from Moncton.


George William Kyte: Would the management of the Intercolonial undertake to survey for a new line without instructions from Ottawa?


John Dowsley Reid: The Intercolonial railway has several parties out, and they may be surveying to get different grades or for the purpose of constructing a piece of road in tne interest of the Intercolonial.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is what the hon. member (Mr. Kyte) wants to. know.


John Dowsley Reid: A letter has been sent to Moncton giving the full question of the hon. member, and we will get the information in good time.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Why not send a message by wire.


John Dowsley Reid: Surely the hon. member can wait for a few days.


George William Kyte: I have for several days been calling attention to this matter. The newspapers state day after day that the Intercolonial railway has undertaken to survey for a railway line in that part of my constituency, and I shall be pleased indeed to know that the Government has at last undertaken to build that extension of the Intercolonial.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman has answered his question: he says the newspapers state that the Intercolonial railway is making surveys in his county with a view to extend the Intercolonial.


George William Kyte: I want to know from the minister if that is correct.


John Dowsley Reid: If a survey party is there the management of the Intercolonial is no doubt looking over the routs; the hon. gentleman himself admits that.
Mr. KYTE.; I said that the Conservative newspapers, which are not very reliable, are reiterating the statement that Government engineers are surveying for this line of railway, and I ask the minister if he has given instructions for any such survey?


John Dowsley Reid: I have not given instructions, and neither has the deputy minister. I have inquired from Moncton.


George William Kyte: Will the minister be able to tell me to-morrow?


John Dowsley Reid: I will get the information as soon as I can.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: You can get the information by eleven o'clock to-morrow morning.


John Dowsley Reid: I will do the best I can.


George William Kyte: I wish now to ask the minister if the department has completed arrangements for the prosecution of the work on the St. Peter's canal?


John Dowsley Reid: Tenders were called for the construction of a new lock at St. Peter's, and Mr. Weller was the lowest tenderer, and the work was to be done on schedule prices. When the work had been proceeded with for some time, it was found that the material was different from that specified, and the contractor could not go on with the work at the prices without incurring hearvy loss.- In addition, it was thought that where the lock was to be constructed was of rock formation, but that was a mistake, and the chief engineer has recommended that the lock be built further down, which would necessitate the closing of the canal for one season if the work is undertaken now. The chief engineer tells me he would have to increase the price in the original contract of 39o. a yard to about 79 cents for removing the material and from $5,000 to $89,000 for unwiatering, which means altogether an extra expenditure of $100,000 if Mr. Weller is allowed to continue the work at the prices recommended by the chief engineer, Mr. Bowden. Even with $100,000 added to the original con templated cost, Mr. Weller's tender would be less than the lowest tender for the original lock. I personally feel that Mr. Weller should be allowed to proceed with the work, as recommended by Chief Engineer Bowden, but I left the matter over until I could discuss it with Mr. Cochrane, and Mr. Cochrane, having taken the advice of Mr. Bowden, I think he also is of the same opinion. I feel like submitting the matter to Council on Mr. Bowden's recommendation to give the work to Mr. Weller at the increased prices. We will then have the lock on a good foundation, and, according to Mr. Bowden, it would be a much better job in the end. 1 am giving the hon. member all the in-

formation I have. He knows the situation there, and I would like to have his views as to whether or not he would agree with Mr. Bowden's report that it would be well to construct the lock at the place where Mr. Bowden has suggested; to give the work to Mr. Weller and to proceed at once. If we have to advertise again for tenders, we must have a new specification, and it will take probably six weeks for advertising and six or eight weeks before we can get started with the work. Mr. Bowden claims that, unless we can start with the work with Mr. Weller who has the plant on the ground, we shall not be able to complete it without closing the canal for two years. If we start now, we shall only have to close the canal during this season.


George William Kyte: As the hon. minister has
intimated, I am quite familiar with the conditions that exist with respect to the improvement on the St. Peter's canal, and I shall be perfectly willing to accept any recommendation made by Mr. Bowden, the chief engineer of the Department of Railways. I am sure he would not make any recommendation with respect to the carrying out of this work that involves an increase on the original amount intended to be paid for it unless he had good ground for making such a report.
The situation is somewnat pressing there at the present moment. As I stated on another occasion, when I discussed this matter, the condition of unemployment in that part of the country is very serious at the present time. A great many people were employed during the past season on the construction work on the St. Peter's canal, and they were depending on that source of employment for the present year. Up to the present time, however, no action has been taken, and there is a great deal of disappointment on the part of the labourers in the community in respect of the postponement of the resumption of operations on this canal. I have nothing to say as to whether or not it would be preferable to call for new tenders now or to award the contract to Mr. Weller; but I am bound to say that, in view of the delay which will be occasioned by calling for new tenders, it seems desirable that a new contract, be entered into at the earliest possible moment. Whatever recommendation Mr. Bowden makes with regard to this matter, if in his judgment the work, in view of the change in the plans, will involve an additional expenditure of $100,000, I am sure it will
be accepted by the public generally as being the best that can be done under the circumstances. I would therefore urge strongly that the minister will without any unnecessary delay insure the early resumption of the work on the St. Peter's canal by making a new contract according to the recommendation of the chief engineer of the department.


John Dowsley Reid: I promise the hon. member that I will try, if possible, to bring the matter before Council to-morrow.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: While this canal is not in my constituency, I think I am perhaps more interested in the completion of the canal than the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte), because a great deal of the traffic that passes through it comes from my constituency. I am perfectly in accord with what the hon. member has said as to what should be done in giving the contract to the present contractor. Certainly the minister should put the very best man he can find in charge of the work, and see that it does not drag along in the snail-crawl, death-like style in which it has been carried forward since this gentleman has had the contract, but that some life and snap is put into it and that it is finished within a reasonable time.


John Howard Sinclair: I would like to ask the minister for information in regard to the proposed branch railway in my constituency. He assured the House on several occasions that the matter was receiving consideration; and a few weeks ago, my hon. friend the member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) placed a resolution before the House asserting that the time had arrived when the branch railways should be built in those parts of the Maritime provinces that are now without railway accommodation. This resolution had direct reference to the Guysborough railway. Somewhat to the surprise of my hon. friend, that resolution was accepted by the Government and was passed by the House. When the House of Commons say that the time has arrived to take action on a matter, then the time has arrived; and I was very much surprised, on looking over the Supplementary Estimates yesterday, to find that no provision had been made for these branch lines that were discontinued and cancelled by the present Government when they came into power. If it is not the policy of the Government to do anything in the matter of the proposed Guysborough railway the

minister should frankly say so; and if he ha3 any information to give to the House, I would like to 'have it now.


John Dowsley Reid: Do I understand the hon.
member to say that this is for taking over a line or for building a new line through his constituency?


John Howard Sinclair: I am referring to the proposed new branch line from Sunnybrae to Guysborough, which was contracted for * by the late Government in 1911, on which the money was voted, the contract made and a part of the line purchased from the Nova Scotia Steel Company, and $100,000 spent. When, this Administration came into power they cancelled the contract, abandoned the road, and have ever since that day been throwing out hints that they intend to do something and that the matter is under consideration. The resolution moved by my hon. friend the member for North Cape Breton referred to the Guysborough branch along with a branch in his own constituency. The House accepted that resolution, and said that the time had arrived to deal with the matter. I trust that the minister has not overlooked these circumstances, and that he understands now what I am endeavouring to place before him. I want to know what the policy of the Government is i:n, regard to this matter, whether they Teally intend to do anything in the way of constructing these branch lines or not.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member will remember that the Minister of Railways came to this House with a policy of branch lines in the lower provinces, and unfortunately the Senate threw it out >and he was not able to take any action in so far as the branch lines were concerned.


John Howard Sinclair: This has nothing to do with that question at all. You have already secured the branch line that was required; you have a deed of it and you require no aid from the Senate in that matter.


John Dowsley Reid: This was the building of a new line. No work had been done, and the contract was cancelled. The hon. member knows that the Minister of Railways and Canals has not taken any further action yet. I do not know what he has in mind; but he prepared the Estimates, and they have been brought down, and he will not oe able to proceeed with the work this year. He, no doubt, has in mind to consider the

taking over of other lines in the lower provinces as soon as he can do so, but he has not been able to do so during the present session.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It will be done before the next election.


John Howard Sinclair: A railroad in the hon. minister's mind is not much good to us in the county of Guysborough. The minister informed the House during the present session that there was a survey being made of this proposed line. Can he tell us if he has any report from his engineers as to what they have done?


John Dowsley Reid: We have no report with reference to what has been done. The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) made the remark that this would probably be done just before the next election. If *1 remember aright, this line was surveyed just before the last election, and the contract let. I promise the hon. member that we shall not use this line for any political campaign such as was done at the last election. I do not think this Government would be guilty of doing anything of that kind. We will start a long time before an election or immediately after.


John Howard Sinclair: I think I shall have to correct my hon. friend with regard to that matter. The branch line policy of the late Government was only adopted about the session of 1910. Immediately afterwards, a survey was made of the proposed Guysborough branch, and at the commencement of the session of 1911 provision was made for going forward with this branch line. No one at that date anticipated an election. Parliament was in its third year. The reciprocity agreement had not been laid before the House, and everybody expected that Parliament would last at least four years, and perhaps five. Under these circumstances, before there was any intention of having an election, $1,000,000 was placed in the Estimates and voted by Parliament. The branch line from Sunnybrae to Ferrona was purchased from the Nova Scotia Steel Company, and the department paid the company $100,000 for it, and took it over. Tenders were called for and received; the engineers decided on the tenders, and the contract was let. The circumstances were similar in regard to the branch line in the county of Halifax which at that time was represented by two Conservatives. Both lines were in exactly the same position- contracts had been let, and in each case $1,000,000 was voted. The late Government

was broad enough to deal with the question in a proper and business-like manner. They did not regard the fact that one county was represented by Conservatives and the other by a Liberal, but undertook the building of these lines merely with a view to the traffic requirements of the country. But the present Government was not broad enough to carry out that policy, but because the county I represent sent me, a supporter of the Opposition, to Parliament, the Government cancelled the line in Guysborough and continued the line in Halifax. I know that my right hon. friend (Mr. Borden), is a little ashamed of the action of his Government in regard to that matter and does not want it referred to very often. It is not very creditable to his Government, and it is hard to believe that the Prime Minister of a great country like Canada would not be broad enough to see across the line fence of the county he represents. I hope the Government will make an effort to redeem its reputation before the present Parliament expires. I have kept the matter 'before them constantly, as it was my duty to do, in hopes of inducing them to do something with regard to it. But the acting minister says he does not know the policy or intentions of the Minister of Railways in this matter. If he will be kind enough to find find out what the hon. gentleman's intentions are I shall be very much obliged, and when his Estimates come up again, perhaps he will give us some information as to whether the Government really intend to take action in regard to this matter or not.


John Dowsley Reid: When some of the other
Intercolonial Estimates are on, I will have more information. I cannot give the hon. gentleman further information to-night.


James Joseph Hughes: Could not the minister proceed with the railway Estimates for Prince Edward Island now? There are only a few items, and there are some matters I wish to discuss.


John Dowsley Reid: We are on the Hudson Bay railway now. But if hon. members will carry this item, I shall be glad to take up the Prince Edward Island Taiiway Estimates.


James Joseph Hughes: On account of the illness of the hon. member for Prince (Mr. Richards), I am the only Liberal Prince Edward Island member here and cannot be present all the time, and I wish to go on to-night.


John Dowsley Reid: There will be other items.


James Joseph Hughes: But I might not be here when they are brought up. I am sure that the hon. members from other provinces will be willing to take up these items now.
Prince Edward Island railway

to increase accommodation and facilities along the line, $5,200.


James Joseph Hughes: Last year when we were discussing the Estimates the Minister of Railways told me that he had received a petition from the inhabitants of Bridget-town and Dundas asking him to build a short piece of railway connecting these settlements with the main line either at Cardigan, St. Peter's or Souris. He told me he would have a survey and report made during the summer. The survey I know was not made, and I suppose the report was not made either. Could the minister tell us the reason?


John Dowsley Reid: As the hon. member states,
there has been no survey or report. I could not give him any particular reason except that the survey parties for the Intercolonial were busy on the mainland. Also, it was not possible to proceed with construction on the Prince Edward Island railway at the points mentioned by the hon. member last year, and so a survey did not seem necessary. Surveys can be made, of course, when we are ready to proceed with the work. There is an item in the Estimates to pay for survey parties along the Intercolonial, and we could send one of these parties to Prince Edward Island and pay for it out of this fund. But until money is voted to build the railway it is hardly necessary to send a survey party.


James Joseph Hughes: I understood that the
course is for the minister to have a survey made before he proceeds so far as to put an item in the Estimates. He wants to know what the whole cost will be. There was $100,000 last year for surveys and reports generally, and it was out of that appropriation, the minister told me, this work would be paid for.


John Dowsley Reid: I said it could be done.


James Joseph Hughes: Will the minister say
that he will have the work done this summer?


John Dowsley Reid: I will take the matter up
with the Minister of Railways and Canals, and if he feels that he is justified in asking next session for a vote to proceed with the work, the survey party will be sent.


James Joseph Hughes: Have not you the same item this year?


John Dowsley Reid: The item for survey parties
-yes.


James Joseph Hughes: Well, will the minister have it this year?


John Dowsley Reid: We will have it this year if we can spare the party from the work they are on.


James Joseph Hughes: A few days ago the minister received a petition from Hetherdale, Montague Head and Montague and other settlements to extend the Montague branch to connect with the main line. The minister said he would look into the matter. Will he have that survey made this year?


John Dowsley Reid: I will try to have that survey made too.


James Joseph Hughes: There is one other matter I wish to refer to. And I am glad to see the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) here, because I shall speak both to him and to the acting Minister of Eail-ways and Canals at the same time. The Eailway Department owns a wharf at Souris, P.E.I. It is the only public wharf in the place. Souris is a harbour of refuge, but the harbour is small. The Government has spent considerable sums, and is spending a large sum this year, to improve the harbour. The entire work has cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and I have seen as many as thirty or forty sailing vessels, most of them from Nova Scotia, seeking shelter in that harbour at one time. As I have said, the harbour is small and there is not room for all vessels to anchor in the roadstead. The harbourmaster compels vessels to get out of the way of the steamers and tie up to the wharf. During the last couple of years fishermen tying up to the wharf have been obliged to pay side-wharfage, which, in former years they did not have to pay. They feel that this is a hardship. They are willing to pay it if the wharf is needed for commercial purposes at the time. The railway station master at the place has instructions to collect this wharfage; and no doubt it gives him a great deal of trouble, as it amounts to only a dollar or two for each vessel. The fishermen try to avoid payment, because they think it a hardship as they do not have to pay a similar fee at any other port.	Where;
there is a marine wharf it is free to fishermen. I do not suppose the railway collects more than $30 or $40 a year and I am sure it costs more time and energy than it is 
worth. I think some arrangement might be made so that when the wharf is not needed for commercial purposes the fishermen might have the use of it without paying. The Marine Department is spending a great deal of money to develop the fisheries and the Public Works is spending money to make this a harbour of refuge, and it is very annoying for the sake of a trifling sum like this, to cause so much annoyance. Some other arrangement should be made.


John Dowsley Reid: I will make inquiries tomorrow and take it up with the minister.
Prince Edward Island railway-to provide car ferry, construct terminals and necessary connections, $1,500,000.


James Joseph Hughes: The minister told me last year that the car ferry would be in operation this year. What progress has been made and when does he expect the ferry to be in operation?


John Dowsley Reid: I understand that the car
ferry will be ready at the time stated, that is, early in the fall of 1915. The deputy minister informs me that owing to a strike on the other side there may be a delay of a month in completing the boat. That would make it the end of September or the first of October.


James Joseph Hughes: When does the minister expect to have the piers ready?


John Dowsley Reid: In time for the ferry.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is there any show of having the whole thing going before the next election?


John Dowsley Reid: Oh, yes, we will have the whole thing going before the election.
Department of Justice-Kingston Penitentiary, $180,600.


William Cameron Edwards: It is my desire to make my remarks as brief as is consistent with a proper presentation of facts which I think should be placed before this House. Before entering into a discussion of the Penitentiary Commission, I wish to make a few general remarks leading up to that. I live about three miles from the village of Portsmouth, where Kingston penitentiary is situated. In consequence of my nearness to that village and that institution hon. gentlemen will understand that it is only natural that I should hear from time to time of the doings in that penitentiary. After the change of Government in 1911, complaints were made to me by guards and ex-guards of that institution and to those

complaints were added specific charges made by a gentleman who had occupied several positions in that institution, covering a period of something like twenty years. I refer to Major Hughes, who at the time of the change of Government was accountant at the penitentiary and who has since that time been appointed one of the inspectors of penitentiaries. I felt that these charges coming from such a source from an official holding the position which he held and corroborated by
10	p.m. other officials, were of such a nature that I should lay them before the Minister of Justice. I did so verbally and later on, I think about nine months before the commission was appointed, I placed my charges before the minister in writing. I may say that on the night of March 29 or the morning of March 30, a convict by the name of Chartrand effected a partial escape from the prison and the night watchman, a man named Smith, was suspended on the first of April, in connection with that attempted escape. Smith came to me on the day of his suspension and complained that he did not think he was getting a fair deal, that the day guard on that particular part of the prison was more responsible for the escape than he and was still on duty. I wrote to the department and asked for an investigation, and on the 4th of April McConville, the day guard, was suspended.
The minister appointed Mr. Hackett, then his private secretary, I believe, to make an investigation into that escape. I subsequently wrote to the department asking for a copy of the report in regard to that investigation. On the 3rd September, 1912, I received a letter from Mr. Hackett, which 1 will not take up the time of the House in reading but the substance of which was that he had not had time to make a detailed report, but that in course of time he would do so and send me a copy. That summer I went out West, and coming back after some weeks I made a second request and was informed that Mr. Hackett had only made a verbal report. On the 2nd of December, 1912, I sent the following letter to the Minister of Justice, which I want to place on ' Hansard ' because it is intimately connected with what I shall have to say later.
Hon. C. J. Doherty, M.P.,
Minister of Justice.
My dear Sir,-I beg to request your serious consideration of the following charges which in my opinion warrant my asking for the removal from office of Deputy Warden O'Leary and Dr.
Phelan, surgeon of Portsmouth penitentiary. I charge Deputy Warden O'Leary:
(a)	With petty and persistent persecution of guards and keepers;
(b)	With political partisanship ;
(c)	With testifying falsely at investigation held at the prison;
(d)	With consorting with ex-convicts;
(e)	With gross neglect of his duty resulting in attempts to escape;
I charge the surgeon, Dr. Phelan:
(a)	With gross political partisanship;
(b)	With using violent and indecent language to a guard in the presence of others;
(c)	With conniving at the absence of a guard at an election trial where said guard was wanted as a material witness;
(d)	With grafting, by asking for and receiving money from guards, to which he had no just or honest claim, etc.
There are other officials whose conduct should be inquired into.
If you would prefer it I will make these charges on the floor of the House and ask for the appointment of a Eoyal Commission of Inquiry.
Trusting that the foregoing will receive your early attention.
I remain, yours sincerely,
J. W. Edwards.
On December 4, the Minister of Justice in acknowledging my letter asked if I would be willing that the charges should be placed before the gentlemen I had accused. I answered him verbally that I thought that was only proper and right, but that I would prefer that the charges should be placed in the hands of those gentlemen when the commission was appointed; and when the commission was appointed that was done. On the 25th August, 1913, eighteen months after I had verbally made my charges to the minister and nine months after I had made them in writing, an Order in Council was passed appointing George Milnes Macdonnell, K.C., Frederick Etherington, M.D., both of Kingston, and Joseph Patrick Downey of Orillia as a Royal Commission under the Inquiries Act to investigate and report. I am mentioning the time which intervened between my verbally making the charges and the appointment of the commission not in any censorious spirit. I recognize that at the time I made my charges verbally the Government had only been in power a very short time, and I appreciate that the Minister of Justice like the head of every other department had a great deal to occupy his time and attention. I find no fault in that respect.
Without making any detailed comment at present on the personnel of the commission, I want to say that it is open to objection on the ground that Mr. Downey, who holds a position under the Ontario Government, was appointed as one of the

44g<5

commissioners. I also question the wisdom ol appointing to that commission two gentlemen from the city of Kingston. Of course, I am only expressing my own view, and, in fairness to the Justice Department, I may say that at the time the names of the commissioners were first mentioned as appointees, I saw no reason why they should not perform their duties properly and well. But I think I will show before I get through that they did not fulfil their duties properly, and that from the very outset they prevented evidence from coming out which ought to have come out, and that the report which has been laid bn the table of this House is, so far as the charges I made are concerned,a mass of misrepresentation. I will go farther and say that their report, in so far as it deals with the charges 1 made, contains more misrepresentations to the square inch than any document ever tabled in this House since there was a parliament of Canada.
I might read the terms of the commission, which are as follows:
(a)	The state and management of the Kingston penitentiary;
(b)	The conduct of the officers and employees of said penitentiary, so far as the same relates to their official duties, and
(c)	Generally, the subject of the conduct and administration of penitentiaries, including such methods as may conduce to the permanent reformation of the convicts, and, without prejudice to the punishment which convicts should properly undergo and without undue burden upon the public funds, tend to mitigate as far as may be found possible the sufferings entailed by their confinement upon those dependent upon them.
I wish to draw particular attention to the following paragraph:
Provided that the inquiries under paragraphs (a) and (b) shall not extend hack over a longer period than five years, except in so far as the commissioners may deem it desirable, in the public interest, to inquire into any particular matter or matters antecedent to such period.
In regard to the five-year limit, which I may say was repeatedly invoked by the commissioners to 'shut out evidence in respect to the charges I had made, I recognize that it may have been, and no doubt was, put in by the Minister of Justice without any intention of shutting out evidence in respect of the charges I had made. I took the ground at the first meeting of the commission that the Minister of Justice did not and could not mean that the five-year limit was to apply to the charges I had made. I argued that the minister must have considered an investigation of 
the charges I had made in the public interest, or otherwise he would not have sent those charges to the commission to be investigated; and that if the charges were in the public interest, and if it was in the public interest to investigate those charges-and the best evidence of that was the sending of those charges to the commissioners-I could not conceive of placing a limitation upon the commission which would preclude and prevent an investigation of the charges they were asked to investigate. That was the line of argument I took before the commission. I believe the commissioners misunderstood the five-year limitation as contained in the terms of the commission. At all events, I am convinced that they made a misuse of that limitation, and excluded evidence which it was in the interests of this House to have, in order that it might he in a position to properly estimate the men whose conduct was called in question. I had taken some responsibility as a member of this House in making charges against the deputy warden, the surgeon and Mr. Wilson, the hospital overseer, but in making these charges I had no personal animus against any of these men. I did not know the deputy warden to see him until after I had made the charges when he was pointed out to me on the street. I had never had more than half a dozen conversations with Dr. Phelan in my life and my acquaintance with Mr. Wilson was very slight. Mr. Wilson had been appointed by this Government. I made the charges against these men regardless of their creed or politics because I believed their conduct should be investigated and because I thought it was in the public interest that the fullest inquiry should be made into the manner in which that institution was being run. I have no person to nominate for any of these positions if they were to be vacated tomorrow. In view of the fact that I have preferred charges against these men I would not think of suggesting any persons to take their places.
The effect of the five-year limitation, in the way in which the commissioners looked at it, was to exclude a great deal of evidence which could have been given by the present inspector, Major Hughes, because the time when he was best acquainted with the institution was when he was chief keeper. The fact that he was not allowed to go back beyond five years simply prevented him from giving the evidence which he otherwise would have given and which I think would have been in the interest of

this House to have had presented to it. Before taking up the report itself, I want to read a short extract from an article in the Toronto Globe which was written just after the commission had held a few sittings :
The Kingston Investigation.
All the influences are towards suppression in the Kingston penitentiary investigation. Convicts do not dare reveal unwholesome facts, knowing their own helplessness under the men they may expose. Applicants for pardons tell what the authorities want told and conceal what they want to conceal. Ex-convicts in respectable positions do not want the dark chapters of their lives published. Those who are poor know they may be arrested with impunity on hollow charges at any time, and that they are open to varied persecutions. This makes them fearful of offending the authority they have learned to dread. On the commission, too, there is an obvious desire to suppress and whitewash. But in spite of all these influences enough is leaking out to show that a prison is a prison.
This e'xjtract from .the /Toronto Globe very adequately depicts the situation. I could quote from a number of other papers but I do not think it is necessary to do so. The prisoners wtho might hove given evidence were afraid to do so for fear that thleir chances of getting out on parole would be lessened or for fear that remission of sentence would be lost to them. The guards were in much the same position; they knew that they were largely in the hands of the head officials of the institution who might report them; for trivial offences and make it very uncomfortable for them. Prom the beginning of the investigation that was very manifest. Men who had expressed themselves very openly, pointedly and substantially in regard to the officers against whom my charges were made were very close-mouthed when it came to the matter of the investigation. This statement applies not merely to the guards jmd under officials of the institution. It applies to a certain extent also to a gentleman who was responsible for the principle charges which were made; that is Major Hughes, the present inspector. I do not know whether the larger salary which goes with the position of inspector as compared with that received by the accountant had anything to do with it hut there was something which had an effect upon his stiffness of backbone that is supposed to be very characteristic in some families. I say that because I want to impress upon the House the fact that if you want to consider this report fairly if you want to arrive at a correct conclu-283J
sion, you can only do so by properly estimating the position in which these men were placed. There was a certain amount of intimidation of the officials of the institution as well as of the convicts which had a tendency to prevent evidence from being brought out. When you add to that the fact-<and I will prove that it is a fact-that the commissioners at the very outset showed a disposition to shut out evidence and to act as a whitewashing commission, you will understand that it made the position very difficult and it warrants me in coming to this House and placing some facts before you in order that you may understand the true condition of affairs in connection with this institution.
The commissioners never seemed to realize the position they occupied. They were appointed to investigate and inquire but from the very outset they seemed to regard themselves ias a court trying a certain case. As I understand their position, it was their duty to investigate and inquire, obtain all the evidence possible and lay that evidence before this House. It was up to this House to act as a court and a judge of the evidence, excluding what it did not think was of value, taking into consideration what it did consider to be of value and arriving at a proper conclusion a3 to what should he done to improve the condition of this institution. But the commissioners seemed to regard it as their duty not only to get a certain amount of evidence but to try the case themselves and to sit as judges. I want to point out some very peculiar things that were done by the commission. One of the gentlemen that I made charges against was Mr. Wilson, the hospital overseer who was appointed by this Government. The Penitentiary Commission placed an advertisement in the Kingston papers asking any and every person who had any charges or complaints to make to come forward and present these charges to the commission. That was signed by the three commissioners. That had a very good look on the face of it and the public, reading it said: These men are anxious to get at the facts, they have invited men to come forward and make complaints. I went before the commission and I told them that because of reports that had come to me I felt it my duty to ask them to investigate certain charges against the hospital overseer.
448c

The hospital overseer, I have been told, would not get out of bed at night to attend sick convicts. There is a room provided for the hospital overseer and for hie assistant, which they are supposed to use and take turns about at night, one stays up one night and the other another night for the express purpose of being convenient to the convicts, so that if one of them should become ill he could call upon the hospital overseer or his assistant, who, if they thought it advisable, could call the surgeon out to attend the sick man. It was stated to me by several that the hospital overseer absolutely refused to get up and that in consequence the convicts were obliged to remain in their cells and suffer all night. I thought that was a matter that should be investigated. I am not one who thinks that convicts ought to be treated like people outside of prison; I know the first thing is to punish them for the offence they have committed against society, but I do say that they ought to be regarded as human Ibeings and treated with humanity. Before I get through I think I will be able to show that some of these convicts have been treated worse than any .man in this House would treat his horses, his cattle, or his dogs. I believe that I would have been guilty of neglect of my duty if I did not place that information before the minister, and I also believe that I would not be doing my duty as a representative of the people if I did net place these facts before the House as I understand them. What did Mr. Maodonell, the chairman of the commission, do when I went before him and placed my complaint in writing against Mr. Wilson, and asked him to call three persons to give evidence in regard to the charge? Did Mr. Macdonell say:	Certainly, that is what I have been advertising in the papers for; I shall Ibe glad to do so: Not at all. He did his best to persuade me not to press the charge against Mr. Wilson, and he wanted me to write to Ottawa about it. I said: No, I am not going to write to Ottawa at all; you have been appointed as a commission to investigate these matters, and here is something I think you should investigate. I threw the paper on the table and I said: I expect you to investigate that charge.
iLet me state something further with regard to this Mr. Macdonell. An exguard of the institution, Percy Johnston, a respectable citizen of Kingston, went before the chairman of the commission in answer to his advertisement and preferred a charge 
against the deputy and against the surgeon. What did Mr. Macdonell, the chairman of the commission, do? He had placed this advertisement in the papers asking for persons to come forward with their charges, and Mr. Johnston, a respectable citizen, came before him and presented his charge in writing against these two men, and this chairman of the Royal Commission told Mr. Johnston to go home and keep out of this. I have here the affidavit of Mr. Johnston, which reads:
I Percy Jlohnston of the city of Kingston in the county of Prontenac make oath and say.
1. That I formerly was a guard in the Kingston penitentary.
z. i noticed an advertisement in the Kingston Standard inviting all persons having any knowledge of any complaints or irregularities concerning said penitentiary to bring the same before a commission for investigating said penitentiary.
3. Said advertisement was signed by G. M. Macdonell, K.C., and on the 7th October last I called at Mr. Macdonell's office and presented a complaint to him in writing. I told him the nature of my complaint and that I had been most unjustly used and that I could produce witnesses to testify that I had been put out of my office by fraud and deceit.
Mr. Macdonell told me that this matter did not concern me and that if I would take' his advice I would go home and let the matter drop.
Sworn before me at the city of Kingston in the county of prontenac this 11th October A.D. 1913.
Percy M. Johnson. , Chas. Webster,	.
A commissioner, etc., H.C.J.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Would the hon. member read the commission that was issued to these men? We will then be better able to say whether they were acting outside or inside of their jurisdiction. They would certainly be limited by the authority they got from the Government.


William Cameron Edwards: I have already read the commission at the opening of my remarks, and it is to be found on the first page of the printed report. I shall send a copy over to my hon. friend. I want hon. members to contrast the action of the chairman of the commission in the two cases I have mentioned with his action in another case. A man named Chapman, convict on parole, having seen something in the paper about evidence that was given by another person before the commission, wrote a letter to the deputy warden saying that if he were brought up as a witness he could give evidence in favour of the deputy warden. I read the evidence on that point from page 365 of the evidence:
y. How did you come to make it known that you wanted to give evidence?-A. I seen

the charges that were written up in the Orange Sentinel by that lawyer.
Q. Russell?-A. Tes, and I wrote down to the institution here signifying my intention that if I would be of any use to the deputy, that X would be pleased to disprove some of the statements that he made.
Q. You wrote to deputy Warden O'Leary?- A. Yes.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I want to say about that letter, that I was in the warden's office shortly after that letter came, and the deputy warden happened to come into the office while I was there and referred to this. I asked him about it, and I said at once 'That man ought to be brought here as a witness' and he has been brought here accordingly.
I think the conduct of the chairman, m respect to the obtaining of evidence, was, to say the least, extremely strange. He placed an advertisement in the newspapers calling on those to come forward who had complaints to make, and then when certain persons did come forward he advised them to go home and keep out of the investigation entirely, but he showed a strong disposition to get the evidence of this man Chapman, who was actually a convict on parole. Chapman did come down, and after giving tns evidence he went outside and told a party that he had worked the deputy and the chairman of the commission for a free trip to Kingston, as he wanted to see his brother who was an inmate of the penitentiary, thai he had got his expenses from Toronto to Kingston, that he had seen his 'brother and slipped him some money, and now he was going home. I told the commissioner about this statement of Chapman and gave him the name of the man to whom he made the statement, but nothing was done to Chapman in respect to the breaking of his parole or in regard to breaking the rules of the prison. Whether he handed money over to his brother or not, I am not prepared to say, but we have his statement to that effect, and we also have the fact that the commission made no attempt to investigate it to see whether it was correct or not. I want to take up the report of this commission somewhat in detail.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: testified falsely; but the matter of his testifying falsely was not investigated at the time, and the commission refused to allow any investigation into the matter at the time they held their sittings at Kingston.


Edmond Proulx: Perhaps the hon. member should have read another sentence below the one he read. Mr. Douglas Stewart was asked:
Q. Do I understand that you are responsible for recommending this method of punishment, the hosing?-A. I am responsible for the regulation. I introduced it after consultation with Sir Oliver Mowat, who was not a cruel man, as a substitute for the cat.
It seems that Mr. Douglas Stew-art is responsible for the introduction of the hose, and not the deputy warden.


William Cameron Edwards: That does not affect my point in the least. I called attention to the fact that the commissioners in this report say very explicitly that hosing is cruel and inhuman; that they also say that they find no evidence of any cruelty on the part of the deputy warden, Mr. O'Leary, and that the evidence clearly shows that the deputy warden did practise., punishment which the commissioners say is cruel and inhuman.


Edmond Proulx: But if it was the regulation, the deputy warden only carried out his duty.


William Cameron Edwards: I am not saying it was not the regulation. I am afraid my hon. friend does not appreciate my point. So far as the regulations are concerned, if he has read the report at all, he will see that the commissioners distinctly call attention to certain of the regulations and say that they should be abolished for the reason that they believe they are cruel and inhuman; but here is one thing that was done, whether it was a regulation or not, by the deputy warden, and the commissioners consider that it was cruel and inhuman to do it. Nevertheless they say they cannot find any evidence of his being guilty of cruelty or inhumanity to the convicts.


Edmond Proulx: It seems a matter of
opinion as to whether it was cruel or inhuman or not.


William Cameron Edwards: Another misrepresentation on the part of the commissioners is where they say that Stewart-that is, the counsel appointed by the Government- says that Hughes is the chief witness. That is not correct. The evidence does not say that. The evidence says that Hughes was one of the principal witnesses, but not the chief witness, not the only witness upon 
whom we were depending to substantiate the charges.
I also quote an expression which they credit to Major Hughes, and which is found on page 18:
Major Hughes himself says: ' In my day as chief keeper I did not think the men had an awful lot to complain of in that kind of thing '-
Meaning persecution.

' but latterly there has been a great deal of gossip. I cannot give you that, but the rosters will show.'
That is deliberately intended to deceive the House and the country. Hughes swore before the commission that there was gross discrimination and that when he was chief keeper he had spats and battles with the deputy warden, in endeavouring to prevent discrimination. In part of his evidence he gives specific instances of petty persecution on the part of the deputy warden. The statement that Hughes was represented as saying is a shameless misrepresentation, as conveying a representation which his evidence throughout shows he bad no intention of conveying and did not convey.
Hughes says:
That the deputy warden had an unhappy manner of dealing with the men; that he irritated every man when he went to say anything to him; that he had an intolerable manner of dealing with the men.
He gave specific instances of all these statements.
On page 20 of the report, you will find the names of guards and ex-guards. The report
says:
Of the guards and ex-guards referred to by Major Hughes in his evidence, the following were called, and a summary of their evidence on the charge of petty and persistent persecution of guards is given below.
In the first place, that misrepresents the facts by quoting some words which I used with regard to Major Hughes. Then the commissioners pretend or profess to name twenty-nine guards who were mentioned by Major Hughes in his evidence, when, as a matter of fact, only fourteen out of those twenty-nine were mentioned by him. A reference to the evidence will show that. Why did they do so? Let us take those men and the summary of their evidence as given by the report. The commissioners refer to Smith, for instance, who was one of the men mentioned by Major Hughes. Smith is one of the men mentioned by Major Hughes. They profess to give a summary of his evidence in these words:

Smith complains he was improperly dismissed. Deputy warden not responsible.
As a matter of fact, Smith diid not complain of anything of the kind, nor does the evidence show that he did. Mr. Whiting, who was acting as counsel for the deputy warden .and Dr. Phalen, questioned Smith along these lines as follows:
Q. I suppose you felt a little sore about being dismissed?.-A. No, I did not, I was very glad to get away from night duty.
Now, this is a direct contradiction of this professed summary of the evidence of Smith. I would like to call your attention to some of the things that Smith did complain of, and which they did not mention at all. The report suppresses the fact that Smith did complain of the conduct of the derputy warden. When Smith asked to get off to take his child to the hospital to be operated upon, he was refused. He was reported, though others were not reported, for late winding. They also ignore entirely Smith's sworn statement as to O'Leary having been drinking. These things they leave out of the report, and then profess to give a summary of Smith's evidence in the words I have quoted.


William Chisholm: Did not the hon. gentleman himself state that Smith was suspended on April 1, and came to the hon. gentleman and complained?


William Cameron Edwards: The hon. gentleman has left out two or three words which make all the difference. Smith came to me on the same day he was suspended, and complained that he was not being given a square deal and was not 'being treated the same as others-that there was another guard more responsible and more to blame than he was, and this guard was left on duty while he, Smith, was suspended. That is what I said, but the hon. gentleman (Mr. Chisholm) did not understand. Take another case:
Montgomery complained that his post was not changed as often as others.
That is not a fair summary of his evidence. Montgomery says he resigned his position because he felt he was being ill-treated by the deputy warden, that others were given special holidays which the deputy warden denied to him. He also testified that he smelt liquor on the deputy warden. These things are left out of the report. Then, take McQuade. They affect to summarize his evidence by saying:
I have nothing to say against him.
This refers to the deputy warden. But they suppressed the fact that McQuade swore that the deputy warden called him a damned fool in the presence of another guard and a convict, and O'Leary admits it. This is a direct violation of the regulations. Also he says that the deputy warden put up the convict Connors to trap him, and that the deputy warden refused to let him off to move. He had to get np at two o'clock in the morning, work all day at moving, and came to the penitentiary to go on night duty at 6.30 p.m. That may seem a small thing, but that is exactly where the discrimination and petty persecution came in. This man was refused a reasonable request, while others had such requests granted repeatedly. That is one of the reasons that led to- a great deal of trouble.
In summarizing Aikin's evidence, the report says:
He complains of the deputy warden spying on him.
But the report leaves out the fact that the deputy warden in his manner of speaking in the presence of the guards acted contrary to the regulations. He told Aikins that Inspector Stewart had charged him with lying down on duty, and Inspector Stewart stated that the deputy warden had lied. The deputy warden gets him out of bed at ten o'clock at night to go to the prison to go on duty, and after he gets there he tells him to go home again. He was reprimanded for late winding when helping a sick convict. The convict had been taken sick in the night, had fallen out of his cot and was vomiting on the floor. This guard stopped to attend to the wants of the convict, lifted him up and put him on the bed, and consequently was a few minutes late in winding, for which he was reprimanded by the deputy warden. The deputy warden said:	If he dies you
are not responsible. Yet these commissioners say they can find no evidence of any cruelty or inhumanity on the part of the deputy warden. This is all left out of the report and they present what purports to be a summary of the evidence of this man in the few words I have given. They also leave out his statement that the deputy warden ordered him to stay out on the platform in a driving storm of hail and sleet, though the towers are provided for the express purpose of protecting the guards in time of storm. Many other statements are made which are left out entirely.

They say they summarized the evidence of Davis by the statements that his complaints were childish, yet in his evidence Davis makes some very serious charges against the deputy. The same thing is true in regard to Johnston. I will not take up time with going over all these. But for the evidence of Patterson they present this summary:
He blames the deputy warden for his dismissal but cannot establish it.
But they leave out the fact that Patterson swore that the deputy warden gave false testimony. His statement will be found at page 983. And he asserts that he and others who gave evidence in a former investigation were discharged. In regard to Ingledew, they summarize his evidence in these words:
Kept a note-book; willing witness against the deputy warden; not asked re favouritism.
Now, Ingledew swears that the deputy warden recommended that he should be fined $5 because, having found a box containing some scissors and other things like that in the ward back of one of the cells, he took it to the head office. The deputy warden complained about his doing it, but if he 'had not taken it to the head office the charge would have been made against him of neglect of duty. He did what he conceived to be his duty, and the deputy warden recommended that he should be fined $5 for it. In regard to Bannister, they say that they summarize his evidence in these words:
Complained of being reprimanded before guards and convicts.
Let us see if that is a fair summary of Bannister's evidence. On March 15, 1911, Bannister was working in the deputy warden's house. He was sent down to a wharf to take charge of a gang of convicts when the thermometer was ten below zero. He asked for the usual shanty protection which is given guards having charge of men outside. This was refused him by the deputy warden. In consequence of [DOT]that Bannister's feet were severely frozen and he felt so disgusted and indignant with his treatment that he sent in his resignation and left the service. This is left out of the report entirely. They also leave out of the report the complaint of Bannister to the effect that he received no remuneration as choir master in the Protestant chapel while the guard who acted in the same capacity in the Roman Catholic

chapel received $50 a year for his services besides other perquisites. They attempt to summarize the evidence of Bryant by saying that his evidence and complaints were of no value. Bryant swore in his evidence *and this is left out entirely, that he had broken his wrist and was asked to go on duty alone in the ayslum with one hand ihelpless. He also swore that the deputy warden attempted to get him removed from office fourteen years ago on the ground of physical unfitness; but that man is still a guard in the institution. Another matter to which Bryant referred was that the deputy placed two insane convicts in the ward with Bryant alone one night about *midnight, locked the doors and left him there with these two men. About half an hour later the deputy sent a man to find out whether he had succeeded in placing those men in their cells or what had happened. These statements may seem very trivial, but I maintain that they indicate 'a lack of judgment on the part of the deputy warden which should not be passed over.
They say in the report, in referring to the evidence of Grier, at page 23:
The evidence of Grier is not corroborated by the prison records. The records show that Bishop attempted to hang himself on two occasions ; on July 9, 1S98, and March 22, 1899. On the former occasion he was cut down by Guard Davis; on the latter, by Guard Marsh. Grier does not appear in either case. There is no record of any other attempt at suicide by Bishop. If any occurred it should be in the record. Grier says he 'cut down' Bishop in 1906. The records show that Bishop died of tuberculosis in 1904.
I invite any hon. gentleman to refer to Grier's statement in the type-written evidence, it only occupies about one-half or two 'pages, and he will find that there is not a word to bear out the statement made by the commissioners in their report. Grier states most emphatically that he stopped to cut this man Bishop down when Bishop was attempting to commit suicide, and that he was late in winding his clock in consequence of stopping for this purpose. The deputy warden reprimanded him for being late in winding his clock. He told the reason he was late but the deputy warden said: Let him hang, you wind your clock, that is the first thing to do; let him hang, but wind pour clock. The report says that this statement stands alone. The statement does not stand alone. Marsh also swears to having a somewhat similar experience with the same convict. Marsh however, remembering the reprimand that Grier

had received from the deputy
11	p.m. did go and wind his clock first and then attended to the convict who was hanging himself and they had quite a time in bringing the convict to. What remark did the deputy make on that occasion? He exonerated Marsh and told him he did right, that the proper thing for him to do was to wind his clock first. At the time Grier was reprimanded by the deputy warden, in the way I have stated, he appealed to Hughes who was then head keeper and Hughes told him that in any case where he found the convict's life in danger the proper thing for him to do was to save that life. That statement is a corroboration of Grier's statement, and yet the commissisioners endeavoured in their report to represent this as never having occurred. There is absolutely nothing in Grier's evidence to support the statements that they made. Grier does not say what year it was he cut the convict down, he does not give the year at all; in fact he did not remember the year, but he did remember the occurrence and he remembered the statement the deputy warden had made in regard to that matter. They say this statement stands alone. I say it does not stand alone. I have already referred to what took place with regard to Aikin when he was late in winding his dock owing to his giving attention to a sick convict. On that occasion the deputy said:	Wind your clock, if he
dies you are not responsible. I mention these facts to show the minister and this House what I think it does clearly show, that this deputy warden is a man who is unfitted for the position he occupies. He has not that sense of humanity which a man should have who occupies that important position. They say there is nothing in the evidence to indicate any cruelty of disposition on the part of the deputy. I have cited the evidence of Grier, Marsh, Aikins and Bannister. Bannister said that he was refused the shanty which was ordinarily given to guards on duty in exposed places. I have cited the hosing of convicts which the commissioners say is cruel and inhuman and which the evidence shows clearly was performed by O'Leary himself on many occasions.
Then, there is the matter of tubbing. The commissioners say that this tubbing is inhuman. Six or eight swore to tubbing having been done. There is no doubt about it having been done. Did not the deputy warden know that that was going on? If he did not know that that was going on,
I ask this committee, is a man of that kind a fit and proper person to hold the responsible position he holds?
How is this tubbing carried on? There are apliances for inflicting this punishment. The convict's clothes are taken off, his feet are strapped together, his arms are strapped to his sides, and he is then immersed in a tub of water which may be ice cold or just moderately cold, depending on the season of the year. Many of them were tubbed in the months of January and February. These men, strapped as I have indicated, were shoved down under the water by the guards, and when they came up were shoved down again. As one guard testified, they were shoved down till the bubbles came to the surface. The evidence given before that commission proves conclusively that that was done in that institution, and I say that the deputy warden more than any other man was responsible for its being done. Bear in mind that the deputy warden placed the convicts in their positions and the guards in their positions, and if he did not know it was going on he should have known. Dr. Phelan knew, because he said he posted up a notice that it must not continue. Just imagine it. Many of the men who were treated in this manner were insane. Guard Bryant gave evidence before the commission in regard to tubbing-page 787. He says he saw convicts with legs strapped together and arms strapped to the sides put into the water:
Q. They (the guards) would lift them up and put them in the water?-A Yes.
Q. Would they go right down below the surface?-A. They would just go down and up again.
Q. Down below the surface?-A. Yes.
Q. Would their heads go under the water?- A. Yes, their heads would go in the water.
Q. And picked up?

A. Picked up at once by the guard.
Q. And go down and picked up again?-A Yes.
Q. Who would give that order?-A. By the authorities.
Q. Who would that be?-A. Either the warden, the deputy warden, or the doctor could give that order.
Q. Either one of the three?-A. Yes.
Take the evidence of another man, Wesley Babcock, who helped in the tubbing-page 796.
Q. Ever see a prisoner put in the tub to give him a cold bath?-A. Yes.
Q. Where was that?-A. Asylum.
Q. By whose orders?-A Mr. McWatters.
Q. What office did he hold?-A. Acting keeper, I think, at the time.
Q. Why was the tubbing done?-A He insulted another officer.

And this was an insane man!
Q. How did you proceed to punish this man? -A. Filled the tub with water and put him into it.
Q. And held him down?-A. Tes.
Q. In the cold water?-A. Tes.
Dr. Etherington. An insane patient!
By Mr. Downey :
Q. An insane patient who was guilty of insulting one of the officers, and who was subjected to this for punishment for the offence: that is right?-A. Tes.
Dr. Etherington: It is important to know whether insane patients are punished or not.
By Mr. Downey:
Q. How long did they keep him in the cold bath?-A. I could not tell you how long they kept him in. They kept him in till he gave up, till he said he was sorry for what he had done; that is all I know.
By Mr. Stewart:
Q. Was he held under the water?-A Tes.
Q. Was he there half an hour?-A. No, he would have been dead if he was.
Q. Was he pushed down in the water?-A He was.
Q. Was he smothering when he came up?-A. He was.
Q. Did you ever see blood coming out of the mouths and noses of convicts treated in that way?-A. Not out of him.
Q. Did you like that treatment?-A. I would not want it myself.
I could read similar testimony by other guards who took part in this tubbing, which went on to a considerable extent in this institution, and which was performed, as some of the guards stated, at the order of the deputy warden or the doctor. The doctor himself says that when he heard of it he issued an order against that sort of thing, and it is only fair to him to accept his statement. Now let us look at the evidence of Douglas Stewart in regard to hosing, given on pages 17 and 18:
Q. Tou And this (hosing) more efficient (than the triangle) ?-A. More effective.
Q. What is it that makes it so effective with these convicts?-A. It takes the defiance out of them.
Q. How?-A. If you got the hose you would know.
Q. What is it?

A. I suppose it is the impact of the hose against the body, knocks the wind out of them.
Q. And it seems to succeed where nothing else will?-A. Tes, it never failed yet.
Q. To beat an incorrigible convict into submission?-A. Tes.
And, further on:
Q. Is that the most severe punishment?-A. No, I think shooting is more severe.
y. You mean Killing a man outright?-A. Tes.
When Inspector Stewart was asked what pressure was on the hose, he said it would be 60 lbs. to the inch. The commissioners state that they saw the hose, not being

used on a convict, bnt in the hosing cell. They state that when the nozzle was put through the bars the water struck the opposite wall in an almost unbroken stream. A stream of water at that pressnre would strike a man a pretty severe blow. Stewart also stated in his evidence that the pressnre at St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary was 75 lbs. to the inch. I suppose they need a little more force there to-make the convicts give in. I want to impress this fact upon the committee, that, although hosing is provided in the regulations, those regulations were drawn np by the inspectors, at least, that is my understanding. It is all right to say that Sir Oliver Mowat, when Minister of Justice, acceded to this. I can well understand the inspector, who had practical control of the penitentiaries, asking the assent of the Minister of Justice to certain regulations. It would not be a matter into which Sir Oliver Mowat would look very closely, but the inspector knew from having seen the hose used what effect it would have. My own opinion is that it is cruel and inhuman. Tubbing is not authorized by the regulations, as I understand them, but tubbing has been carried on in that institution, and even insane convicts have been subjected to that treatment. I say that it is a disgrace to the Dominion of Canada if we allow this thing to go on in the future.
Mr. BIOKERDIKlE : Hear, hear. It is a shame.


William Cameron Edwards: I have no maudlin sentiment for a convict who has violated the laws of society. He has to be punished, but he should not be treated as if he were a brute; he should be treated with soma humanity, and I say that the evidence taken by that commission shows that these convicts have not been treated like human beings; they have been treated like dogs or worse. Talk about reformation! How, in the name of Heaven, can you reform a man when all the time he is subjected to this kind of treatment! What must be his feelings? It is impossible to reform him under those conditions.
I make another charge against the deputy, and which indicates his absolute unfitness for the position he occupies. He admitted in his evidence that it was up to him to	appoint	the convicts to
their positions in the prison, and also the guards to their positions. I went through that institution in company with the present warden, Colonel Irvine.

We visited the various shops-the carpenter shop, the paint shop, the blacksmith shop- and, lastly, we came around to the stone pile, and saw sixty convicts sitting there breaking stone. They say there is nothing else for them to do, that there is no place else to put them. Perhaps some recognition must be given to that statement; but the deputy warden, if he had the instincts of humanity and the common sense of a five-year-old young one, would not place a boy convict of fourteen or fifteen years on that stone pile, and keep him there for three or four years cracking stone. If there was not another charge to level against the deputy warden, the one fact that he would take boys fourteen and fifteen years old, place them beside old repeaters, and keep them on that stone pile year after year, is sufficient to indicate that the man is not fit for the position he occupies. If you go through that institution and look at the faces of those convicts on that stone pile, you will see an expression that is almost impossible to conceive.


Mr. BICKERDIKE:: Is it not a fact that in some of our penitentiaries men are chained down with logging chains in the dark dungeons?


William Cameron Edwards: I think it is. It was brought out in the evidence that at Kingston they were sentenced to the dungeon and shackled to the gate.


Robert Bickerdike: I have more reference to St. Vincent de Paul.


William Cameron Edwards: I want to give you another instance of the absolute unfitness of this man, O'Leary, for the position which he occupies. Fancy, on that stone pile, sixty men breaking stone month after month and year after year, a pail of water, and all drinking out of one cup and from one pail. Not only that, but it was brought out in the evidence that men with syphilitic sores in their mouths were in the same gangs with these boys, and all drinking out of the same pail and out of the same cup. x submit that you would not put a diseased animal alongside of healthy ones, and yet you put men with the most loathsome disease you can imagine alongside these boys and expect them to grow up to strong and vigorous manhood.


Mr. A. W. CHISHOLM:: Was that fact known to the officials of the institutions?


William Cameron Edwards: Certainly it was known to the officials; it was admitted in their evidence.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: They should have
known of it.


William Cameron Edwards: Let me give you another instance of the way in which this institution has been run. This has been the routine treatment meted out to sick convicts. On Sundays, in order to let the guards go home, the sick convicts were given their breaklasv at nine o'clock, their dinner at eleven, ana their supper at one o'clock and they got nothing more to eat until between eight and nine o'clock on Monday morning. This was the way in which they treated sick convicts.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Supper at one o'clock?


William Cameron Edwards: That is what I said.
They got their meals at nine, eleven and one and the only part of their meal that they could keep in their cells was a piece of bread; they were not allowed to retain any of the dishes. There may have been a difference of opinion as to whether an investigation of this institution was necessary when I made my charges, but there can now be no two opinions in this country in regard to it being necessary.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would like my hon.
friend to repeat that statement about sick convicts receiving their meals at the hours mentioned. Does he mean to say that they got their meals at nine, eleven and one o'clock, and nothing between that and next day?


William Cameron Edwards: That is what I say. They received their breakfast at nine, their dinner at eleven, and their supper at one, and nothing from that time until Monday morning between eight and nine o'clock.


Mr. BRODER:: On Sunday only?


William Cameron Edwards: On Sunday only.


George William Kyte: Is the hon. gentleman referring to the evidence brought out?


William Cameron Edwards: I am referring to what is brought out and what appears in the typewritten evidence which I have here. I shall be very glad if any hon. member desires it, to corroborate any statement I make by the evidence, which bears out what I have said.


Mr. DEVLIN:: Why does the hon. gentleman lay so much blame on the deputy warden? Was not the warden responsible for all these Acts?


William Cameron Edwards: I will answer that question. Under our system, as it is now and has been for many years, the warden-ships in penitentiaries have gone as

political plums to men, no matter which side has been in power. There was no consideration given to the man's fitness for the position of warden. He got the position of warden because of services he had rendered to his party. As a result of that the warden depended upon the next officials, the deputy warden, the surgeon, and so on, for the administration of the penitentiary.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In the case of sick
convicts is not the diet fixed by the doctor?


William Cameron Edwards: Yes, by the doctor. I am not charging that particular point against the deputy warden; I am charging it against the doctor.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is incredible that they should be left without anything to eat from one o'clock on Sunday until next day.


William Cameron Edwards: That is admitted in
the evidence. I am not stating anything I cannot prove. As a result of the warden-ship being a political appointment, the administration of this institution largely rests with the deputy warden. That is recognized, and the deputy warden places the guards in their various positions and assigns the convicts to their work. I hold him responsible. The point I am trying to make in regard to the deputy is that all these matters indicate, at least to my mind, that the deputy does not possess that tact and judgment which a man should possess in administering a large institution of that kind.


Robert Bickerdike: I understand that a convict is not allowed to have a newspaper and that he is not even allowed to have his mother's photograph in his cell. Is that correct?


William Cameron Edwards: I do not know about the photograph. I do not think he is allowed to have his mother's photograph, and generally convicts are not allowed to have newspapers, though I believe there are some convicts in that institution to-day who have certain privileges along that line which are not enjoyed by other convicts. They have been allowed to have not only newspapers, hut their pipes and tobacco. I know a convict in that institution who is looking for parole to-day. He is one of the men who came up before the -commission and whose evidence was made much of by the commission. I refer to Travers. Many hon. members in this House have heard of Mr. Travers. When
Mr. Travers was taken to Toronto he was in charge of one of the officials of the institution, and he was taken there to give evidence before Mr. Justice Meredith. The lines were relaxed to such an extent that Travers was enabled to go to a certain liquor store in Toronto and order	some	whisky to be sent toan	official in	the penitentiary.
Not only that, but he, by letter, ordered cigars and whisky from a man in eastern Ontario to have it sent to him at the penitentiary, and stated that he would pay for it some day. Whether it was sent or not I do not know, but I do know that the letter was sent. The letter got out and went to this man in eastern Ontario asking him to send the cigars.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Is that in the evidence given before the commission.


William Cameron Edwards: No, and there are other things not in the evidence given before the commission.


Robert Bickerdike: The regulation says:
A convict whose conduct is satisfactory may receive visits from members of his family once in three months and may write to members of his family once in two months. He may 'receive letters from relative or friends, but such letters must be short and devoted exclusively to family or business matters.' No enclosure such as newspaper clippings, pictures, cards, stamps, etc., are delivered. Christmas boxes, hampers or packages of fruit, food or confectionery are not permitted to be sent to the prison.


William Cameron Edwards: I want to pursue the
report of this kalsomining trio a little bit further. I notice that the chairman of the commission is a K.C., and we all know what that usually means, but in this case if yon turn the letters around you will have them to mean chief kalsominer. On page 21 of the report I read:
We are referred by counsel quite properly on this charge to the evidence of Major Hughes, pages 239-244 to the rosters prepared by the deputy, as 'the best evidence in support of this charge' also to the evidence of Dr. Platt.
What docs Mr. Stewart in his argument say? He says:
The best evidence in support of this charge is found in the evidence of Major Hughes commencing at page 239 and continuing to page 244 inclusive, also rosters prepared by the deputy warden. I would also refer to the return made by the Secretary of State, a copy of which may be found at page 546 and 547 also to the evidence of Dr. Platt page 556 and the evidence of W. S. Hughes commencing at page 1660.
Why did they mangle what Mr. Stewart, the counsel, said; why did they suppress

or make no mention of the return, of the Secretary of State? I asked certain questions in this House which were answered by the Secretary of State, and I have here the answers given by him. These documents were put in as evidence before the commission, and I think they are very important documents as [DOT] indicating iavour-itism on the part of the deputy warden. It seems to me the commission deliberately left this out of the question. They also, it seems to me, deliberately do not refer to the evidence of Mr. Hughes at page 1660 which is very important evidence, and the evidence of Dr. Platt, at page 556, which is also very material. Why do they hunt out paragraphs here and there to try to make it appear that the warden was equally responsible with the deputy for the placing of guards in positions, and suppress Dr. Platt's testimony where he swears that after the keepers were done away with the guards have their positions assigned to them by the deputy warden, and yet this report tries to make it appear that the warden is equally responsible for assigning the guards. The deputy warden himself admitted that the responsibility was his and that he alone was the man who assigned the guards to their positions. This was all verified when the deputy warden was on the stand, and when the report of the Secretary of State was placed before him and he was questioned. The names were taken one at a time and he was asked with regard to each one and he corroborated the report of the *Secretary of State. These men were appointed to these positions by him and that *report shows conclusively that there was *favouritism on the part of the deputy warden. I do not know whether it was done consciously or unconsciously but the deputy warden certainly favoured the guards and keepers of his own religion in [DOT]that institution. If you take the return presented by the Secretary of State you *will find that when there were keepers in the institution, out of eleven of them seven were Roman Catholics and four Protestants. If you look at that return you will find
that under disciplinary officers, eleven out of twenty were Roman Catholics and nine were Protestants. I say that consciously or unconsciously the deputy warden has favoured men of his own religion in that institution, and that that was one of the causes of lack of harmony which prevailed. Before I place a few figures on record I want to say that in regard to religion there is no doubt about it at all that it has cut quite a figure in that institution, and that either religion or the lack of it has been the cause of a good deal of trouble. There has been favouritism shown by the deputy warden to people of his own religion, and I maintain that that is made quite apparent, not only by the return of the Secretary of State but by the rosters which were referred to by Major Hughes in his evidence. In that connection I want to give a few figures to the House. Before doing so I want to state my position in this matter. I believe that in any province where the Protestants are in the majority, that the offices, whether in the penitentiary or outside the penitentiary, should not be assigned in mathematical proportion according to population, but that whichever religion is in the majority in any province they could afford to be generous and should be generous to those in the minority.


Robert Bickerdike: Hear, hear.


William Cameron Edwards: I say that the majority should give the minority not merely the exact proportion to which they would be entitled accordingto population, but more than their exact proportion of the offices. I say that in the province of Ontario the Protestant majority could very well afford to act in that way, and that in the province of Quebec, where the Roman Catholics are in [DOT]the majority, it would be in the interests of harmony if they acted in the same way towards the Protestant minority. That is my position and I do not think I can *make it any clearer. But, I want to say that that has not been carried out in the Kingston penitentiary. I want to put these figures on ' Hansard '.

Tear 1912.
f	R. C. Population.	R. C. Officials.	Protestant Population.	Protestant Officials.Ontario and Kingston Penitentiary	Per cent. 19.3	Per cent. 38 = 42	Per cent. 80.7	Per cent. 53 = 58Quebec and St. Vincent de Paul	86	65 = 92	14	6-8Maritime provinces and Dorchester	35	21 = 46	65	25 = 54Manitoba	16	4 = 16	84	22 = 84British Columbia	15	10 = 24	85	31 = 76Alberta	17	8 = 28	83	21-72Saskatchewan	18	4 = 22	82	14 = 78Canada 	39.31	150 = 47	60.69	172 = 53
I give these figures because I think they indicate that, so far as the penitentiaries are concerned, there has been no discrimination so far as the appointments of Roman Catholic officials are concerned, and I think the same thing is true in regard to other positions outside the penitentiary. I repeat again that, in my view, the majority, whether it be Roman Catholic or Protestant, should in any province in the interest of peace and harmony, treat the minority generously in the matter of appointment to positions. The rosters, however, show that Deputy Warden O'Leary went beyond generosity in assigning positions; that he favoured to an extraordinary extent, either consciously or unconsciously, people of his own Teligion. I say that was unfortunate, because in doing that he laid the ground for a good a deal of the lack of harmony which prevails in that institution. He also showed a lack of judgment which unfits him for the position which he holds. I maintain that the evidence of Major Hughes and Dr. Platt proves that the deputy warden assigned the guards to their posts; that the returns of the Secretary of State and the rosters show that there has been discrimination ; that it has been established by the evidence of Hughes and many other officials that the deputy warden, consciously or unconsciously, favoured those of his own religion. While the report quotes the evidence of Fegg who sees no favourite posts and says:
Other guards whom Hughes expected to testify to favouritism, gave evidence similar to Fegg's.
The facts are these. Fegg was the only guard referred to by Hughes who said that there was no favouritism. Guard Wilson and ex-Guard Marsh, neither of whom were mentioned by Hughes, agreed with Fegg as to favourite posts, but each reflected seriously on the deputy warden in other matters.

In this the report is very unfair, as it does not mention the fact that McCuade, Montgomery, Smith, Aikins, Bannister, Bryant, Caughey, Davis, Johnston, Ingledew, Patterson and Inspector Hughes, all swore that the deputy warden showed favouritism, and their evidence is borne out by the return of the Secretary of State and by the rosters which indicate, beyond possibility of doubt, that the deputy warden, in placing the guards, gave a decided and overwhelming preference to Roman Catholics. That, I think, substantiates the charge I made in regard to favouritism, which the report states very improperly and in such a way as to mislead the House.


George William Kyte: Has the hon. member any
information as to the religion of the members of the commission?


William Cameron Edwards: Yes. Mr. Macdonell
is a Presbyterian, Dr. Etherington an Anglican, and Mr. Downey a Roman Catholic.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Was there a minority
report?


William Cameron Edwards: I think this whole report is a minority report. To come down to a true statement of the facts, I think it is more a minority report than anything else.


George William Kyte: The majority were fair to the minority. They take the same position as t)he hon. member does.


William Cameron Edwards: The majority of whom?


George William Kyte: The majority of the commission were fair to the minority.


William Cameron Edwards: The hon. gentleman, of course, means to say that Messrs. Macdonell and Etherington were fair to Mr. Downey.


George William Kyte: That is the argument of my hon. friend.


William Cameron Edwards: That is an indication of a great mind. My hon. friend laboured hard, I am sure, to work that out. I will leave him to ponder over that and see if he can work out another.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: You have been stronger in making your point so far as humanity is concerned than you have 'been in regard to religion.


William Cameron Edwards: Well, I am more a
humanitarian than a churchman.
A guard, who was discharged, makes a charge of perjury arising out of a dispute in the year 1898. The evidence adduced to sustain this charge was this witness' uncorroborated recollection of a verbal statement made by the deputy.
Uncorroborated, why? Because the commission refused to allow any evidence to be given in corroboration. In that connection, I want to say something which was stated before the commission, and which does not appear in the report, because the chairman of the commission instructed the stenographer not to take it down and requested the press not to publish it. Major Hughes, in the course of his evidence before that commission, stated in the presence of the three commissioners, the deputy warden and eight or ten other persons that, if the deputy warden were to receive a sentence of three years for every charge of perjury which Major Hughes could prove against him, he, the deputy warden, would spend the rest of his days behind prison bars. That is the opinion of one of the inspectors in regard to the deputy warden. That statement was made by Major Hughes under oath in the course of his evidence. Therefore I think I am justified in making that statement here, because of the fact that I preferred a charge against the deputy warden and was prevented by the commissioners from adducing evidence in support of my charge. It is certainly curious that the deputy warden would lie down under a charge of this kind made by Major Hughes and one of the other witnesses, ex-guard Patterson. The deputy warden was present when both gentlemen made the statement, but he has not yet taken steps to prosecute either of them. Therefore, I do not think the general public will have very much confidence in a man of that character, who is practically in control of the institution.
In regard to the charge of neglect of duty resulting in attempts to escape, Dr. Platt says:
A convict designated as dangerous and marked for special care escaped under circumstances which force one to the conclusion that well-known, important and imperative duties were either neglected or performed in a culpably perfunctory manner.
He is referring to the escape of Chartrand, who got out in the middle of the night. The bars of his cell door were cut and paper bars were substituted. He had a dummy in his cell. He had constructed a rope ladder with hooks on it to fix to the wall, if he succeeded in getting out to the yard, and the bars in the corridor window were also cut. Smith was on night duty and might be held responsible for not having detected the cutting of the bars of the cell door; but the bars in the window could not have been cut at night, because the prisoners were all locked up, and therefore the bars must have been cut in the day time. A convict orderly, who has since died, stated that the bars of the corridor window were cut by him in the day time while guard McConville was asleep. In regard to that particular part of the prison, who performed the duties there? The answer is Smith and McConville. What is the public record of these two men? Smith was anew man who had been only for a short time there, and who had fourteen times been reprimanded for neglect of duty. Two of these occasions were on January 26 and January 28, 1912, and this escape took place on March 9, 1912. I say there was a lack of judgment on the part of the deputy warden in assigning to a man of that kind the charge of a ward where an especially dangerous convict was confined. Who was the other man on duty? The other man was McConville, a man who had been suspended for drunkenness and had been reinstated because the hon. member for Kingston at that time, Hon. William Harty, insisted that he should be brought back and put on duty. The man who appointed these guards to their positions was the deputy warden. And I say that the record of these two men is proof that the deputy warden did not exercise proper care and judgment in appointing them to the position he did appoint them to. 1 would ask the minister to consider one or two things that the commission did not follow up and investigate. Smith was called and examined in regard to the Chartrand escape. The other man who was suspended three days afterwards, named McConville, was not called. Why? And why was Mc-G'onville not examined in regard to posting up a notice just before the last election;

' Vote for Mowat,' and that notice was- put up in the warden's office window.


Robert Bickerdike: You do not blame
him for that?


William Cameron Edwards: I suppose the hon. gentleman does not, anyway. Why was not the circulation of the Aylesworth telegram to Harty followed up? Why did the chairman deal with Godkin so severely in regard to his age and ignore the fact brought out in Dr. Phelan's evidence that there were others who misstated their age when they sought the appointment as guards, and also the fact that there were ten or twelve guards on duty regardless of the fact that they were related to one another, which is contrary to the regulations? Why did the commissioners entirely ignore the evidence of Dr. Phelan that the regulation in that regard had been violated? Why did they not follow up the evidence that O'Beary knew of the tubbing? It was sworn that this was done under the direction of the deputy warden or surgeon. Why did they not follow up the sworn statements in regard to drinking by O'Leary and the drunkenness of O'Driscoll and Doyle? Why was Chapman, who had' broken his parole, according to his own admission, allowed to go and nothing done? Why does the commission entirely ignore the false evidence of Rose in regard to Ingledew? Ingledew was a guard who [DOT]was charged with certain offences, and one of the convicts, a man named Rose, was brought to give evidence. A day or eo afterwards he confessed to Rev. Mr. Dobbs, Protestant chaplain, that his evidence against Ingledew was a frame-up between himself and the hospital overseer, Wilson. This came to my ears, and Rose repeated to me and the warden the confession that he had made. When the commission met again I stated the fact to them that Rose had declared his former evidence against Ingledew was false and a frame-up between him and Wilson. I certainly expected that the commission would recall Rose in regard to that matter. But they refused to do so. And what reason, do you think, the chairman gave? His reason was: If we bring him up on that matter it would mean a charge of perjury against him. But I do not see what particular difference that could make to Rose, for he is serving a life sentence at the present time. I desire to call the attention of the Minister of Justice to the fact that not only did the chairman absolutely refuse to recall Rose, who de-
dared that he had testified falsely, but, after Rose had confessed to perjuring himself, they called him on another matter and took his evidence. That is the sort of commission you had. When I stated in this House that they were not worth fifteen cents a day, I overestimated their value. I want to ask, wihy were Rondale and Hodges dismissed for trafficking and others not followed up? Let me give you a word or two in regard to that. It was brought out in the evidence that the convicts were getting money from outside and were buying tobacco with it through the agency of the guards. One of the convicts, in fact more than one, made that statement. But the commissioners did not think it true. I asked one of the commissioners to ask a convict if he had any tobacco on him then. The convict, tan Italian, said, 'Sure.' He pulled up his trouser-leg, turned down his sock, and there was half a plug of. tobacco which the convict laid on the table. The commissioners then believed that the convicts had got tobacco into the penitentiary, but before that they were doubtful. They made inquiries tand wrote to Ottawa to get a permit from the Postmaster General to inspect the books and records in the Kingston post office. They got certain evidence implicating a certain official of the institution in that kind of business. The evidence went to show that the relatives of ia convict would send to that convict, through a guard, let us say, $10. The guard would take $4 or $6 and pass over the other $4 to the convict, and the convict would then buy tobacco with his $4. He was to get so many plugs for a dollar, but instead of getting all he would get only a certain portion, they took a second toll out cr him in that way. It was clearly established to the satisfaction of the commissioners that that sort of thing was going on. So the commissioners put a notice in the Kingston papers saying that they had certain evidence along that line and asking the guards) who had been guilty of this offence to come forward and confess. They said, in effect: If you come forward and confess you will simply lose your position; but if you do not, we have the evidence, and you will not only lose your position but be prosecuted under the Act. What happened? Two guards came forward and confessed, and lost their positions. The commissioners again called on those who were guilty to come forward and confess,

intimating that otherwise they would fare very badly before they got through with them. No person came forward. But all at once, though they had intimated that there were a number of others implicated- and their report said so-everything along that line stopped. Why? Now, I want to say that when they stopped investigating that sort of business they had evidence in their possession that money had been received by qtheir officials of that institution, and I have seen the proof of that myself. They had evidence that money orders were received by certain, officials of that institution from the mother of one of the convicts, and the money orders sent to that official were in the possession of the commissioners and if I mistake not are at present in the city of Ottawa, either in the hands of the Inspector of Prisons or of the Minister of Justice. Now, I am going to give you the name of that official, and the name of that official is the Roman Catholic chaplain of the Kingston penitentiary. The orders that were sent were sent to him by Mrs. McNeil, the mother of Convict McNeil, who, I believe, is one of the Stony Mountain gang. The dates of the several orders were May 3, 1912; July 16, 1912 and January 29, 1913, and the amounts were $2, $6 and $5. These money orders, I believe, are at present in the city of Ottawa.
The orders that were sent to him were sent by Mrs. MacNeil, the mother of convict MacNeil, who I believe is one of the Stony Mountain gang. The dates when the money orders were sent were May 3, May 12, and July 10, 1912, and January 29, 1913. The amounts of the orders were $2, $6 and $5. Those orders are at present in Ottawa. I ask why the commissioners did not go on and investigate this matter. Why did they not? It cannot be stopped there, a reason must be given for those money orders being sent as they were sent from Portsmouth post office to the chaplain of the institution. Those orders were obtained in the post office and are at present in Ottawa. I say that this commission is a farce unless it goes on and gives us a reason Hvhy that matter Stopped there.


Edmond Proulx: Were they addressed to the chaplain?


William Cameron Edwards: Yes.


Edmond Proulx: I suppose he could draw the money if they were addressed to him.


William Cameron Edwards: I suppose he could and I suppose he did.


Edmond Proulx: Did he give it to the convict?


William Cameron Edwards: I do not know; I was not one of the commissioners. That is a matter which was not investigated; that is a matter which I say should be investigated. I want to call the attention of my hon. friend to section 67 of the Penitentiaries Act, which provides a penalty of three months' imprisonment for any person who gives prohibited articles to any convict or leaves, them in any place with intent that they shall be taken by a convict. That is the section, which the two guards who were dismissed confessed having violated. That was the section that was held over the other guards if they did not come forward and confess having done the same thing. That was the section in regard to which I ask an investigation in this instance, to see if it has been violated. We are entitled to have that information.


Edmond Proulx: Has the hon. member any evidence whether the orders were cashed or not? Perhaps they were returned.


William Cameron Edwards: The orders, as I understand, were obtained at the post office in Portsmouth and I presume they were cashed at the post office there.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Did the hon. member bring any charge before the commission as to this?


William Cameron Edwards: No, I did not because 1 did not know anything about it then. I may say that I had had. complaints made to me in regard to the chaplain, but from first to last I refrained from saying one word in regard to that official; and it was only after this matter came to my attention that I mentioned his name: His predecessor in that office was a man who was liked by every person because he strictly attended to his business and confined himself to the duties of his office. I believe that the present chaplain has not done that.
Mr. KATE,: What has he been doing?


William Cameron Edwards: He has interfered and intrigued and caused a good deal of the trouble that has occurred at that institution.


George William Kyte: Political trouble?


William Cameron Edwards: Well, I think he has
had a good hand in that. He is a pronounced Grit, and when you get a pronounced Grit you may look out for trouble.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Is it not a fact that Father Macdonald, enjoys the reputation of attending strictly to his duties in connection with the penitentiary?


William Cameron Edwards: No, it is not a fact. The question is a direct one and is entitled to a direct answer. On the contrary, I am sorry to say that he enjoys a very different reputation with regard to performing his duties.
that he does more than perform 12 m. his duties, that he has been charged by no less a person than one of the inspectors, Inspector Hughes, with caballing with the guards and fomenting trouble in that institution.


Edmond Proulx: Is it not a fact that tihe hon. member caballed himself for Inspector Hughes?


William Cameron Edwards: Not as I understand the word ca-bal. At all events I was not closet-ted with my hon. friend from Prescott in regard to the matter. I did do my utmost to have Inspector Hughes appointed as warden of the institution and I am prepared to give good reasons for taking that course. Inspector Hughes was recommended by me for that position because I believed that his long years of service there in different positions made him a very competent man for the position. He was recommended not only by me but by thirty or forty Conservative members of this House and ten or twelve in the Legislature of Ontario, as well as by four or five Conservative executives in Ontario. He had been spoken of highly in the performance of his duties by every Minister of Justice during his term of office. If any man ever had grounds to ask for the appointment of a man to a position I had good grounds in this case and I was pretty well backed up. You can call that caballing if you like, but I do not call it that. I understand the word to mean getting together in little bunches and talking secretly and fomenting trouble: I do not go about things in that way. If I wish to get to a certain point either walking ot talking I go straight to it.
I wish to call attention to some peculiarities, not to use a harsher term, of the chairman of this commission. There is ample evidence to show that he ignored a good deal of evidence which should be placed before this House if we are to properly under-

stand the situation at Kingston. I believe that he did so deliberately, and I think it was because he misunderstood his orders. There is one thing, however, that the chairman of the commission did fully understand, and that was how to charge for his services. I have not had time to go fully into the detailed expense account of this commission, but I noticed that Mr. Downey drew $1,396.61 and that his travelling expenses started from July 10, althougn the Order in Council appointing this commission was not passed until August 25 or 26. I presume, however, that this date in July is accounted for by Mr. Downey's having to come to Ottawa to talk matters over when his name was under consideration. I also notice that Dr. Etherington drew $1,373.71, and that the chief kalso-miner, George Milnes Macdonnell, collected $1,501.40. In the detailed expense account of the chairman I notice some items which call for comment. He gives the dates he visited the prison farm, and the Kingston penitentiary, and the consultations he had with different persons. He consulted witn Mr Nickle about twenty-five times.
Mr. BJCKERD1KE: I suppose he did not charge for consulting with Nickle.


William Cameron Edwards: I do not think you can be a lawyer or you would not have askea that question. I never heard tell of a lawyer who did not charge for a consultation. The chairman of the commission has even got down in this expense account an item for attending divine service-$15 for that, I suppose.


Robert Bickerdike: Was he a clergyman?


William Cameron Edwards: No, he was just attending the service.


James Joseph Hughes: Was that one of the
commissioners?


William Cameron Edwards: Strange as it may seem, one of the commissioners attended divine service and charged for it.


James Joseph Hughes: What was his namer


William Cameron Edwards: George Milnes Macdonnell, K.C., chairman of the commission. I can readily understand how surprised my hon. friend is that Mr. Macdonnell should attend divine service after all I have said about him. But according to his own statement here he actually did attend, but apparently the service did not have any appreciable effect.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Was not that the amount he put in the plate?


William Cameron Edwards: It does not say whether he put anything in the plate or took anything off it. I was not with the gentleman so I cannot give any further particulars.


James Joseph Hughes: The hon. gentleman has given us information as to the religious persuasions of these commissioners. Perhaps he can tell us to what political party they belong.


William Cameron Edwards: I am not in a position to say positively to what political party they belong.


Robert Bickerdike: I think the hon. gentleman will admit that it' was a Tory trick to charge $15 for attending divine service.


William Cameron Edwards: My hon. friend must
remember that for fifteen years or more all that we could do was to sit and watch the antics of hon. gentlemen opposite; so if we were demoralized to a certain extent there is some little excuse for us. Of course, the surprising part of it is that he stopped at $15. Hon. gentlemen opposite dealt in much larger figures, no $15 a day would satisfy them. I do not know to what political party these gentlemen belong, but I assume they were supposed to be Conservative.


James Joseph Hughes: When were they appointed?


William Cameron Edwards: On August 25 or 26,
1913. They were appointed after the change of Government.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend has already said they were not worth fifteen cents a day.


William Cameron Edwards: I do not think they
were. When I made that statement I think I was putting rather a high figure on the .value of their services. If I am to regard this report in the light in which it should be regarded, that is, as the basis for intelligent action on the part of this committee with regard to that institution, I say their services were not worth fifteen cents a day because the report in so far as the charges I made are concerned is misleading from beginning to end, and is framed in such a way that it is utterly impossible for this committee to form correct conclusions as to the conditions prevailing at Kingston penitentiary. In conclusion, I want to say that I got into this matter in the first place, possibly through advocating Major Hughes for the wardenship. There was quite a little contest and more or less feeling about that, and perhaps because of that 284}	.	... r-VjifeiB
certain charges were brought to my attention which otherwise would not have been. My position was simply this : I felt that I would not be doing my duty after those charges had been brought to my atention if I did not lay them before the Minister of Justice and ask for a commission to investigate them. I think that yet. All I want to see in connection with that institution is such reforms as will give the convict a chance for his future. I do not want, and I do not expect, a convict to be treated as a person outside. He has to be punished. I hope that the information which the commissioners have presented, not only in connection with the charges I have made but the information they have gathered through visiting prisons, will be carefully considered by the minister, and that it will result in such reforms as will give the convict who is unfortunate enough to be confined in prison a chance to come out a better man than he went in. I firmly believe that there is some good in every man no matter how bad he may appear on the surface. I believe that in these institutions, we require* men of tact and judgment and superior ability, at least in the higher offices, and that such salaries should be offered as will obtain men of that calibre. You cannot hope to have any reforming influence upon convicts by appointing to administrative positions in the penitentiaries men who are almost illiterate and who have practically no education whatever. If you are going to reform the convict you must place over him men who will be firm in their administration, but who at the same time will show a kindly interest in the convict.
If the heads of the institution will show that they have an interest in the convicts I believe a great many of the convicts will respond. It has been said that the faults at Kingston and the other penitentiaries are due to the defective .system. The best system that could be devised by all the criminalogiste and penologists in North America could not prove a success if it were to be handled by men who have shown such an utter lack of judgment and tact as Deputy Warden O'Leary and Doctor Phelan. I think that the men who occupy the positions of wardens and deputy wardens of our prisons and penitentiaries should be moved from one to another, that these men should not be retained in one position for twenty years but that it would be in the interest of the institutions if they were given to understand that they were not the warden, or the deputy warden, of a certain institution but a warden, or a de-

puty warden to be sent wherever the Minister of Justice saw fit to send them. If you keep these men in office, as these officials have been kept in office for all these years, it is only natural that they will form friendships and favour some at the expense of others. It gives rise to a certain amount of friction and produces a lack of harmony which should not exist.
Many of the grievances and complaints, no doubt, are imaginary but we have to take them all as they come and I do think that a lot of trouble in connection with the institution at Kingston -has been caused by the utter lack of judgment exhibited by the deputy warden in his handling not only of the guards but of the convicts. A man who would place boys on the stone pile when, unier the prison rules, he could have found occupation for every boy under twenty, and who would keep these boys on the stone pile month after month and year after year, is utterly unfit for the position which he has occupied as deputy warden of that institution.
I want to see the institution run properly. The reformation of convicts presupposes moral capacity on the part of the convicts. I believe that a great majority of these convicts have moral capacity. I protest against the punishments which have been inflicted on these men, such as strapping insane convicts in a tub of ice cold water and shoving their heads down under. I protest also against the punishment of turning the hose under a pressure of sixty pounds, upon convicts and knocking them about a cell specially constructed for the purpose of inflicting that punishment. I protest against placing the insane convicts in the dungeons shackled to the steel door. Even if we are within the last few days of the session we are not doing our duty as citizens of this country, we are not doing our duty to ourselves, if we do not protest so that this country will hear fit from the Atlantic to the Pacific and let it be understood that officials who devise such punishments as that, whether they are wardens, deputy wardens, dr inspectors, are not fit for the positions which they occupy and that there are other men who can be got to occupy these positions who possess the necessary -qualifications to -discharge the duties properly. 1 want to quote. a paragraph from the last report of the inspectors of the penitentiaries and I quote it for a purpose. It is to be found on page 7 of the report:
During the past year, the penitentiaries have been subjected to more than the usual quota of criticism. It is needless to state that fair
[Mr. Edwards 1
constructive criticism is welcomed as helpful, and receives careful consideration by those engaged in the task of administering penal institutions. There is a class of criticism, however, which is merely the parrot-like reiteration of the mis-statements of officials who have violated their oath of office, or the equally unreliable vapourings of ex-convicts who seek notoriety. Such criticism is unfair and injurious. There is no close season to protect officials from such attacks. They can do so only in their annual reports.
This is signed by Douglas Stewart and W. S. Hughes, inspectors. As far as a criticism of the institution is concerned, there was no person who had more criticism for that institution than one of the inspectors who signed that report, namely, W. S. Hughes. I merely want to call this to his attention. I was one who criticised that institution, and as that paragraph was partly levelled -at me, I want to call attention to the fact that there are others to whom that might -apply as well as to myself. As far as my criticism of the institution is concerned, I have nothing to take back. I criticised it because I considered that it should be criticised, because I believed it was being wrongly managed, because I believed that the convicts in the shape of human beings were being treated like beasts and brutes. I believe "that the institution is rotten, that it is a perfect hell in the hollow, as stated by Jack Canuck and other papers a-s well. That is a very good term and one which could have been properly applied to the institution for many years back. I think it is pretty nearly time that the whole place was cleaned out and a set of officials put in there who would display some judgment in dealing with the men over whom they are supposed to have control.


Mr. NICKLE:: Mr. Chairman, you will
remember that two years ago, while speaking in this House on seconding the Address, I directed -the attention of the House and the country to the condition that I thought prevailed at the penitentiary at Kingston. Later on in the session the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr .Edwards) directed the attention of the bon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) and the House more specifically by making certain charges and complaints against the officials of that institution. I do not know that I should have had anything to say to-night if it were not that two of the commissioners appointed to investigate this institution c^me from my riding, and I do not think that the hon. member for Frontenac has

been entirely fair in his treatment of these gentlemen. In the inception of his remarks the hon. member for Frontenac qnite honestly said that at the time of the appointment of these gentlemen he saw no reason to believe that they would not properly perform their duties. The chairman of the commission is Mr. G. M. Macdonell, of Kingston, a lawyer of some sixty-five years of age, a man of experience in matters appertaining to social problems, and a man who stands high in the city of Kingston. The other member from Kingston is Dr. Etherington, a gentleman who followed me shortly after my graduation from Queen's University, who was connected with the hospital at Kingston, took a course abroad, returned to Kingston, became a lecturer in the University, and later on became a practitioner of note in Kingston. He is recognized from one end of Kingston to the other and throughout the district as a clear, forcible, energetic, determined, honest man. To show that these views are not only held by myself I can direct the attention of the committee to a couple of editorials which appeared in the city papers at the time of the appointment of these commissioners. The first extract I shall read is from an editorial that appeared in the Kingston Standard under date of July 15, and which reads as follows:
The Government has made no mistake in appointing G. M. Macdonell, of this city, as chairman of the commission that is to investigate the Portsmouth penitentiary. Mr. Macdonell is a man of ability and of impartial Judgment and with him as chairman there is assurance that no injustice will be done to any one and that all will be given a fair hearing.


William Cameron Edwards: Before that the commission had not been in session.


William Folger Nickle: Quite so; I am only laying a foundation for the few remarks I have to make, and I shall endeavour to be as moderate as the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) has been. On August 28 the same paper said-:
The appointment of Dr. Etherington, of this city as the third member of the commission to conduct the penitentiary investigation is an excellent one and will, we feel sure, be generally commended. This appointment completes the commission, the other members being G. M. Macdonell, K.C., chairman-an ideal man for that position-and Mr. Joseph Downey, ex-M.P.P
The personnel of the commission assures that the investigation will be a real one and will be conducted without fear, favour or bias.
These remarks are taken from the Conservative press. I turn to the Liberal press. Some little time ago the hon. member for
Frontenac made the rather drastic remark that the members of this commission, instead of being worth fifteen dollars a day, were not worth fifteen cents a day, and this appeared in the British Whig some days later:
The Whig is under no obligation to defend these men politically, as they owed their choice, primarily, to the fact that they were good Conservatives. But they possessed, apart from their political calling, special qualifications for the work. Mr. Macdonell, the chairman, had for many years given penology a very close study. He was largely interested in the reform of erring humanity. Dr. Etherington was chosen, it is presumed, because of his professional train- [DOT] ing, and because one very distinct phase of the inquiry was of a man of unbiased mind, Mr. Downey was, in a sense, a specialist in the service to which he was called in this ease.
The commission had its experiences during the inquiry.
Perhaps I should say in regard to Mr. Downey that I knew Mr. Downey slightly in the Ontario Legislature. Mr. Downey acted as chairman of the Prison Commission appointed by the Hon. W. J. Hanna, then provincial secretary for Ontario, and I have always understood he framed the Teport upon which the Ontario system was brought into existence. So much for the commission.
I want to say, as regards the hon. member for Frontenac, that I give him every credit for being honestly and zealously filled with a desire to reform conditions at the Kingston penitentiary. He enjoyed to a degree that I did not the confidence of now Inspector Hughes and several of the guards of that institution. They told their stories to him, as I understand it, and, believing that evidence was evidence upon which he could rely, he made certain specific charges to the minister, and, as a result of these charges, and, possibly, as a result of the attention drawn to penitentiary administration in general, the minister appointed a commission. But, at the beginning, an unfortunate thing happened, and I say unfortunate in this sense: that I think it militated somewhat against the general good work and reputation of the commissioners. When the commission was received in Kingston it was found that there was a five-year limit placed on the examination or scrutiny into the chargee that were made by Dr. Edwards. At the very inception of the inquiry that caused trouble. Perhaps I may make the remark that, during the entire inquiry, the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) put himself with all his energy behind the investigation that

he had instituted. No effort was1 too great, and no detail too small to have his consideration. He attended the sittings of the commission daily, from their beginning to their end, and did everything that was possible for a man to do to bring before the commission such evidence as he thought should have their hearing and consideration. But Dr. Edwards and the commissioner fell foul of one another at almost the first sitting of the commission. iA discussion took place at that first meeting, at which I happened to be, as to the construction that was to be put on the terms * of the commission. The commissioners ruled as follows:
The intention of the commission is to have an investigation of present conditions in the prison. The charges that were made refer to the present state and management of the penitentiary, and that, primarily, is the subject to be investigated. That goes without saying. The commission is not charged with investigating what was a past condition of things, five, or ten, or twenty years ago; we are to investigate the conditions of things today. In order to investigate the condition of things to-day, it may be necessary to go beyond the time limit of five years, and that the commission has power to do. The terms of the commission express that quite clearly, and I do not think it could be better expressed, that where, in any particular matter, the commission deems it in the public interest to pursue the inquiry beyond the five year limit, they are to do so.
The vexation and irritation arose out of this fact. Certain of Dr. Edwards' charges referred to a period anterior to five years of the date of the appointment of the commission, and one of these was a perjury charge. The charges made by Dr. Edwards against Deputy Warden O'Leary were:
I charge Deputy Warden O'Leary:
(a)	With petty and persistent persecution of guards and keepers;
(h) With political partisanship.
(c)	With testifying falsely at investigation held at the prison;
(d)	With consorting with ex-convicts;
(e)	With gross neglect of his duty, resulting in attempts at escape.
The charges made by Dr. Edwards against Dr. Phelan were:
I charge the surgeon, Dr. Phelan:
(a)	With gross political partisanship;
(b)	With, using violent and indecent language to a guard in the presence of others;
(c)	With conniving at the absence of a guard at an election trial where said guard was wanted as a material witness :
(d)	With grafting, by asking for and receiving money from guards, to which he had no just or honest claim.
[Mr. Nickle.j


William Cameron Edwards: The hon. gentleman made the statement that some of the charges I made antedated the five years.


William Folger Nickle: Yes.


William Cameron Edwards: Then how does the hon. gentleman square that with the statement of the chairman of the commission in these words:
The charges that were made refer to the present state, etc.


William Folger Nickle: I am not justifying the point of view of the commission. I am trying to get before this House such an historic setting to this inquiry that hon. gentlemen will appreciate the conditions that existed. Some of the charges made by Dr. Edwards referred to a date anterior to the five years of the appointment of the commission. The written charges have no dates from which that could be judged, but it was well known to Dr. Edwards and others who were present that his charges went beyond the five years' limit. The commissioners put this construction upon their commission, that if the charge had reference to something that happened more than five years back they would not take it into consideration unless it was shown that it affected the present penitentiary administration. In other words, that if the particular charge under review, although it was over five years old, had no part or bearing on the existing conditions of the penitentiary, they would not consider the charge. Owing to that construction put on the commission, whether it was right or wrong I cannot say, Dr. Edwards and the commissioners came into conflict. It is a matter of record that from time to time the conflict became more acute, and finally the antagonism between the commission and Dr. Edwards was so marked that the newspapers reported the proceedings with double-leaded type, and it was a matter of daily comment in Kingston that one could not tell what conflict might ensue the day following.
I am not- seeking to discuss who is right or who is wrong; but I say it ie unfortunate that this conflict arose at the beginning, because I think it has detracted somewhat from the report of three gentlemen eminently qualified to make a report, which if it has the consideration that it should have by the Minister of Justice, should go a long way towards improving conditions in the penitentiary at Kingston. I think the hon. member for Frontenae had a desire to be fair in what he said to-night;

but I suppose a man may hold a cent so close to his eye that it may blind the sun and I think perhaps the hon. member has attached so much importance to the charges that he made against the deputy warden and the surgeon that he has blinded himself to the beneficial results that might be brought about by this commission, for the appointment of which he was primarily responsible.


William Cameron Edwards: I do not think the hon. member is justified in taking that position at all. Any reasonable person will agree with me that the thing for me to discuss here would naturally be the charges which were made. I regret to say that I took rather too much time in discussing them, and stated very specifically that I regretted I could not express an opinion on the other matter. If the hon. member had done me the justice to consider what was written in the papers, he would find that I expressed myself very clearly at the outset of the investigation that my opinion was that it mattered very little who occupied the positions of officials in the penitentiary; that our object in holding the inquiry was the reforming of conditions.


William Folger Nickle: I do not wish to quarrel with my hon. friend's method of expressing his ideas. I give to him the same privilege of thought to which I think I am entitled, in trying to come to a just and fair conclusion as to the value of the report of this commission.
I wantyto direct the attention of the House to one or two small discrepancies in the story of the hon. member for Frontenac, and to show what I mean by saying that a man can hold a cent so close to his eye that he can blind the sun. My hon. friend has referred to the so-called Johnston case, that is the case of the guard who, it is alleged, went before the chairman of the commission and to whom the chairman of the commission is said to have said: You had better go home and say nothing about the eharge. That is the charge he was drawing to the attention of the chairman. How I happened to know about this matter is this:	The
hon. member foT Frontenac and myself one evening had a chat in his house, and with commendable frankness, my hon. friend dTew my attention to this particular case. He explained to me that the chairman of the commission had been unfair in sending Johnston home and he also told me that, as he understood the matter, Jobnston had not placed his evidence before the chairman
of the commission. With my hon. friend's concurrence I wrote to the chairman of the commission, who replied to me that Johnston had told his story to him that day and that, after he had heard the story, he said to him:	You had better go home and say
nothing about the matter, because he, the chairman of the commission, was convinced that there was. nothing in the story as given.


William Cameron Edwards: Do you think the chairman of the commission was justified in doing that?
Mr. NI'CKLE:	I think he was justified
and for this reason-


William Cameron Edwards: The commission might as well be divided into three parts and each one take certain evidence. What was the benefit of having their combined judgment in regard to the matter, if one man was going to say what should be presented and what should be excluded?
Mr. NI'CKLE: It is a fallacy to argue in that way, for this reason. When complaint was made to the commission about the conduct of the chairman, as complained of by the hon. member for Frontenac, the commission that afternoon had Johnston called, and Johnston gave his evidence, and the then conclusion of the commission was that it was of such a trivial character that it had no weight and as well might never have been given before the commissioners.


William Cameron Edwards: Are you sure of that?


William Folger Nickle: I believe I am quite sure of that.


William Cameron Edwards: You are wrong.


William Folger Nickle: I listened patiently to the hon. member for Frontenac and I think he might do me the courtesy of listening to me.


William Cameron Edwards: I simply want to call the attention of my hon. friend to the fact that he is stating what is incorrect. I am sure he does not want to state what is incorrect. Mr. Downey himself said that one particular part of Mr. Johnston's evidence was very material.


William Folger Nickle: Well, we will leave it at that. I did not attend the commission; I was never furnished with a copy of the evidence. I must speak more or less by information that has reached me indirectly and if the hon. member from Frontenac gives me direct denials, I shall certainly be obliged in almost every case to take his version of the affair as against my remem-

brance of it, because be has the evidence and he attended all the sittings.
Let me refer to what is commonly called the Aylesworth letter, which was a letter which came to Kingston prior to the last Dominion election. It was a letter in which the Hon. Mr. Aylesworth wrote to the Hon. Mr. Hasty, stating that if the Liberal Government had not been forced to go to the country by the hue and cry in regard to reciprocity, the salaries of the penitentiary officials would have been raised. A copy or the original of that letter was taken to one of the guards of the Kingston penitentiary who circulated it throughout the institution. If there was one man more than another against whom that letter was directed it was the present member for Kingston, but there is no man more ready than I to say that no man should be discharged for circulating a letter of that kind. I think it was small politics; but I cannot go the length of saying that it was not within the right of the then Minister of Justice to say that, if his party were returned to power, the Bill they then had under contemplation would Teceive the sanction of Parliament, and that the salaries of the guards would be increased.
I think it would be unreasonable to ask that any guard be punished for circulating a document of that character.


Mr. H. CLARK:: What would you have said if you had been defeated by it?


William Folger Nickle: If I had been defeated
by it, I would have said it was one of the unfortunate things of politics and I would have tried to smile. The Godkin charge was a charge in regard to one of the guards who had given an age that was alleged was incorrect. The Godkin affidavits, as filed with the Minister of Justice, if I remember the case correctly, showed that the date had been changed as to the birth of Godkin, and particular attention was directed and a rigid inquiry instituted by the commissioners to endeavour to ascertain who had made the change in the date. The reason that Godkin came in for severe criticism, if I understand the position of affairs aright, was this, that somebody had changed the date on the document, and the ' commission were trying to find out whether Godkin had improperly stated the date or whether somebody, without his knowledge, had altered the document.
Take the case of trafficking in which a charge was made that the commission did not follow up that inquiry. The hon. mem-
ber for Frontenac should be fair in this matter. He asks: Why did the inquiry in regard to the trafficking stop so suddenly? He suggests that it was stopped for a reason. I think that the hon. member knows that, when these charges of trafficking were about to be investigated, the commission issued a memorandum, which was passed through the penitentiary, that any man who confessed would be dismissed without prosecution; that he who was found guilty without having confessed would be dealt with more drastically. This House was then about to resume its sittings, and pressure was being brought that the commission should promptly make its report. If my memory does not fail me, it was a well understood thing that the question of the trafficking charges should be dropped for the time being; that the commission should not be asked to act as detectives, but that the matter of trafficking should remain in abeyance until such time as the Minister of Justice would appoint some single individual to take up that work and carry it to a conclusion.
I think it is radically unfair to suggest against these memi who, in my judgment did their duty faithfully, that this trafficking charge was dropped because they feared that some person high in authority might be found guilty of irregularities. From what I know of Mr. Macdonell and of Mir. Etherington, it would make no difference whether it was the English Church chaplain or the Catholic chaplain, if their duty had brought to. them knowledge of irregularities and if their duty had been to press these charges, I believe they would do their duty, that they would hew to the line letting the chips fall where they might. And I think that in justice to the commission the hon. member for Frontenac should admit that the trafficking charges weTe not investigated owing to the fact that a special commission was later to be appointed by the Minister of Justice. I may be wrong in what I say, but it lies between the hon. gentleman and the Minister of Justice. They know the facts better than I, but, as I recollect them, these are the facts as they were understood in Kingston at the time. But, coming to the broader question, and as I said in the beginning, I am not going to follow in close detail the evidence against the deputy warden or against the surgeon. It is true the hon. member for Frontenac made definite charges against the deputy warden some of

which were disproved, some thrown out, and some of which warranted the commissioners in coming to the conclusion-


William Cameron Edwards: What charges were
disproved?


William Folger Nickle: I say, I have not the evidence; I speak of the results of the inquiry from the report. There were certain charges against the surgeon^and the hon. gentleman has not particularly referred to these, charges of taking fees for examination of guards and using improper language, which were admitted.
Mr. DEVLIN; One case only.


William Cameron Edwards: More than that.


William Folger Nickle: How many?


William Cameron Edwards: There were four he
owned to, but that is not saying how many there were.


William Folger Nickle: Let us take it for granted there were four. Here is the point to which I wish to direct the attention of the House. If this commission were a whitewashing commission, why did it find so drastically against the surgeon in regard to the administration of the medical wards and insane ward? That was not in the hon. member for Frontenac's charges. One thing in tne penitentiary criticism that demands the attention of this House and of the public is the special criticism directed against the surgeon in the findings of the commissioners in regard to the administration of the insane ward and the hospital; and let me say that proves conclusively that it was not the intent of the commission to whltewasn, but to find what fundamental weaknesses were in the penitentiary administration at Kingston; and it is to that aspect of the report that I would like to direct the attention of the House and of the country at large.
It has been my peculiar privilege tnis year to make more than one visit to Kingston penitentiary. Every member of Parliament who came to Kingston this year wanted to visit the penitentiary, and I have almost reached the stage of being a professional guide. The ex-Postmaster General, the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames), and several others visited the peni-. tentiary and went through it, and I look to these men for corroboration of the details to which I propose to direct attention. When I spoke in seconding the Address, I saia that if one thing more than another impressed a visitor in going through the penitentiary it was the look of dull despair in the faces of the convicts. I would like the members to go with me in fancy to that institution-and I regret that I have not the language to present to them that scene as it is. I would like them to go with me to the insane ward, where fifty men of all types of insanity, and with all classes of mental diseases, are herded day after day in one long room. The melancholy and those whose insanity is the foolishness of the not fully developed, are together. There is no such thing as segregation, no such thing as treatment, no such thing as exercise, no such thing as uplifting surroundings; but one great bare room in which are brought together fifty men most of whom walk restlessly to and fro, though now and then one may be seen standing looking out to the great beyond across the lake. That asylum was condemned many years ago, yet government after government has failed to take steps to rectify the wrong. There are in that ward men who have suffered punishment after punishment -not onoe or twice only, but a dozen times; they have been subjected to every punishment because they could not submit themselves to a discipline they did not understand. They have*been confined in the dungeon; they have been, deprived of -light, of food; they have been subjected to every indignity; and for what cause? Because those in authority failed to recognize mental derangement as distinguished from criminal intent. These are the things to rvhich the hon. member for Frontenac should direct the attention of the House and the country. It is not a question of officials; it is a question of the system, a system that the country must face and rectify.
I want you to go with me to the stone pile, where seventy men spend a life of activity in breaking stone. Somewhere, I do not know where, there is a tradition' of a punishment under which some person.- I am not strong in my classics-had to roll two stones to the top of a hill and to have them at the top together; but no sooner was one at the top of the hill and the other being painfully pushed upward than a trembling of the earth shook the first from its place and it rolled again to the bottom of the hill. Day after day these me(n on the stone pile are engaged in labour that is not productive, that does not amount to anything, always the tireless clank, clank, clank, of the hammers; and as the; pile of

broken stone grows other convicts remove it, while still others dump another load and the work goes on. And so, at the end of his time a man leaves no better than he came, dwarfed in body and in soul,	and feeling at w.ar
with humanity because of the system that has robbed him of so much of his life. Then, take education. What is the House to say of a punitive system the heads of which say that children of fifteen and sixteen are not entitled to education, that the penitentiary is a punitive institution, that the judges send men there to be kept, not to be educated; who say that if you educate the child you make him, perhaps, a more dangerous criminal. Perhaps you may in an odd case, but is not the thing worth trying when you have twenty or thirty boys to consider? And has society no duty to these children? I have known a boy of fifteen, in knickerbockers, brought to Kingston handcuffed to a man who had been guilty of <a most heinous and revolting crime. That child was sent to the penitentiary for stealing a workman's tools. You may say that that is a matter for the judges to decide. That is not the case, for these questions do not come before the judges. The question of the punishment to be meted out to these children often comes before the local magistrate. It is not always the character of the crime that determines whether the children shall go to penitentiary or not, but it is often the discretion of the magistrate as to the term: two years and over and you go to penitentiary; less than two years and you go to the reformatory. I say that if the administration of justice is to be left to magistrates who do not understand conditions, who do not appreciate the distinction between a reformatory and a penitentiary, then this country has a duty to the young children-because I say that a boy of fifteen or sixteen years of age is practically a child-to see that they are educated so that when their terms have expired they will be better fitted to resume their occupations in life and to make an honest, decent living for themselves.
Then we come to the hospital, a great, gloomy building, two stories in height, no outside cells. About ten or twelve feet back from each of the exterior walls runs a tier of cells, down the centre of which is a corridor. One side of this building looks towards the gloomy, grey wall that bounds the penitentiary on the north; the other looks towards the south and is somewhat more sunny. Who are the caretakers of

the sick? The convict orderlies. Where do they get their attention? From other convicts. What is the general outlook? Great, grated doors, with bands of steel or iron one and a half inches across, with openings between of perhaps one and a half, one and three-quarters or two inches. What happens? At night these poor fellows are locked up in there and the evidence has shown that in their desire for a drink men have slipped from the cots and fallen on the floor, and had had to lie there during the night because they had not strength to get back into their cots. And yet we say we are a Christian, civilized country! I say that when the hon. member for Frontenae failed to draw the attention of the House to conditions such as these or failed to accentuate these elements of the report-


William Cameron Edwards: I drew particular attention to them.


William Folger Nickle: When he tries to make
out that the men who drafted the report are not men capable of drafting it, when he places 'before the House .statements! that tend to make this report of little weight in the community, I say he is failing to grasp a tremendous opportunity, he fails to realize what an opportunity he has had to do a great work for a certain class in whom, I believe, he is sincerely interested. I am not quarrelling with the hon. member for Frontenae, he may not have had the fairest consideration from this commission. I do not know, I have not the evidence; but I am frankly trying to urge on the House that it must not be imagined that this is a useless report, that the House must realize that the men behind it are sincere, capable, energetic men who tried to get to the bottom of things and if, in the specific, they fail to meet the wishes and the views of the hon. member for Frontenae, in the general they have done a great work for our convict classes.
Tjhen, Sir, take the question of this so-called tubbing. I do not know who is to blame for it but one can not imagine a more brutalizing and degrading punishment for one man to inflict on another than this. Those who profess to know say that as a man rides by in his motor car he is quite willing to tell how a penitentiary should be run without knowing anything about conditions; but I can understand a man riding by that penitentiary in his motor car and coming to the conclusion, and not being very far wrong, that no punishment is fair that makes a man do a thing

because if he does not do it. you are going to make him think you are about to rob him of his life. And I say, when a punishment is permitted that enables guards or keepers to submerge a convict in water until his lungs cry out .for air and he has to give a signal of acquiescence or smother, that punishment is wrong. Then hosing may be all right to disperse a mob, But to put a man in a cell fifteen feet square with round corners and to play on him a hose such as we see on the lawns in front of this building every day, and blew the life out of him if he does not apologize, it is, I believe, an unfair way to punish him. I believe the way to punish the men is to make them come to reason and to
1 a.m. admit their faults by logical, calm consideration. If I know anything of human nature, when you make a man submit because he thinks he is going to lose his life, he is a worse man after than before (he was subjected to that torture. It is an injustice to put him in a cell and force water on him with such pressure that you can blow the life out of him unless he submits.


Mr. OUERIE:: How would you subdue them?


William Folger Nickle: That is a very fair question, and it has been met in the Kingston penitentiary. They have a prison of isolation. The cells are about twenty feet square, and the main punishment of a conivict is to put him in that cell and to say: There you stay, you spend your days there, sometimes you may have books and sometimes not, but there you stay until you signify your willingness to conform to the regulations of this institution; then we will let you out to resume your normal labours. The convict may stay a week, a month, or six months. No cruelty is practised; he is simply kept in solitary confinement, with possibly a book to read. He gets his meals regularly. When reason reasserts itself he is given his ordinary work. To my mind that is a sane, proper punishment. But, to deprive a man of the synagogue is, in my judgment, a wrong punishment. Certain people of the Hebrew persuasion were, some two or three years ago', deprived of the privileges of the synagogue as a punishment for offences. Can you imagine such a thing? You deprive a man of the privileges of the church because he has dona something wrong! To my mind it takes one back to the middle ages. I am perfectly satisfied
that a punishment of that sort would never meet with the approval of the Minister of Justice or of the inspectors, if they were aware of it, but, if such things are done, they certainly merit condemnation. My hon. friend from Montreal (Mr. Bicker-dike) asked if it were not true that certain convicts in St. Vincent de Paul were chained to their cells. It so appears in the report. It may he true or it may not be, but they certainly found that some prisoner in St. Vincent de Paul was punished by being chained to the floor. I do not know the circumstances, the punishment may have been justified as the men may have been dangerous, but, certainly, it warrants inquiry.
I would like to draw the attention of the House to the conclusion I have reached after carefully reading this report. Per- . haps I am improperly influenced by the fact that I have faith in the judgment of the commissioners-


Rodolphe Lemieux: If my hon. friend would pardon me for one moment, it is now one o'clock in the morning, this is one of the most important debates that has taken place in the House since I have been a member, and it would be a thousand pities if we were to rush through the debate which is taking place this evening. It deals with a great reform which must be accomplished in the country. We have heard the statement of the hon. member for Kingston, and, in view of the revelations which he has made, in the calm and moderate speech which he has delivered, it would be a thousand pities if this debate were carried! on any later this evening, because it is too late to give to this important statement the consideration it deserves


William Folger Nickle: Three minutes will suffice me. .


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am not minimizing the importance of my hon. friend's statement, but we have a very thin House, and I am sure many gentlemen wish to take part in this debate.
IMr. NICKLE : I shall not be long. In conclusion, what has been forced upon me is this:	It is more the system than
anything else that is wrong. I do not believe you can run a penitentiary over a long-distance telephone. I mean by that that the administrative responsibility for our penitentiaries should be on the warden; that if he is not a big enough

man to do the work he should be let go and another man appointed in his stead. But one of the weaknesses in the system in the past has been that to which the hon. member for Frontenac has directed attention, that men have filled this important position who had not the qualifications adequately to discharge the duties, and possibly appreciating their inability to do so, they have allowed the routine administrative duties to fall into the hands of subordinates rather than take the entire responsibility and control of the institution themselves. If I might impress one thing more than another on the Minister of Justice, it is this: that in any reformative scheme he may have in mind he should direct careful attention to the pereonnel of his wardens, and, after having chosen men who have the capacity that he thinks they should have, he should give them ample scope and opportunity to carry out the work they are asked to do without any interference from outside; in other words, that the duties of inspectors be done by inspectors and that the administrative duties be done by those who are entrusted with the administration, that is, by the wardens.


James Joseph Hughes: Has the hon. gentleman forgotten that statement of the hon. member for Frontenac that the sick were given a meal at 9 o'clock, another at 11, another at 1, and nothing more until the following mornipg?


William Folger Nickle: I have endeavoured to confine myself to the things I know about. I have always understood that on holidays the guards left early, and I think there was some evidence to the effect-I have not seen the record-that they got their holiday meal about three o'clock, and that they did not get the next meal until the next day. I think it is only fair that the House should know that the cellular system is in vogue at Kingston; that is, a man takes his food to his cell. The fact that he takes his meal to his cell at three o'clock does not necessarily mean that he must eat it at three o'clock; he could keep it till six o'clock and eat it then if he wished. As to the practice in the asylum, I cannot speak.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Is it not a fact that Dr. Phelan enjoys a considerable reputation as a specialist in cases of insanity?


William Folger Nickle: I can only speak from the point of view of a layman, as I am not in

any way an alienist. I know nothing whatever about his capacity as an alienist or anything of that sort. I have directed the attention of the House to the fact of Dr. Phelan's being severely criticised by tne commission, to wipe away-if I might use the expression-the impression that I think the hon. member for Frontenac was trying to convey that the commission -was a kal-somining commission. I simply mentioned that fact to show that they went outside the specific charges to lay the blame at the door of Dr. Phelan for a system that they allege exists. Whether Dr. Phelan was responsible for that system or not, I cannot say, as I do not know anything about the administration of penitentiaries, but certainly in their report the commissioners are severe in their condemnation of the system that prevails in the asylum and the hospital, and they do lay the blame at the door of the inspector and of Dr. Phelan. As to the merits or demerits of the argument, I cannot speak.


William Cameron Edwards: I just want to say a
word or two about this man Johnston. In the first place Johnston did not make his complete statement to the chairman of the commission before the chairman asked him to go home and keep out of the business altogether. In the second place. Downey backed up the chairman in toying to keep Johnston out of the investigation. On page 297 of the evidence Downey is reported as follows:
X want to say this: That with the exception of the one incident about McConville sleeping', if this gentleman came to me as a commissioner, and told the story he has told here to-day, I would given him identically the Same advice as the chairman.
He admits in that that there was one thing that struck him as important. I take the view that it was very improper for Mr. Macdonell to take upon himself to express any opinion as to whether the evidence of this man was proper or improper. Three men were appointed for that purpose and he had no business to take upon himself to say that Johnson should not come forward and give his evidence. The hon. member for Kingston has made use of some very flowery language and a great many adjectives in referring to the condition of the hospital, and has called attention to the fact that convicts who had fallen out of bed were allowed to lie on the floor till next morning, and that no person went to their assistance. What did the hon. member for King-

ston ever do to try to remedy this state of affairs. His connection with the commission was a connection in his own office or in that of the chairman of the commission. According to his own statement, he was asked for an opinion as to what course the commissioners should take, and it is only natural that he should now assume the position of champion of the men whom he had recommended, and feel it incumbent upon him to take this position after the numerous interviews he had with the chairman.
Let me refer for a moment-although 1 cannot do it in the beautiful and pathetic language of the hon. member for Kingston- to the convicts who fell out of bed and were allowed to stay on the floor till next morning. The hon. member for Kingston referred to that as something terrible. What did the evidence say in regard to that:
I find the following instances:
March 7: Called Wilson for convict Bunyan, suffering intense pains in stomach at 12.15 a.m., and again at 2,30 a.m. Refused to get up. Convict dies same morning.
March 31: Convoct Lottridge suffering from injury to thigh and from bed sores, called Wilson 4.30 a.m. Refused to get up. Convict died next day, April 1.
April 14 : Called Wilson 1.05 a.m., for convict Hamilton, was ' suffering pains all over the body'. Refused to get up. Convict died April 16.
April 24 : At 9 p.m., Wilson told him that the things for laying out the body of convict who was expected to die were in cupboard. During night convict got worse and started shouting. Called Wilson 3.30 a.m. and again 4.45 a.m., asking him to give convict something to quiet him. He refused to get up, stating he could do nothing. Convict died that morning.
Engledew reported Wilson tb the warden for refusing to get up and also reported at Ottawa.
These facts were disclosed in the course of the investigation of the charges with reference to Wilson. This beautiful commission endeavoured to exonerate Wilson, and this is what they say:
Tour commissioners are of the opinion that these patients were practically beyond human aid and that in their cases no hardship was inflicted by Wilson's failure to get up to see them.
I would like them to have heard the beautiful remarks of the hon. member for Kingston in regard to conduct of that kind. While that conduct is characterized in the most forcible language by the hon. member for Kingston, he actually excuses these commissioners for what they say at page 24 of their report. The very same thing might be said in regard to tubbing and hosing. These punishments are severe, cruel. Who
committed them? The evidence shows that O'Leary was one who did the hosing, and the commissioners say that hosing is cruel and inhuman except when it is done by O'Leary. That is all right from the standpoint of the hon. member for Kingston. It is cruel and inhuman if it is done by Douglas Stewart and W. S. Hughes, but there is nothing cruel about it if it is done by Dan. O'Leary. For some reason or other the hon. member for Kingston did not give the commissioners the benefit of his presence while the investigation was going on. He knows the reason why better than anybody else. I do not think it lies in his mouth to criticise me.


William Folger Nickle: I did not.


William Cameron Edwards: Yes you did, and you made references that you were not justified in making to my conduct in connection with this commission. You attributed unfairness to me and ' Hansard ' to-morrow will show that you did. You are unwarranted in attributing anything of the kind to me. I have never been unfair to this commission, and I defy any hon. member, and especially such an able lawyer as the hon. member for Kingston, to take the report of the commission, place it alongside of the evidence and see if that commission are not deliberately deceiving this House and the public by the reports which they have placed before us.


William Folger Nickle: I think that possibly my hon. friend from Frontenac will do me the justice of withdrawing one remark that he made. He insinuated that these interviews that he has detailed and which the commission had with me had some reference to the report of the commission. They started shortly after the commission was appointed.


William Cameron Edwards: Before.


William Folger Nickle: One is on the 21st July.
Consultation with W. F. Nickle, re charges, etc.
The chairman of the commission asked me what they were going to be paid:
Consultation with W. F. Nickle, re reporters.
The chairman of the commission consulted with me as to the arrangements for a stenographic report:
Consultation with W. F. Nickle re counsel.
The chairman asked me if they were going to appoint a lawyer to act in connection with the investigation. These consultations had reference to just simple little things like this.


William Cameron Edwards: What about Jack
Canuck?


William Folger Nickle: The question about Jack
Canuck came up also. There had appeared in the paper called Jack Canuck a very drastic and critical article in regard to the commissioners. The commissioner asked me: Do you think that the editor of Jack Canuck should be asked to attend and give his evidence?-and I replied: It is a public inquiry and as a reptitable paper has made this criticism I think that the man who wrote the article should be given an opportunity to come before the commission and give his evidence. If the hon. member for Frontenac thought that I suggested that he was unfair in any way he has quite misapprehended what I intended. I said at the beginning that he was zealous and earnest in the cause but that he did not give due weight to the tremendous good that might result from this report and that I regretted that in dragging down the commissioners he was possibly doing a great injury to the cause he desired to advance. I had no desire to be critical or in any way to reflect on what the hon. member had done, but I merely desired to direct attention to what I thought was the tremendous advantage that might redound to our criminal and convict class if steps were taken to carry out the recommendations of the report of the commission.


Robert Bickerdike: I am sure that we have all listened with a great deal of interest to the speeches delivered by the two hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. They have pointed out the difficulties but they have not as yet suggested any remedy. My intention tonight is to give a few suggestions to the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) wherdby the remedy can be applied immediately. Some three years ago, when I first took up the question of prison reform and the abolition of capital punishment, I made the statement that the conditions in our penitentiaries were surpassed only by the black hole of Calcutta and I think that the evidence that has been id-duced in the report tonight, and the statements made by the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) and the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards), justify me in having made that statement. I regret very much that it is so late but I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without making a few suggestions to the Minister of Justice. I do not intend in any way to delay the passage of his Estimates but I do not think

he is asking enough in his Estimates if he is going to carry out the suggestions which I am going to make to him. I think that we should'have more time to deal with.an important question like this because it is after all a more important question than that of granting -aid to the Canadian Northern railway. In dealing with this question we should look back a little. We must necessarily retrace our steps, we must atone for the crimes of past legislation and we must amend our Criminal Code. It is necessary to amend the Criminal Code in order to undo the blunders of the past. The Government must seriously consider the reforms that are being suggested by myself and others.
In the first place, I would suggest to the honourable the minister that the management of penitentiaries and prisons, whether federal or provincial, should be taken out of politics entirely, and should be placed under a board of directors or board of control. Political appointees will never succeed or serve the purpose of reforming these poor convicts*.
I understand that the Minister of Justice has a population of somewhere between nineteen hundred and two thousand in the penitentiaries, and I really believe that at least 75 per cent of those, instead of being locked up in an, iron cage, should be out working in God's sunlight and God's fresh air. My honourable friend., the minister, I believe, will agree with me that the end in view of all punishment should be the correction of the criminal with a view of reclaiming him, and the setting of an example which will serve to deter others from the like evil. In my opinion, correction with a view to reform is certainly obtainable by carefully considering these reforms. A mother punishes her child, not for revenge, but to make it a better child. When we consider that the shutting of a man up in an iron cage deadens all the feelings of kindness implanted by nature in the breast, blunts all the finer susceptibilities of the heart, and substitutes barbarism and and vindictiveness in the heart of the poor unfortunate prisoner. I appeal to you as to men who are unfettered by the trammels of prejudice, and as being disposed to have other and better motives for your actions than the mere sanction of custom. I appeal to you on behalf of humanity and Christianity, and feel confident that the justice of the cause will ensure your zealous support, if not just at the moment, certainly at an early date. There are hundreds and thousands of acres of land in Canada that are to-day valueless, all of

which might be reclaimed just by having those prisoners doing the work.
I wish to say to the minister that in the respect of our management of prisons and prisoners, the law in Canada has always been most barbarous. We are committing mistakes to-day that in a few years hence men will point to as the most extraordinary mistakes a Government could commit, and that our reforms should be surrounded by one of the most barbarous methods which the most barbarous nations have ever employed, by shutting a poor criminal up in an iron cage instead of taking him out and putting him to work at some useful employment. What I specially wish to recommend to the Minister of Justice would be to try an experiment on the following lines: I would take a few, say 75 per cent of the very best behaved prisoners in each of the different penitentiaries and establish camps where the word 'convict5 or the idea of prison would be entirely eliminated. I would have ho cells and although there should be some guards, they should not be armed. We should put these men largely on their honour and in this case I would recommend that the guards and the men mingle together in friendly intercourse, and I would say that when their work is over in the evenings, they should enjoy themselves in baseball, cricket, music, or any other healthful amusement. These men should be selected on merit from the different penitentiaries and prisons, and there are hundreds of inmates in the penitentiaries and prisons of Canada who would be very pleased to be transferred to these camps as an opportunity and a reward for good conduct. In time I believe that these camps would not only be self-governed but also be self-supporting, and in this way, the men's labour can be paid for without cost to the country. The success of this experiment, if the hon. minister will try it, will not only mean a revolution in penology, but be a cause for rejoicing to the taxpayer from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
Every human being who goes wrong should have a chance to redeem himself, to try again, and he ought to have an opportunity that is favourable. He ought not to be put in an environment where everything around him suggests the crooked, the wicked, where everything tends to arouse the brute in him, to develop the evil thing in him, the love of revenge, bitterness, hatred and to kill the good. He ought to be in an environment which would help him to forget the bad, which would
only suggest the good, the pure, the clean, suggest his divinely, not his beastly propensities, and which would hold out hope of another chance-a chance to make good. How can we expect a criminal to get back the self-respect which he has lost, by cruel treatment, by half starving him, treating) Mm like a beast instead of a man, putting him in an iron cage, away from God's light and air? There is good material, ability enough, energy, resources enough in these people we thus deprive, of liberty and life, to perform great service to humanity, as well as to themselves and their families. What right have we to deprive them at least of a chance to make good? How often the crimes we commit against our prisoners are far greater than their Crime to society.
If we wish to reform prisoners, we should try to make them self-respecting, healthy beings. Their environment should be as attractive and as normal as possible. Reform means healthful, normal conditions. The mind is in no state to improve or reform when suffering from mental depression due to the vicious, criminal, suggestive environment, where everything reminds the prisoner of his fall, or his inferiority .and everything about him tends to impress upon him that he is not a human being, but an outcast.
We have all felt the restful, restoring, renewing power of beautiful scenery, of country life. Why should we deprive a prisoner of these helps to health and normality? Nature is a great restorative, and criminals should be kept where they can get the full benefit of the sunlight, air and country life, in an environment which would suggest only the good and true, with possibilities of recovering lost manhood and starting life afresh. John Bunyan when he saw a poor unfortunate being tied behind a cart with a rope around his neck being dragged off to the place of execution, said, 'if it were not for the grace of God, there goes John Bunyan,' and, Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of truth in that.
I do not intend in any way to obstruct or delay the hon. minister's Estimates, and I would just say here that as far as the penitentiary Estimates are concerned, I do not believe he is asking any more than is absolutely necessary for the work he is undertaking, but I do wish, with his permission, to offer him what I consider a few suggestions in the direction not only of prison reform, but of reforming the prisoners. I think on this very important question we might be permitted to look backwards, and


Mr. LAFORTUNE:: Does my hon. friend know that imprisonment for life is not safe for society; that every time we condemn criminals to life imprisonment, they stxM try to kill and murder inside the walls of the prison?


Robert Bickerdike: I do not think my hon. friend is an unbiased witness in this matter, seeing that he is a crown prosecutor.


David Arthur Lafortune: I have the experience.


Robert Bickerdike: The Crown prosecutor and the judge and jury and the hang-



man are all interested in sentencing the poor man to prison.
I firmly believe that the life penalty as alluded to would in many eases be much more dreaded than death itself, and that incarceration would have a far more powerful and enduring effect than that produced by the frequency of executions. When we consider that the effect of public executions is to deaden the feelings of kindness and mercy implanted by nature in the breast, to blunt all the finer sensibilities of the heart, and to substitute barbarism and vindictiveness in the place of civilization and Christian forbearance, when we consider the awful consequences to the wicked, tne poor, degraded and miserable sufferer allowed so little time for repentance, distracted by the thoughts of his approaching fate, hurled from time into eternity by the hand of a being owing his existence to the same Creator as himself, shall we not conclude that man, a being weak in purpose and feeble in action, whose limited comprehension and contrasted views are daily evident to our senses, by taking away the life of man, employs a power which has not been delegated to him and usurps an authority which belongs only to our Soverign Judge?


Rodolphe Lemieux: 
David Arthur Lafortune: I trust the House will bear with me while I offer a few remarks in answer to the statements made a moment ago by the hon. gentleman who just preceded me. It is not to be gainsaid that there is always room for improvements in the case of institutions of such importance as the penitentiaries of this country. But what puzzles me most is to hear hon. gentlemen, and especially the hon. gentleman who represents the St. Lawrence division of Montreal in this House (Mr. Bickerdike), weep over the sad fate "of those who are convicted. I may say to the hon. gentleman that if he were cognizant of the facts brought to light before our criminal courts, he would take quite a different stand. For the last eight years I have had the honour of holding in Montreal the position of Crown 2854
prosecutor. Is that sufficient ground for believing that I am wanting in judgment, humanity and good feelings? The hon. gentleman just stated that judges, Crown prosecutors, clerks of the Crown and in a general way all who take part in the administration of justice, are not to be depended upon in this connection. The hon. gentleman is mistaken; the difference is we have a wider experience than he has in matters of that kind.
Within the last eight years, I have had to deal with several cases wherein capital punishment was inflicted, and I may say that in all such cases, the whole record is forwarded by the judge who reports on the case. The Minister of Justice carefully goes into the whole matter with a view to finding out whether there is any possibility of exercising clemency. I have no hesitation in saying that under no circumstances is the sentence carried out if there exists the least doubt in favour of the convicted man. There is a eeparate examination of every case, and whenever there is any room for doubt, invariably the sentence of death is commuted.
In support of my contention, I shall quote a few instances. Vitto Micoli, sentenced to be hanged on September 28, 1908, had his sentence commuted to life imprisonment on November 19, 1908. James Smith, sentenced to capital punishment on September 18, 1909, had his sentence commuted to life imprisonment on December 6, 1909. Timothy Candy was executed because there was no room for doubt. He was hanged on November 18, 1910. He was the man who deliberately shot two policemen who had caught him in the act of committing burglary in the establishment of one of our colleagues, the member for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames). F. Grevola, convicted of murder, was hanged on May 26,
1911.	John Cummings, sentenced to be hanged on August 9, 1912, secured a reprieve, because there was some uncertainty in his case. On October, of the same year, 1912, his sentence was commuted to imprisonment for life. Silvio Yacoloff, sentenced to be hanged on September 20,
1912,	secured three reprieves in succession, and ultimately, on January 31, 1913, was sentenced for life. Dominico Bifanio, sentenced to hang on September 29, 1912, had his sentence commuted to life imprisonment on November 9. Antonio Ferduta was hanged. There was not the least doubt in his case. He had murdered the person he was trying to rob; the evidence in his

case was quite clear. The same might be said of Carlo Baptista, who had committed murder in cold blood, deliberately. The sentence was carried out in his case. William Campbell, convicted of murder, was executed on January 24, 1914. And the last occasion on which the penalty of capital punishment was carried out in Montreal leaves no room for any doubt.
The hon. gentleman says: let peaceful citizens be murdered freely, do not interfere, and rather have pity on those unfortunate cut-throats. Why should you hang them? Why not sentence them to penitentiary for life? Well, the penitentiary is very often the place where these murderers carry out their darkest designs and plot many a foul deed. Very often those whose sentence has been commuted to life imprisonment, have to be brought later on before the courts for murder, actual or attempted. We all remember the terrible onslaught of which the warden of the St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary was the victim. I was called upon to carry on an investigation in 1897, and I know whereof I speak when I say that those criminals spend their time plotting and enticing others to acts of insubordination. But the hon. member for St. Lawrence would have us take pity on them; he appeals to our sense of pity, and practically advocates the free murdering of citizens. I wonder if he would be of a different mind, should his wife or his children be the victims of assassins.
X cannot agree with the hon. gentleman, for it is necessary that society should protect itself. In France the death penalty was abolished, but later on it was found necessary to restore it.


Robert Bickerdike: It
was not capital punishment that was done away with, but merely the guillotine.


David Arthur Lafortune: It was abolished, and fifteen years later, it was found necessary to restore it. Such is the experience of other countries.
As for me, I have been practising for thirty-five years at the bar, at times acting on behalf of the accused, and at times, in capacity of prosecutor, and I say that not a man was hanged when there was the least doubt in his favour. They are dealt with in a spirit of absolute fairness. On the other hand, does the assassin give his victim the time to prepare for the supreme ordeal?
Following on the preliminary inquiry,

the accused is sent before the grand jury, who, in turn, look into the case and report on it. The accused then appears before the petty jury, and it is only after a fair trial and a verdict of guilt that he is convicted. Even that is not deemed sufficient to meet the ends of justice, as it is administered in this country. The hon. Minister of Justice in turn looks into the record to find out whether there exists the least doubt as to the guilt of the convicted person, and it is only after that has been done that the sentence is carried out, unless commutation is granted on the report of the minister.
I have eighty-six cases to submit to the Court of King's Bench sitting in Montreal, at its June term, to open on Monday next. I wish the hon. member for the St. Lawrence division of Montreal were present; he might alter his views in consequence. He considers them as unfortunate people who are rather to be pittied. But did those murderers take pity on those they assassinated? Let these cut-throats behave as honest citizens, and thus they will be sure to avoid capital punishment.
Take those Italians, whom we have in such great numbers in Montreal. In Italy the death penalty is not inflicted, and those Italians think that it is the same in Canada as in Italy, that they are free to kill, to murder right and left without fear of the executioner. The hon. member for St. Lawrence division lives in the midst of large numbers of Italians; and that accounts for his anxiety to do away with capital punishment.
Murderers crop up on all sides, at each sitting of the criminal court, five or eix of them appear. Society does not seek revenge, but it is bound to protect itself, and it must inflict punishment in order to impress on the minds of those who might be tempted to follow the example of criminals that they will suffer for it, should they yield to their impulses. As Crown prosecutor, I think I have as much humanity and love of my brethren as the hon. member for the division of St. Lawrence, and if I am unable to agree with him, it is because my experience has been wider.
When the murderer strikes, does he give his victim time to get ready to appear before the Supreme Judge? Does he not send him to his doom utterly unprepared? If there be a widow, and if there be orphans, is he not responsible for it? And we are asked to be pitiful? Did he take pity on his victim? Did he give him time to im-

plore forgiveness for his crimes? The murderer will have time to prepare for Eternity, but his victim was not so fortunate. It is all very well to exalt charity and conscience, but there are two sides to the question.
I congratulate the Minister of Justice in connection with the cases which have been . submitted to him since he occupies his high position. Each case was thoroughly gone into by him, and I am free to admit that in every instance where there was any occasion for leniency, the death penalty was commuted to life imprisonment.
Reference was made to a case of error wherein the convicted person was subsequently released on the recommendation of the minister; I mean the case of Dom-inico Laetare. Well, the minister need not worry, his conscience need not trouble him. There was no judicial error committed. That man had been rightly convicted, and if ever the minister showed leniency, it was on that occasion. However, I do not grieve over it and I believe I am just as conscientious as the hon. member for the St. Lawrence division. That man had doubly incurred the death penalty, though the penalty inflicted wae only a few years' confinement within the penitentiary. When he was first tried the jury disagreed, the accused man arguing that he had not had time to get his witnesses. If only so and so were here, he pleaded, I would be able to clear myself of the charge. We granted him a second trial, we got his witnesses over at the public expense, and they were the very men who proved his guilt. So I say, Sir, that it is doubly wrong to allege judiciary error in that case, because no such error was committed, and the hon. gentleman simply did an act of grace in liberating him.
I was anxious, Sir, to make these few remarks in this House, so that neither the House nor the public might be left under the impression that our criminal law was being improperly administered; that society is not protecting itself, and is not protecting those who are brought before its courts. Here politics have their sway, but in the courts of justice there is only one weight and one measure for all; there is only one pair of scales in use in our courts for all litigants, be they Conservative or Liberal; justice is blind to the political colour or leanings of parties.
In justice to myself, I may say that the hon. member for the St. .Lawrence division is alone in believing that the views of Grown
prosecutors and in a general way of those connected with the administration of justice are biased. I cannot agree with hie contention, and I think I am right.


Robert Bickerdike: The hon. member cannot quite get away with that. He made a statement in reference to France that is not borne out by the facts. There are twenty-four different states and countries that have abolished capital punishment entirely. Not one of those twenty-four states has ever gone back to it.


George William Fowler: They are all in a state
of anarchy.


Robert Bickerdike: That is all right for New Brunswick where there is no crime, but my good friend who has just taken his seat (Mr. Lafortune) cited France. France did abolish, for a time, capital punishment, but she went further than that: France abolished religion. She drove out the priests and the bishops and the ministers of the gospel; and that was the reason and the only reason that crime increased in France. To-day, they are trying to get back the priests and the bishops and the nuns, and as soon as that hapens France will do away with the guillotine.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In regard to what has been said by the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux), and the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle), there is no doubt that they have both very eloquently pleaded for prison reform, and I quite feel that I could not expect to compete with them in that regard. I only hope it may be given to me to put into practice some of the excellent things that have been suggested.
With regard to the speech of the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards), which dealt more specifically with the investigation that has taken place, we have the advantage of the criticism made by the hon. gentleman of the report that is before us, but, of course, I am not in a position to express any opinion as to the view he entertains of the report of the commission which he has attacked. When the Government comes to make up its mind on this question it will have before it the evidence taken by the commission, the commission's report, and the criticism of the hon. member for Frontenac and what he has pointed out as against that commission, and it will then be our duty to form a judgment and to take what action that judgment may justify.

So far as the commission- I have named is concerned, I am glad that the hon. member for Frontenac has recognized that at the time of their appointment they were moat suitable men, although he has fault to find in connection with their report. Naturally we cannot all agree as to the merits of a particular report. The hon. member for Frontenac and the hon. member for Kingston do not agree with regard to this one. For my part, I am not in a position this evening to express any judgment upon that report. I have now heard the pro and the con, and I shall endeavour to act in the consideration of that report and what has been said against it with the same impartiality that I endeavoured to act in selecting the men for this commission, and entrusting, them with the duty of carrying on an investigation under instructions that certainly implied no desire but a desire that justice should be done as between individuals. I do not think that I can with advantage add anything to what has been said upon the subject of the value of the commissioners' report, or as to whether or not the commissioners were justified in their findings. That is a matter that will have to be dealt with by council later. There is- just one other matter to which I wish to refer as the hon. member for Frontenac has mentioned it. He has referred to what looked to him to be a sudden cessation of the investigation with regard to trafficking. He made a statement which in some way left it perhaps to be inferred that the commission stopped that investigation because of the possibility of the reverend1 chaplain of the penitentiary being involved in it. In that respect I want to say that the statement of the hon. member for Kingston as1 to- why the investigation stopped in this particular instance, is quite correct. It was merely because we thought that when it came down to investigating particular cases of offences by individual guards we should not keep a commission of three gentlemen engaged on that work that could be very well done by one man alone, at a subsequent time. With regard to the reference made to the reverend chaplain I want to say that this is the first time I eveT heard any such thing intimated, and I am, therefore, not in a position to say one word more upon the subject. What 1 understand to be stated is that cheques or money orders were sent by the mother of a prisoner to this gentleman. I do not know whether or not it is intended -to be implied that he made any improper use of that money. 1 
would certainly be astounded at, and more than slow to accept as well founded such a suggestion. All I know of the gentleman tends most strongly to contradict it. I shall be in a position to inquire into the circumstances and shall be guided by the result of that inquiry as to what should be done.
Upon, the general subject of the desirablity of re-form in penitentiary administration, I want to say that for my part I came to a system that I did not make. I have endeavoured to learn what that system wds and how it works by means of this investigation, for this commission was not appointed merely to investigate charges against individuals. It was appointed, and perhaps principally appointed, to make a study of penitentiary systems and to give us information upon the subject. That information was not sought without the idea of turning it to practical effect, and I hope it will prove possible for us to make a considerable improvement in the system in existence.
I only want to add that it is well in the desire for reform not to exaggerate the evils that may exist, and to avoid accepting a standpoint that might perhaps lead one only to extreme action, in regard to such modifications as may be required. While we must, no doubt, be humane, and while that is very important, w-e must not forget that this whole system is a part of the administration of justice, and that the great dominant reason that justifies us in detaining these people at all is the deterrent-effect of their punishment upon others. And if we are going to produce a deterrent effect, while we must be careful to be humane, we must also let the tempted sinner see that the man that is convicted is punished, and that people who are being punished are not having a pleasant time. For my part, I would like to say here that while I hope to do what I can to reform those institutions and while I hope that that reform will be on lines of humanity, I hold out not the slightest hope of endeavouring to try to make punishment pleasant, and there will have to be punishment if justice i-s going to be maintained.
Expenses under the pecuniary claims convention with the United States, $25,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: While I do not insist
this morning, I would like to get some details from the hon. gentleman concerning the awards which have been recently made in this connection.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I shall be glad to get On motion of Mr. Reid, the House adthe information.	journed at 2.35 a.m. Saturday.
To assist in suppression of the white slave traffic, $10,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is that a new item?


Charles Joseph Doherty: This fund is administered through the Dominion Police for the purpose of endeavouring to do what we can in the suppression of the white slave traffic.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is it in connection with the immigration that comes to this country i


Charles Joseph Doherty: The work is largely
among immigrants. Out of this fund a grant is made to the Rev. Abbe Casgrain in connection with the care of immigrants, and we hope to make a grant also to a clergyman . of another denomination in Montreal. Apart from that there is active work carried on under Col. Sherwood in connection with the supervision of immigrants, especially young women, coming into the country.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I hope that part of this money will go to the good ladies whom we meet at the several railway stations. The other day, in Ottawa, I met two or three ladies wearing badges and waiting to meet incoming female passengers. I understand that in Toronto, Montreal and elsewhere these good ladies, who belong to the best society, meet every train in order to protect young girls who travel alone. I hope that part of this money will go to some of these associations.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I would hope so. Many of these associations have grants from the Immigration Department.
Administration of Justice-to remunerate Judge J. W. Elliot for services as deputy judge of Halton county from October 5, 1913, to March 9, 1914, $1,285.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is that for?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Judge Elliot, during the lifetime of Judge Gorham, his predecessor, and during the illness of the latter, acted as deputy judge. As deputy judge he had no salary as long as Judge Gorham continued to hold the office of judge. A considerable period of time elapsed after Judge Gorham's death before Judge Elliot was appointed judge, and in consideration of the fact that there was no salary paid to him during that period, we are asking the House to vote this amount.
Progress reported.
Saturday, May 30, 1914.