1916-03-24

PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 69, for the relief of Clarice Smith. Mr. Cash.

Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime Minister) moved:: said Mondays Government orders shall have precedence after questions and notices of motions for production of papers.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Are we to understand this to mean that the Government have no more measures to bring down?


Robert Laird Borden: No others besides those that I mentioned to my right hon. friend. There will he some Supplementary Estimates and there may be a measure in connection w'th the Department of Agriculture, as I mentioned to the right hon. gentleman the other day. I am not aware of anything else.


Wilfrid Laurier: This motion seems to me premature, for next Monday. 1 have no desire to protract the session; but I would point out tnat there are a good many orders standing in the names of private members which cannot be discussed if this motion carries. My hon. friend from Rouvilie (Mr. Lemieux) has a motion on technical education on which he has had to give way on one or two occasions.


Mr. ROGERS:: An arrangement was
made with the hon. member for Rouvilie under which he could discuss this subject on the Estimates of the Minister of Labour.


Wilfrid Laurier: Then, I have no more to say about that. But there are other notices of motion standing in the names of Messrs. McCraney, Carvell, Maclean of Halifax, Sinclair, Burnham, Currie, and others. I think that for the Government to take next Monday would be premature. There would be no objection to their taking the following Monday.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: I have just a word to *say with regard to morning sittings. I have not had an opportunity to discuss this matter with my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, but personally I question very much the desirability of sitting in the morning. The holding of morning sittings makes our work extremely difficult and tiring; it is simply a means of wearing out the members at the latter part of the session, if they attend to their duties. Besides, it is an interference with the work of the various committees. If more time is needed for our work, I think it would be better for us to meet at two o'clock, leaving the morning free. But what I think would be better still would be to have an understanding between the leaders on either side of the House as to about what time prorogation might conveniently take place, and then let us apply ourselves diligently to carrying on the work of the session. I have

always thought there was no great advantage in morning sittings, for meeting in the morning, afternoon and evening means that everybody is tired out, and the members cannot give the attention to public business that they ought to give.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: Personally, I
take a view entirely opposed to that of the hon. member for St. John. My observation concerning morning sittings-and perhaps a medical man has superior opportunities to observe the state of intellect of hon. members than has a member of the legal profession-is that the intellect of members is peculiarly bright in the forenoon, and that, as a rule, we do twice as much work in the forenoon as at any other time. If members did not have the morning sittings towards the end of the session, they would do what they do for a great deal of the previous portion of the session; some of them would go to committees, but a large number of them would sit around, and smoke and hurt their intellects in that way as well as by talking a certain amount dry rot. I think that the old custom of having morning sittings towards the end of the session can be advocated on practical as well as on medical and physiological grounds.


Mr. MACDONALD:: Some committees of great importance are sitting at the present time. I speak particularly of the Pensions Committee, the members of which are desirous of devoting their attention very carefully to the matters under consideration. There are some hon. members of this House who do not go to any committees; therefore it does not make much difference to them whether or not the House sits in the morning. If the suggestion of the hon. member for St. John city is carried out and the leaders confer as to the date when the session should be brought to a conclusion, I am sure that members on both sides will endeavour to see that the public business is got through at that particular date. I am quite sure that under those conditions very much better and more thorough attention would be given to the important subjects that have yet to be considered very seriously before Parliament prorogues.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: It seems to be
pretty well understood that Parliament will conclude its labours before the Easter holidays. That being the case, I should like to support the suggestion of the hon. member for St. John city that a conference take

place between the right hon. leader of the Government and the right hon. leader of the Opposition. There would seem to be no good reason, if it is the general feeling that we shall prorogue before the Easter holidays, why an approximate date should not be fixed for prorogation. In that event, I think the business of the House could be disposed of rapidly and more effectively without morning sittings than with them.


Mr. MARCIL:: I should like to call the attention of the Prime Minister to the motion made by the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens), which I had the honour of seconding. I understood that the deputation had obtained from the Premier a promise that ample opportunity would be given for the discussion of this important subject, and that the sense of the House would be taken upon it. I should like to know what the right hon. gentleman intends doing in that regard.


Robert Laird Borden: With regard to the observations just made by the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil), we did have a second discussion of the subject on the motion of the hon. member for Kings, P.E.I. (Mr. Hughes). Although it was not a very long discussion, it was a very interesting one. I should suppose that further discussion of that question might very well take place on the Bill which the Minister of Justice has introduced. If, however, my hon. friend presses the point and thinks that anything can be gained by having a discussion upon a resolution which is not consistent with the Bill that the Government has brought down, I would not stand in the way of it, because it certainly was understood that there should be the fullest opportunity to discuss the question. I suggest to my hon. friend, however, that no advantage is to be gained from further debating the resolution, in view of the Bill which has been brought down and upon which ample discussion can take place. So far as this motion is concerned, I would be willing for the present simply to give Government Orders precedence on Mondays. If there is any motion upon the Order Paper which is regarded as important, I will see that an opportunity is given to deal with it in some way. I would remind the right hon. gentleman that every one of these motions has been called at least half a dozen times since they were put on the Order Paper; therefore there would be no great hardship in taking Mondays even if
I did not make that arrangement with my right hon. friend. So I would amend the motion accordingly, and leave the question of morning sittings to one side for the moment.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am very
glad that my right hon. friend agrees to leave the morning sittings for future consideration. I suggest to him, however, that he should give us next Monday. It is true that a good many of these motions have been called several times, but on every occasion but once they were not taken up because other motions were to take precedence over them. I suggest that we have next Monday, .and that the motion take effect the Mtonday after.


Charles Marcil: Perhaps the House will
allow me to say, in answer to the Prime Minister, that the motion made by the hon. member for Vancouver is entirely distinct and separate from the Bill which has been introduced by the Minister of Justice. Some people would like to know the opinion of the House with regard to this resolution; then we could deal with the Government Bill afterwards on its merits. I should like very much if the Premier could allow us to get the sense of the House on the motion of the hon. member for Vancouver.


Wilfrid Laurier: That had
better take place on Monday.


Robert Laird Borden: We can only
take it on-Monday by giving it precedence over the others.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have no
objection to that.


Robert Laird Borden: Very good; 1
will allow the motion to stand for the present, since my right hon. friend thinks that there should be another Monday. This motion is always attended with the same result, namely, that one additional Monday is asked and the motion carries for the next. I left the motion later than usual this year, thinking that there would be no objection, but I shall be wiser next year, and make it somewhat earlier.


Wilfrid Laurier: My right hon. friend will not be any wiser.
Motion stands.



PRIVILEGE.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. LOGGIE:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. I wish to refer to



an article in the Daily Telegraph, of St. John, N.B., of Saturday, March 17. The headline is as follows : " Potatoes at $7 per Barrel from Fictitious Firm." In that article I am reported to have said:
If the minister will examine the Auditor General's Report, he will find 1,040 pounds of potatoes supplied the Militia Department at 7 cents per pounds.
That statement is not correct. On page 1974 of Hansard I am reported as follows:
One of the items of that amount was 1,046 pounds of potatoes at 4| cents a pound, which is about ?7 a barrel.
I read from the report of the Auditor General, page Z-68: 10,046 lbs. of potatoes at 41c. per lb., which is about $7 per barrel. I therefore deem it my duty to correct the report by saying that the price I mentioned for the potatoes was, as already stated 41c. per lb., paid to Armstrong & Ferguson, a firm doing business in Newcastle, during August, September and October, 1914, at which time the potatoes in question were sold and delivered at 4ie. per lb. I owe this correction to Messrs. Armstrong & Ferguson as well as to myself.



POSTMASTER AT (L0UISEVILLE.

Mr. C. A. GAUVREAU:: Mr. Speaker, just a word. I see that the Postmaster General is at his seat and I do not know whether he understood the question which I put to him yesterday; at all events, I have been wrongly reported in the Hansard. What I asked was that papers relative to the dismissal of a Mr. S'ansfagon, postmaster at Louiseville be laid on the table of the House. My inquiry as reported in Hansard relates to the post office at Louiseville.
The hon. T. C. iCASGRAIN: Mr. Speaker, I quite understood the purport of my hon. friend's inquiry; the papers were laid before me this morning and they will be brought down forthwith.



INQUIRY FOR REPORT.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Mr. J. IT. SINCLAIR: Some time ago, in answer to an inquiry by myself, the Minister of Militia stated that the report of the Royal Commission appointed to investigate the military hospital at Halifax had been presented, and was then under the consideration of the officers of the department. I should like to know if that report will be available for members. If
[Mr. Doggie. J
not, I think that some assurance should be given by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Militia that conditions have improved at Halifax. The condition of soldiers in the military hospital 'as revealed in the newspaper reports of the investigation, was very alarming to friends of soldiers quartered there, and I think it is due to the country that some assurance should be given that some improvement has been made in the hospital at Halifax.
Robert Laird Borden: As my hon.
friend says, and as I recollect, the Minister of Militia said that the report had been received and was under his consideration. A copy of it has not yet been sent to me, but I shall make inquiry, through the acting minister, as to the nature of the report, as to what action, if any, has been taken in consequence of it, and as to conditions generally, and give my hon. friend an answer next week.



ENLISTMENT OF COLOURED MEN.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
William Pugsley: Have any effective steps been taken to enable coloured citizens of Canada who are desirous of enlisting for service abroad to enlist, or for the formation of a regiment of coloured citizens? I have brought this question before the House on at least tv?o previous occasions, in consequence of representations which were made to me by some coloured citizens of New Brunswick, as well as some from Ontario. The Minister of Militia made the statement that the matter was under consideration. There is a good deal of complaint and a very considerable amount of feeling among our coloured citizens that they have not been treated fairly. They have been told that their services would be accepted, and when they have gone to the recruiting office where they were told to go, they have been sent away without receiving any satisfaction. The Minister of Militia, I think, has in mind the idea that a coloured regiment' might be raised in Canada. I should like to know what steps, if any, have been taken towards this end.


Hon. A. E. KEMP (Acting Minister of Militia and Defence):: I understand there are a number of coloured people in the various units throughout the country; but I am not aware that any effort has so far been made to organize a unit composed wholly of coloured citizens. Some steps

may have been taken, but I have no information to that effect at present. I shall make inquiries.



ASSISTANCE TO SHIPBUILDING.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Two weeks ago an order of the House was passed for a return of correspondence and papers relative to negotiations or an arrangement with the Government of British Columbia relative to assistance to shipbuilding. The answer to the return was brought down yesterday, and is composed simply of a letter addressed to the then Minister of Marine, in 1911, and containing a resolution by the Halifax Board of Trade with regard to the question of giving aid to shipbuilding. I assume that the bringing down of this document in answer to the order of the House is the result of a mistake on somebody's part or of failure on the part of the Secretary of State's Department to call the attention of the various departments to the nature of the order.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not sure that the order has not been complied with. I do not at the moment recollect any recent correspondence on the subject. I know that one of the ministers of British Columbia was here not long ago, and the subject was informally discussed. I do not remember any correspondence, but I shall make inquiry.



INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY COAL SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Charles Marcil: An extraordinary despatch appears in Le Canada this morning. It is dated from Rimouski, and states that the accommodation train which left Riviere du Loup on the 20th, in' the morning, reached Rimouski on the 22nd, and could go no further for want of coal. It says that the coal depot at Rimouski was destroyed last year and has not been replaced, so the locomotive had to proceed, to Ste. Flavie, some eighteen miles farther, to get coal. Thus there was two days' delay in the movement of this accommodation train, which supplies that whole district with freight. Attention is called to the fact that if the recent collision at Val Brilliant had been between passenger trains the medical men of Rimouski, who generally attend the victims of accidents in the Matapedia valley, would have been unable to reach the spot
138}
for want of coal for the locomotives. It says that there is a shortage of coal all along the line. This seems extraordinary.


Hon. J. D. REID (Acting Minister of Railways):: There are a good many " ifs " in the hon. gentleman's statements. I may say for his information that there is not a shortage of coal at any point along the Intercolonial. Some hon. members made the statement the other day that we had not brought any coal during the last season of navigation up to Levis and Montreal, although I can say, for the information of the hon. member, that we brought up the usual quantity. We also had stored at different points along the Intercolonial the usual quantity of coal. The hon. member knows that the Intercolonial railway has done three or four times more business this year than in any other year of its history, and in addition to that, they have had, one of the severest winters ever known. I discussed this matter with the general manager yesterday. He tells me that there is no place where they have yet been short of coal, although they are bringing coal up on the railway to some of the points where they have had large quantities stored. The case the hon. member refers to may be one in which an engine has been stalled on account of the heavy snowstorm, when the coal would probably be exhausted owing to the c^elay. In addition to that, there is now going on one of the severest storms we have had in that district during the present winter; so that altogether I think the statements that are published in this paper are not justified by the facts.


Charles Marcil: They say that the coal
depot was destroyed the year before last and has not been rebuilt; that there is no supply of coal kept at Rimouski, which is an important point, and that for that reason the locomotive had to go 18 miles further on.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Rhodes in the Chair.
Peniten tiaries-Kingston, $210,600.
['The hon. gentleman in\nwhose name it stands is not present. Perhaps it had better stand.\nBill stands.\nThe following Bills were considered in Committee, reported, read the third time, and passed without discussion:\nBill No. 32, respecting The Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company.- Mr. T. J. Stewart.\nBill No. 50, for tHe relief of Raymond Conliffe Savage.-Mr. Douglas.\nBill No. 53, for the relief of Robert William Thompson.-Mr. J. A. M. Armstrong.\nBill No. 57, for the relief of Nora Louise Jackson.-Mr. Douglas.']
Mr. PROULX:: Who is the present warden?


Mr. DOHERTY:: Mr. Creighton.


Edmond Proulx: How long has he been
warden?


Charles Joseph Doherty: He has been in the penitentiary service for a number of years. He was at one time warden's clerk in one of the

penitentiaries, and was afterwards at the head office here for a number of years in the capacity of chief accountant. From time to time he acted as acting warden at different penitentiaries. He was appointed warden of Kingston about two years ago.


Edmond Proulx: What became of the warden who was transferred from Edmonton?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Col. Irving was transferred from Stony Mountain to the warden-ship of Kingston penitentiary, but he has since died.


Edmond Proulx: Did he die as warden, or was he superannuated before his death?


Charles Joseph Doherty: He was superannuated
very shortly before his death.


Edmond Proulx: Is Inspector Hughes serving in the overseas forces?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, he is serving at
the front, and is in the trenches at the present time. .


Edmond Proulx: Is he drawing his salary as inspector?


Charles Joseph Doherty: He is drawing his salary under the provision of the Order in Council which governed civil servants who enlisted at that time.	[DOT]


Edmond Proulx: What office does he hold in the militia?


Charles Joseph Doherty: He is a Lieutenant-Colonel.


Edmond Proulx: So he draws double pay as colonel and inspector?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Hfe draws double pay under the Order in Council which was passed. I may say that that involves no additional expense to the country, because we have managed, at considerable inconvenience to some of the other officials, to get -along without replacing Colonel Hughes in the position of inspector. Though he draws two salaries, the country pays no more money than if some one else had been appointed to the position of colonel. In any event, he draws the two salaries under a general Order in Council which was passed at the outset of the war, and under which civil servants, to whom permission - was given to volunteer, were allowed to retain their salaries.


Edmond Proulx: He draws a salary which another lieutenant-colonel would have drawn.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It may be an injustice to some other lieutenant-colonel, but it is not costing the country any more money.


Edmond Proulx: Has there been a general decrease in the staff?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, I cannot say that there has been a decrease in the staff, but there has been an increase in our convict population.


Edmond Proulx: I thought that since the new prison farm was established in Ontario the judges were more prone to give shorter sentences in order that prisoners might go on the prison farm. I was under the impression that the convicts in our penitentiaries had largely decreased since the establishment of the prison farm.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not know whether the judges are imposing shorter sentences, but it would appear that more prisoners are being sentenced to long terms, because the convict population of our penitentiaries has increased.


Charles Marcil: What is the total population of the penitentiaries now, compared with what it was three or four years ago?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understand that the actual number of convicts, when the last report was made, was 2,064. Last year, I believe, the total was 2,008 or 2,009. The increase is not very great.


Charles Marcil: Has the cost of maintenance increased relatively .compared with what it was three or four years ago?


Charles Joseph Doherty: During the last two years the cost of maintenance has been the same. The amount we are asking for this year is the same as we asked for last year.


Mr. TURRIFF:: How many convicts have been released from the penitentiaries, since the war began, to sefve in the army, and how many have been recommitted to the penitentiaries?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I cannot give the exact figures; I do not. have them with me; but I am safe in saying that the numbe^ was well under 100. As to re-incarcerations, I cannot speak from memory. There were a few instances, very few, but I will get the exact number.


Charles Marcil: I suppose that most oi those men who were allowed to enlist were short-term men?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Generally speaking, 1 think that would be correct, but I would

not like to speak positively, as I have not the papers before me. I may say that further reflection upon the whole question, and upon the views of certain military authorities, led us to the conclusion that such releases should be exceedingly rare. I should say that during the past year there have been probably not more than four or five cases. The bulk of them were at the early stage of the war.


Mr. OLIVER:: Speaking for myself only, and not as a military man in any sense of the word, I would like to congratulate the minister on the change of view, and the change of action, in regard to this matter of the release of prisoners to enable them to undertake military service. I am unable personally to appreciate the advisability of any such action being taken. It is to be presumed that the man who is suffering sentence in a penitentiary is suffering justly for having committed some offence against the well-being of his fellow citizens. After he has been released from the punishment which the law has seen fit to give him, should be time enough to take up the question of accepting his service in aid of the country. It seems to me that the idea of releasing a man from gaol in order that he may enter upon military service indicates a lack of appreciation of the nature, character and importance of the military service that is to be rendered, and of the fact that the man who is rendering military service to his country, under the present circumstances, is not of the less reputable type of citizen, but of the highest type of citizen; the higher the type the better the service. To have it understood that convicted criminals are accepted as volunteers, that they can get immunity for their offences and can be placed in the same position as men who are of the highest and best character and are serving their country from the highest of motives, derogates from the standing and character of the service being rendered by those who are entering under ordinary circumstances. Had not the minister announced that he had reconsidered the original position, I would have desired to enter my most emphatic protest against such action by the Government; and, having heard his expression as to the present policy, I wish to endorse that policy. Of course, it must be admitted that there are exceptional cases which may very well be considered; but to adopt any broad and wholesale policy of that kind would be detrimental to the best interests of the military services as well as to the enforcement of law.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There never was any
wholesale policy in reference to that. My impression is that up to the first of January, 1915, or in the first six or eight months of the war, there were between 60 and 70 of such enlistments. In dealing with these applications discrimination was made. It never was a matter of wholesale policy. In the great majority of cases there were other reasons, such as the length of time the men had served, good conduct, the recommendation of the warden or judge, and such ordinary reasons as would probably have led to a ticket of leave if they had not come forward and offered to undergo this further condition. However, the further this thing advanced the more impressed were we with the idea and which resulted largely from the expressions of opinion of military authorities, to which all deference should be paid, that the release of a prisoner under these circumstances should be a very exceptional occurrence. It will be realized, I think, that you may have a young man specially fitted, who has had training in military affairs, and who has been led into committing some offence which has brought about the punishment of imprisonment, which offence is manifestly his one, solitary slip, and in regard to. whom there is reason to believe that his future conduct will be irreproachable. In a case of that kind it will be fairly recognized that his patriotic willingness to risk his life in the service of his country may perhaps carry some weight in consideration of whether he ought to be released. However, within the last year, the number of cases has been inside half a dozen.


Charles Marcil: Is the ticket-of-leave system still in operation?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, it is in very active operation. We have from 25 to 30 applications a day.


Charles Marcil: What is the general policy followed in connection with it?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Of course, nobody can lay down absolute rules. There are many circumstances that have to be taken into consideration in determining the advice to be given. In the first place, the nature of the offence is an important factor, as is also the period of time that a man has served when his application comes before us for consideration. There are also the reports and recommendations of the judges, which are always asked for, and which carry very great weight. There is also the report of the warden of the peni-

tentiary, or the offic ,r in charge of the prison, as to the conduct of the prisoner and as to what judgment can be formed from that conduct as to the probable future conduct of the prisoner should he be released. We endeavour to take all these things into consideration, as well as such circumstances as come before us upon the authority of credible people; and to exercise the best judgment we can. Our recommendations can hardly be at fault to any great extent, if we judge by the percentage of men granted tickets-of-leave and who forfeit them by subsequent offences during the period of time which their sentences have still to run. A person granted a ticket of leave is not absolutely absolved from his sentence. He has to report at stated periods, and, if he is convicted of an offence within the balance of the time of his original sentence, he is liable to forfeit his ticket of leave and to be returned to the penitentiary to serve his sentence. The percentage of persons to whom that happens is very small. I think it is under five per cent.


Charles Marcil: What do you do with a man on a ticket of leave who leaves the country temporarily [DOT] and returns?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The holder of a ticket of leave has no right to leave the country. He is under obligation to report promptly and to remain within the country. If he leaves in violation of that undertaking and comes back, he is liable to find his ticket-of-leave .forfeited and to be returned to the jail from which he was leleased.


Charles Marcil: I saw a statement to the effect that that branch of the work of the department is now under the Solicitor General.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The Solicitor General
does deal with these cases. Of course, they have all to come before the minister ultimately for signature. They go first to an officer of the department, then to the Solicitor General, and finally come to the minister.


Charles Marcil: I see there is a reduction of $1,000 at St. Vincent de Paul and of $15,000 at the British Columbia penitentiary. You are not putting up certain buildings this year and not contemplating certain work?


Charles Joseph Doherty: At St. Vincent de Paul we are carrying on certain building operations. Last year we voted the amount necessary to complete these operations, they are

about being completed now, and we foresee that $1,000 less than we asked for will be sufficient. As regards the $15,000 reduction in British Columbia, that amount has been dropped because certain pavements in front of the property of the penitentiary which we had purposed constructing in order to place the property in the same position as other properties, we not being taxable, are not now being laid.


Charles Marcil: Will insane women convicts condemned in the province of Quebec still be taken to Kingston?
_ Mr. DOHERTY: I understand there are at present no women convicts from Quebec. But they are sent to Kingston if there are any. We have adopted the policy of gathering the women convicts together at Kingston. Insane convicts are no longer kept at Kingston. We have done away with the insane ward at Kingston, and insane convicts are distributed amongst the asylums in the different provinces. Those in the province of Quebect are sent to St. Jean de Dieu and Beauport.


Charles Marcil: Even those under life
terms?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


Mr. EDWARDS:: I notice the salaries paid 'to the various surgeons at the penitentiaries have been $1,700, excepting at Kingston, where it has 'been $2,700. Am I right in stating that the reason why an additional $1,000 was given to the surgeon of Kingston penitentiary was that Kingston penitentiary was the place to which all insane convicts from the various provinces were sent?


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is correct.


William Cameron Edwards: I understand that the insane convicts were removed from Kingston penitentiary last June.


Charles Joseph Doherty: On the 14th of July.


William Cameron Edwards: If this additional $1,000 was received because of the insane patients at Kingston, and it was not received by the surgeon of any other penitentiary, one would naturally have supposed that the salary would be discontinued when the insane patients were removed from Kingston; but, notwithstanding their removal, I am informed that the surgeon at Kingston penitentiary continued to draw the same salary up to the end of 1915. That strikes me as needing explanation, which I have no doubt the minister can give.


Mr. SCHAFFNER:: Are the surgeons permitted to carry on outside practice?


William Cameron Edwards: No, up t-o the end of last year they were not, but I believe a different arrangement has been made in regard to Kingston penitentiary. Another observation I was going to make was that while the salary of the various penitentiary surgeons, with the exception of the one at Kingston, is $1,700, the number of convicts in the different institutions varies very greatly. For instance, for the year ending March 21,	1914, which is the last
report available, Kingston had 511; St. Vincent de Paul, 401; Saskatchewan, 108; Alberta, 203; British Columbia, 379; Manitoba, 172, and Dorchester, 231. I think the system in regard to the penitentiary surgeons has been entirely wrong. The surgeons should not be prevented from practising their profession outside of the time required for their duties in connection with the penitentiary. A good move has been made at Kingston penitentiary in replacing the former surgeon by two physicians; not only do I think it was a good move to provide two surgeons instead of one, but it was a good move to replace the former surgeon anyway, for he clearly showed his unfitness and incompetence while he was occupying the office. Generally speaking, I think it is a step in the right direction to have two physicians attached to these institutions, particularly the larger ones like Kingston and St. Vincent de Paul. I think also that the surgeons should be allowed to practise their profession outside of the time required for their duties at the penitentiary. There are many reasons for that. With two physicians, each has the advantage of consultation with the other. Again, when an operation has to be performed, at least two surgeons are required, and they would then be officials of the institution; and there are many other reasons which might be mentioned. The minister has seen fit to make the change and appoint two physicians at Kingston. It is ia good move, which I think should be followed in all the other institutions throughout the country. The salaries of penitentiary surgeons might reasonably, perhaps, be cut down in some of the smaller institutions, and I have no doubt the surgeons would be willing to accept a reduction if they were allowed to follow their profession outside. That is all I wish to say on that particular phase of the penitentiaary problem. I should like
an explanation from the minister why Dr. Phelan's salary was continued for the balance of 1915, if the insane convicts had been removed in July.


Charles Joseph Doherty: As the hon. member
has said, the insane patients were removed from the insane ward, which was abolished, and placed in the different insane asylums on July 14, 1915. That, of course, brought about a situation which in effect abolished the office held by Dr. Phelan, so far as that office consisted in the superintendency oi the penitentiary, for which an allowance of $1,000 was made. That would 4 p.m. have left intact his position as surgeon to the penitentiary, to which was attached a salary of $1,700; but at that time, in addition to the abolition oi his position of superintendent, it was thought advisable to adopt the new system which the hon. member has mentioned with .regard to surgeons, and which I am very happy to know meets with his approval; that is to say, instead of a surgeon being bound to give his entire time to the service of the penitentiary and receiving a salary of $1,700, it was decided, as was permitted to us under the statute, to allow the gentleman whom we should retain as surgeon to the penitentiary to carry on a general practice, and to reduce his salary by twenty per cent. That change, involving the abolition of the position to which Dr. Phelan had been appointed, and had held for a great many years, we found ourselves in the position where, as the office as a whole was about to be abolished, Dr. Phelan's services to the institution would cease. Under these circumstances, as has been usual with regard to persons who have held office for a long period of time and have reached a certain age, Dr. Phelan, previous to his ceasing to perform his functions, was given three months' leave of absence. As an actual fact, I think the patients left on the 14th of July, and Dr. Phelan's leave ran from the 25th of July to the 25th of October. It had been anticipated that during that interval the change with regard to the employment of a physician or surgeon would have been made and Dr. Phelan replaced. The matter of selection of physicians, not merely from the point of view of the person to be appointed to replace Dr. Phelan, but also from the point of view of the system to be adopted, called for some consideration. I felt that there was room for improvement in the system that had prevailed. I had before me a suggestion of the Investigating

Commission, that I should appoint a resident physician, which, as I understand it, is some one to live within the building, and a visiting physician. I had also before me another suggestion which I thought, and still think, had a great deal of merit, though it was not finally acted upon; and that was that I should have three doctors acting in consultation. All these suggestions called for consideration, and the selection of persons to fill the positions was a matter that I felt should be carefully dealt with. The result was that when Dr. Phelan's leave of absence expired his position had not been filled. We were expecting to fill it, and to bring the matter to a close, day after day. His engagement therefore ran on, and when it was terminated the position was dealt with as one position; and, of *course, if we were right 'hi granting the leave of absence it would apply to him as holding an office with these two branches which was being termin.afd. For the sub- [DOT] sequent period, from' the 25th October until the end of December, there was delay in .filling the position, so far as that ef physician is concerned, and during that delay it had not seemed desirable that we should do. otherwise than avail ourselves of the services of Dr. Phelan as physician and surgeon to the establishment. The result was that the whole matter was dealt with in December-I have forgotten the exact date of the Order in 'Council, but it was made to take effect on December 31. I may say that it was by inadvertence of my own that Dr. Phelan .received, after the expiry of his leave of absence for a couple of months, the salary attaching to his position as superintendent of the insane ward. But it did occur to me that it was not a proper thing that he should be paid for the duties of an office that had expired. However, if he was not to have his salary to the end of the year, he was certainly entitled to his superannuation allowance under the statute. I looked into the question and found that for the period between the expiry of his leave of absence on the 25th October, and the final termination of his holding of office as surgeon the differ. ence between paying him his salary and paying him the superannuation allowance to which he was entitled would come to $80 and some odd cents. 1 found that, although the position of superintendent of the 'insane ward had been abolished, Dr. Phelan had, in that period, rendered us service which would otherwise have-been rendered by a physician 
specially employed, one competent to deal with insqne patients. For instance we had occasion to examine at the St. Jean de Dieu asylum a patient concerning whose insanity a difference of opinion had arisen. This man, iGodbout, had been sent to St. Jean de Dieu, to which institution the insane are sent who are sentenced from the district of Montreal; but the doctors there questioned his insanity. Dr. iPhelan made the examination. In addition, there was a convict, Martinuk, who had been sentenced to death, but whose sentence had been commuted on a question of insanity, and it was necessary to have his condition determined within three months of his going into the asylum, in order to entitle this Government to return him to the care of the Provincial Government should he be found insane. Dr. Phelan made that examination and report. He also dealt with the convict Bonner, who was transferred as insane to the Guelph infirmary. Further, he made an examination of Percy Scott, a prisoner in the Manitoba penitentiary, under sentence of death. In view of these services having been rendered, and in view of the difference involved as between paying the salary, or paying the retiring allowance, it seemed to me that that difference certainly was not an exaggerated remuneration for the services Tendered by Dr. Phelan during that period. The hon. gentleman will realize that if we had employed an outside physician to render these services the cost to us would have been very much more than that sum.
As regards the suggestion of our extending the change in the manner of employing the physicians to the penitentiaries generally, I am quite prepared to say that that represents my own view of the subject But I thought it wise, as we were making the change at Kingston, to wait a little and see whether it worked out as satisfactorily as I have every reason to anticipate it will, before making it of general applica-t.on. There is another consideration that arises with regard to the question of having a gentleman as surgeon who will give Ins entire time, as compared with having one take a smaller salary, trusting to outside practice, and that is the consideration of the locality of the penitentiary. At Kingston, and at some other places, the plan can readily be carried out, because we have at our door a city where a physician who gives part of 'his time to our institution will find fair opportunity-I think excellent op-

portunity-for general practice. But when you come to deal with the penitentiary at St. Vincent de Paul, a small village, or the penitentiary at' Dorchester, which is in the same position, or the penitentiary at Stoney Mountain, which is a certain distance from Winnipeg, it is more difficult to find a gentleman willing to give us only a part of hie time, and certainly it will not be easy to find two gentlemen willing to engage at the present small salary. If we find that we can make satisfactory arrangements at these penitentiaries, I shall be very glad to extend the system. With regard to the remark about the similarity of salaries in all the penitentiaries without regard to the number of patients, there is no doubt that there is an anomaly there. The salaries, however, are fixed by the statute. It is not impossible that when the statute was enacted it might have been well if consideration had been given to the fact that a different quantum of service is called for in the different penitentiaries. Over against that was this:	the system was
adopted of making all the salaries identical in all the penitentiaries, because it was thought wise that we should not attach a man in any permanent way to one institution; that we should have the officers all at our disposal, so that a man could be transferred if it was found that he could be more useful in another penitentiary than that in which he was employed. There would be great difficulty in carrying that out if the salaries were different in the different institutions. I am prepared to concede that that consideration is not of as direct application to the surgeons as it is to the regular disciplinary officers of the institution. I am not prepared to say that if thought had been given at the time the salaries were fixed to the difference between the professional gentlemen who attend the penitentiaries and those who are properly called the officers of the penitentiaries, it might not have been wise to make a difference in the salaries at the different institutions, based in some way upon the relative amount of work to be done at each.


Mr. H. BOULAY (Rimouski):: (Translation.) Mt. Chairman, I see by the report of the inspector of penitentiaries for the fiscal year ending the 31st of March, 1914, of the Inspector of Penitentiaries for the cost of maintenance per convict is quite high. At Kingston, the cost per head is $313.48; at St. Vincent de Paul, $392.21; at Dorchester, $430.98; in Manitoba, $411.85; in British Columbia, $.350.02; for Alberta, $472.33, while for Saskatchewan it goes up to
$961.75. As my hon. friend, the member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver)-who I notice is not in his seat just now-is preaching economy, I think he might suggest the means of diminishing the cost of the maintenance of convicts in his province, because it comes to about double what obtains elsewhere under like conditions.
In going over the items for maintenance, it seems to me that the excessive cost is due in, the main to the wages paid to the staff of the penitentiary. It is possible that such a condition of things was merely temporary, but I am not aware of that as I have not seen the report of the inspector for 1915. But in 1914, the difference in the cost as compared with the expenditure in other penitentiaries, is so great as to call for an explanation.
As my hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) whom I now see in his seat, is always anxious to promote the best interests of the French-Canadians, I should like to ask him a favour for the province of Ontario; I should like him to ask the Government or suggest to his friends, the appointment of a few more French-speaking employees at the Kingston penitentiary. In looking over the staff, I find only one French name out of a list of 96 employees. Not that I care to see more of my people appointed in penitentiaries rather than elsewhere; but as a matter of public convenience, the French-speaking people of Ontario amount to one-twelfth, and there must unfortunately be in the penitentiary some French-speaking convicts, who would welcome among the officers some that could understand them. I know -that among -the French element in Ontario, chiefly in the east, there are a certain number who do not understand the English language. Should any of them be incarcerated-it is painful enough for them to have to undergo a sentence-their fate could be somewhat alleviated by those employees who could speak to them in their own language. I believe we have there a serious grievance not only as to the French-Canadians of Ontario but with respect to French convicts from other provinces. I therefore appeal to our friends from Ontario to deal more fairly with the French-Canadians in that respect.
I now desire to call the attention of the Minister of Justice to another point. While going through the Dorchester penitentiary, in New Brunswick, I found there yount; men 12 or 15 years of age interned with oldeT criminals. I called it to the attention of

the officer who was seeing me through the institution. I think he told me that there were no reformatories for younger delinquents in New Brunswick. Here is ample room for improvement and I call the minister's especial notice to it. I think it is not in the interest of'.morality well conceived, to place juvenile offenders with older convicts. If the Government has power to do it, some means ought to foe found of taking those young men out of the penitentiary and confining them in other special institutions where they would get a chance of reforming. In the penitentiaries, they come Unto contact with older cr.minals, and there is a greater opportunity for them of getting lost completely instead of reforming.
At Dorchester also, I noticed that there was no one to understand French, I would have liked to obtain more information, but I could not get them to understand me.


Charles Joseph Doherty: (Translation.) For the hon. member's information as to the relative oo<st of the maintenance of convicts in Saskatchewan, as compared with the other provinces, I will ask him to consider one point which probably has escaped his attention. The figures he has mentioned do not represent the cost of maintenance of each particular convict, font are obtained by taking the total expenditure of each institution and dividing it by the number of convicts therein. So that, as the hon. member will readily see, where the number oi convicts is less, the necessary result is a higher cost per head. In every one of those establishments the buildings have to be kept up and the officers and employees paid. It follows that in dividing the total maintenance between four to five hundred convicts, the ratio per head is much smaller than where the number of convicts is much less. No doubt the maintenance of the prisoners in the western provinces, and especially in Saskatchewan, costs higher than elsewhere, but the difference does not lie where the hon. member thinks.
Now, as to the inquiry which the hon. member for Bimouski made to the hon. member for Frontenac, I leave it to the latter to answer for himself.
'My hon. friend from Bimouski has brought to my notice the establishment oi jails, reformatories >and houses of detention for prisoners sentenced to less than two years. The establishment and maintenance of such institutions come within the ex-

elusive jurisdiction, of the provinces. So that I am afraid the Government cannot intervene to redress the grievances he mentions.
Now I am surprised to hear from the hon. gentleman that he had found no one to speak to him in French in the Dorchester penitentiary. I know that I for one appointed some French-speaking employees, and there must be others whose names, at any rate are French^Canadian or Acadian names. It was a misfortune that- none should have happened around when he went through. However, it is far from us to wish to discriminate against the Frenchspeaking people.


Mr. PBOULX:: (Translation.) Does it happen only in the Maritime Provinces that children from. 12 to 15 years of age are put in penitentiaries?	,


Charles Joseph Doherty: (Translation.) I did not understand the member for Bimouski to mention children from 12 to 15 years of age. However, I may say that in certain sections in New Brunswick-I have been informed by some judges that they prefer to send the. young culprits to the penitentiary, because they state, in their opinion, the conditions in some of the jails of the province are such as to make it desirable in the interest of the children themselves. But I do not think there can be found a large number of children as young as that in the penitentiaries. In the different provinces, and I believe in the case of New Brunswick, special houses and reformatories have been established, and I should be very much surprised1 if there existed a more than insignificant number of cases such as were mentioned by the hon. member. At any rate, that does not come within Federal jurisdiction. We have, -according to law, to provide for the' convicts which the courts send us.


Isidore Proulx: (Translation.) Here in Ontario, we have reformatories for boys and for girls, and even for Catholic and for Protestant children. If some of the provinces have not seen fit to build those reformatories, it might be good for this Parliament to amend the Criminal Code so -as to forbid the courts sentencing children to the penitentiary.


Mr. COPP:: The Dorchester penitentiary, while a Dominion institution, is in the constituency which I have the honour to represent, and I am therefore interested in anything which refers to the conduct of its

affairs. As I understood the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Boulay), he complains that there are very few if any, Acadians employed in the institution.


Herménégilde Boulay: I said that while I noticed that on the list of employees about one out of six were French, when I visited the institution I could not find one French employee.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I do not know where the
French employees would be on the day my hon. friend was there, but from the list I notice there are a number of French-speaking people employed. The deputy warden is an Acadian, there is a French chaplain, and there are a number of French guards. I was surprised that my hon. friend was not able to find a French employee when he visited the penitentiary. As to boys being sent to the penitentiary, I am not here to speak in defence of the institution, except as I know it from living within 10 miles of it, and visiting it frequently. I have heard no complaint of that practice. We have a reformatory in St. John to which boys who are convicted of offences are sent.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I did not wish to convey the idea that this is at all general, but there have been instances.


Arthur Bliss Copp: In New Brunswick we have a reformatory. I think they have also some reformatories or boys' schools in Nova Scotia to which boys would be sent, unless there was some special reason for sending them to the penitentiary.


Mr. MICHAUD:: I had an opportunity not long ago of visiting the Dbrchester penitentiary. I addressed myself to the officer in French and I was answered in French. I was taken around the institution, and I had good French conversation at all points. I think if the hon. member for Rimouski had addressed himself first in French he would probably have got the right officer to answer him. I do not mean to say that we have our share of French-speaking employees in that institution, but I am aware that we have many French officers and employees there.	,
As to sending young boys to the penitentiary, a case occurred not long ago where a young boy of sixteen years was sentenced to two years' imprisonment, but the judge sent him to the boys' industrial home, a very good school. As a matter of fact, very few young boys are sent to the penitentiary; they are sent to the boys' industrial home.


William Cameron Edwards: On what was the pension of Dr. Phelan based?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The pension was based upon the provisions of the statute in that regard. Dr. Phelan had served some eighteen years. When he came into the service he was more than thirty years of age, and, coming in as a physician and taking a position where special professional qualifications were required^ he came under section 12 of the Civil Service Superannuation and Retirement Act. Furthermore, Dr. Phelan's connection with the institution was terminated by the abolition of the office which he held. He therefore came under section 15 of the same Act. Each of these sections provides that in any case where a man comes under the conditions prescribed by it, and, as I said, he came under those prescribed by both sections-ten years may be added to the number of years actually served, in estimating his superannuation. In the case of Dr. Phelan, both the provisions of the statute being applicable, they were acted upon, and his superannuation allowance was fixed accordingly.


William Cameron Edwards: I desire to enter my protest against the course which has been taken by the Department of Justice in connection with this matter, and I shall endeavour to give some reasons why I enter that protest. Dr. Phelan was appointed in 1897. He received a salary of $2,700 a year, $1,000 of which was given to him in consideration of the fact that he had under his care the insane convicts sent' from various parts of Canada to Kingston peni-tentiry. These insane convicts were removed from that institution, I think, in July, but Dr. Phelan still continued to draw his share of the $1,000 to the end( of the year. The Minister of Justice has given his explanation of that. On the retirement of Dr. Phelan, at the end of 1915, two men were appointed in his place. The minister will agree with me-in fact, he has said so-that the appointment of the two men is an improvement. I have nothing to say in regard to the capabilities of the two men who have been appointed; I am personally acquainted with both of them. They are very estimable men and rank high in the profession. I think I am safe in saying that Dr. Hanley ranks as high in hi* profession as Dr. Phelan ever did. Dr. W. T. Connell is noted from one end of Canada to the other, I might almost say from one end of this continent to the other,

as a specialist along bacteriological lines. Dr. Hanley receives for his services $860 a year, and Dr. Connell receives as consulting physician $500 a year. The sum of $1,360 is being paid to these two men for looking after the welfare of the convicts in Kingston penitentiary, and Dr. Phelan is drawing an annuity of $1,512 a year for the rest of his life. He had served, as I say, for 18 years. Ten years were added to his service, and his annuity was brought up by that means to the sum of $1,500. I think I am right in saying that out of the 45 men in the various departments of the Civil Service of the Dominion who were retired last year, because of age, or for some equally good and sufficient reason, the only man who had anything added to his service was Dr. Phelan, the surgeon of Kingston penitentiary.
I want to state some reasons why I do not think Dr. Phelan was entitled to receive this special consideration at the hands of the Department of Justice. In the course of the investigation which was held at Kingston it was proved that Dr. Phelan used violent and filthy language to a guard of the institution in the presence of others. His language on that occasion was so filthy that no paper would print it, and no person would be allowed to make use of it in any public gathering. The proof that he did use this indecent language is to be found on page 389 of the typewritten evidence taken before the commission. I find it necessary to give the page of that evidence, because, for some reason or other, when making out their brief report, for which they received pretty nearly $5,000, the commissioners refer you to page blank when you want to corroborate their statements by the evidence. This occurs in fifty or sixty places. Throughout their report they have left out the page of the typewritten evidence so that the report is of no use whatever for the purpose of reference. You cannot use the report without looking up the evidence. Why that was done is a mystery to me. It certainly made it impossible for the members of this House, if they desired to look into the question thoroughly and to form an estimate of this report from the evidence which was produced before the commission, to get any guidance from the evidence.
I make the statement that it was proved conclusively, and admitted, the proof of which is found on page 389 of the typewritten evidence, that Dr. Phelan, the man who has been superannuated with $1,500 a year, made use of language that was too

foul for the lowest kind of man to use. The very fact that a man of his standing, and of his profession, would so far forget himself as to make use of language of that stamp, shows that he is not the sort of man who is entitled to special consideration at the hands of this Government. It was also proven in the course of the evidence-taken by the commission, the proof of 'which you will find, if you care to take the trouble to look it up, on page 421 ot the typewritten evidence, that Dr. Phelan tried to induce one of the guards, who was giving evidence before the commission, to commit perjury.


Arthur Bliss Copp: When was the investigation held?


William Cameron Edwards: About a year and a half ago. Is a man who had been an officer of the Goyernment for 18 years, and who, when a commission is appointed to investigate, goes so far as to try to get one of the witnesses before that commission to commit perjury, the sort of man to have ten years added to his service and to be pensioned off at $1,500 a year?
It was also proven before that investigating commission that Dr. Phelan played the part of a petty grafter. There is no question at all about that. He admitted that he had grafted small amounts, that he had taken as fees small amounts from men who were seeking positions as guards. He admitted also that he was not entitled to do so. I think he showed the same disposition in the latter half of 1915 when he continued to draw cheques as physician of an insane ward which did not exist. The very first rule laid down for the guidance of the surgeon of Kingston penitentiary or of any other penitentiary, is rule 52. Will the fninister or anyone	else	say that	Dr.Phelan ever attempted to live up to that rule, or	to	give	effect to	it?The same may	be	said	in regard	torule 53, which deals with the hygiene and cleanliness of the prison; that rule was disregarded	by	him.	The evidence
shows that 60 or 70 convicts used the same cup in drinking water; that some of the convicts had loathsome diseases, and that there were men, actually with syphilitic sores in their mouths, who were using the cup to get drinking water, other convicts being obliged to use the same cup or go without any water. It was Phelan's place to see that that condition of affairs did not exist; yet it did exist, and the fact was brought out clearly in the evidence.

In the course of the inquiry Dr. Young was called in as a specialist. Dr. Young had been connected with Portsmouth Insane Asylum for years, and on page 10 of the commissioner's report we find Dr. Young using these words with reference to the prison patients under the care of the prison surgeon:
. The physical condition of the patients shows the effect of improper diet, insufficient exercise, and fresh air.
Yet Dr. Phelan, in his report to Ottawa year after year, stated that the sanitary conditions, and everything else about the prison and the insane ward in the hospital were as perfect as it was possible for human beings to make them. That is the way he reported year after year; the minister's own report will show that very clearly. And yet Dr. Young, when called in, says that the patients show the ill effects of improper diet, insufficient exercise, and lack of fresh air. The former warden of the prison, Dr. Platt, said the medical superintendent, who was prison surgeon, makes a short call, Sundays expected, and that this constitutes the whole care and treatment of the criminal insane. The commissioners, in face of Dr. Young's statement, made this statement, which will be found on page 11 of their report:
Many an unfortunate must, have been deprived of a fair chance of recovery by reason of the State's unpardonable neglect.
That is to say, by reason of the unpardonable neglect of the prison surgeon, as the report shows clearly, the sanitation was imperfect, the diet was imperfect, and the patients lacked for proper food and care. The commissioners went on to say:
Further, we find that Insane inmates have not received the attention which their state demanded and in some instances they have been subjected to unjustifiable punishments.
Not only did Dr. Phelan not visit the sick convicts on Sundays, but he reported everything as good as it was possible to be while these sick convicts, in order to allow the guards to go home, were actually given their breakfast at 9 o'clock in the morning, their dinner at 11 o'clock in the morning, their supper at 1 p.m., and they got nothing after that until next morning. That was under the direct supervision of the prison surgeon who is singled out for special favour in regard to a pension.
This gentleman is on record, proven clearly by the evidence, as having used foul and indecent language which certainly a man of his profession should not have used. It
certainly marked him as an inferior man. He is proven clearly by the records to have resorted to petty grafting. It is also proven by the records that he had endeavoured to get one of the witnesses before the commission to commit perjury. The records show that he neglected to care for the sick patients, while his report year after year was a gross misrepresentation of the conditions as they existed at Kingston penitentiary. Carlyle says:
(Show me the man you honour; I know by that symptom better than any other what kind of man you are yourself, for, you show me what your ideal of manhood is, what kind of a man you long to be.
I would be sorry to think for one moment that the Minister of Justice would be measured by these words, I can only conclude that the Minister of Justice, in giving this man the consideration which he has given him, and which, in my judgment he is not entitled to, has been grossly misled. He has not looked into the facta which have been brought out by the commission, and because of that he has been more generous to this man than this man's record would warrant him in being.
I have here a report signed by Douglas Stewart and W. S. Hughes, who occupy the positions of inspectors of penitentiaries. I think every person will agree with me in this, that if Douglas Stewart and W. S. Hughes, inspectors of penitentiaries, feel that they are entitled in their report to speak freely in regard to the action of others, others have the right to speak freely in regard to them. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that in so far as that report is concerned, the report for the year ended March 31, 1914, Douglas Stewart and W. S.
Hughes, inspectors of pem-5 p.m. tentiaries, make statements which, it seems to me, they must know are false and misleading to the public and the members of this House who take the trouble to read their report. Let me refer to one or two of the statements which they make. These two inspectors in this report take very strong exception to the criticism .of the way in which Kingston penitentiary was conducted. They seem to think that no person has the right to interfere, or to call attention to wrongdoing in connection with this institution, because of their connection with it as officials. They find fault with the persons who make charges. They state that these charges are false. Well, I may say that one of the men who signs this report as

inspector, and who, in signing the report says that the statements and allegations made in regard to the administration of this penitentiary are false and misleading, is the very man who 'is responsible for nine-tenths of the statements which were made in regard to that institution. I am referring to W. S. Hughes, who before he became inspector of penitentiaries, and drew the -salary which he is getting in that position, was a very different man. W. S. Hughes, while he was accountant of the Kingston penitentiary, and drew $1,500 or $1,700 -a year as salary, was wonderfully outspoken. He charged pretty nearly every crime in the category against other officials of the institution. But when W. S. Hughes began to draw the salary of an inspector of penitentiaries a sudden change canfe over the spirit of his dream. He had no sooner landed that position than he declared that he would not go on the stand and tell all he knew in regard to the Kingston penitentiary and the wrong-doing there. I asked him why, and his reply to me was that every tub must stand on its bottom.


Charles Marcil: Had the commission no power to compel -him to answer questions?


William Cameron Edwards: Yes, I suppose they had, and I have no hesitation in saying that a proper commission would have done so. What I have stated here, and what I state now, is that that commission, with the men who were appointed to act upon it, was an absolute farce. I repeat what I have said on a former occasion, that from the standpoint of the proper conduct of the duties of commissioners they were not worth fifteen cents a day, and that would be a high price to pay for their services.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to- say that, before the commission Inspector Hughes was asked questions and that he refused to answer them, or is he speaking of something which occurred outside?


William Cameron Edwards: I state in regard to Inspector Hughes that, before the commission was appointed, the inspector made a number of allegations and charges in regard to the institution. He made them not only verbally, but in writing, and I have them in my possession. That is about the strongest proof I can give of my statements. He was not at all backward in making these statements, and I can frankly say now, as I have said before, that it was 
because of the statements made by Inspector Hughes, and because I found on inquiry that many of these statements were true and could be corroborated, that I asked for an investigation into the conduct of this institution. I say also that after the investigation was started, after Inspector Hughes had been appointed as inspector, and after he had been summoned to appear before the commission, he telegraphed to me on what train he was coming to Kingston. I went down to meet him. The statement he made to me was that, in view of the fact that the Minister of Justice had, in his judgment, very wrongly put a time limit of five	years upon the investigation, if he were in my position he would throw up the sponge and have nothing more to do with it. I told Inspector Hughes that I was not built along those lines; that I never started anything unless I felt that I should start it, and that when I started I did not quit. He told me then that, because he was an inspector, he would not go on the witness stand and tell all he knew in regard to the mismanagement of the Kingston penitentiary. He went on the stand and took the usual oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, although he had stated to me but a short time before that he had no intention of telling the whole truth. That is what I say in regard to Inspector Hughes. And I say further, that I believe this sudden change which came over him is- to be attributed to the dollars which he received in the position he now occupies as compared with the salary he got in his former position. It -has been hinted that there were other reasons; as, for instance, that those against whom h-e would have made charges had certain charges up their sleeves ready to throw at him.


Arthur Bliss Copp: What were the names of the commissioners?


William Cameron Edwards: G. M. Macdonell, Dr. Etherington, and J. P. Downey, the two former from Kingston and the latter from Orillia. In the course of their report the inspectors state that they have sought to avoid extremes in dealing with the prisoners :
Brutality and coddling have been avoided as equally dangerous ; the former because it incites revenge against society, and the latter because It invites criminality by making the way of the trangressor easy.
I shall have a word to say in regard to brutality in a moment. With regard to cod-

dling, if the inspectors are not aware, they should be aware how prisoners in that institution are treated. I make the statement that there is gross discrimination. For instance, Travers, who wrecked the Farmers' Bank, was not treated the same as the other prisoners. He was given as good food as any person would get outside; he was allowed cigars and his pipe; and when he went to Toronto, in the custody of one of the officers of the institution, to give evidence before Justice Meredith in the Farmers' Bank investigation, he found an opportunity to order some liquor to be sent down. I do not know to whom the liquor was *shipped, but I do know that he gave the order when he was supposed to be in the custody of one of the guards. I do know that while he was an inmate of the institution he was allowed privileges which the other convicts were not allowed. He was allowed food which the other convicts were not allowed, and he was allowed tobacco which the other convicts were not allowed. The inspectors should have known that, if the officers of the institution are letting them know the goings-on as they should. Further on in their report the inspectors state:	.
The commission fails to disclose a single case of cruelty, inhumanity, or wilful injustice to any convict substantiated by evidence that would be accepted as such in any police court in the country.
And further:
No prison punishment can be inflicted except on the authority of the warden. No punishment was ever authorized or ever was inflicted on an inmate of the insane ward, although false statements to that effect have been made and published.
I say that that statement of the inspectors is absolutely untrue, and I am in a position, I think, to prove to the satisfaction of the committee that it is untrue. It is true that the commissioners saw fit to call a great many convicts to give evidence. In connection with the charges I made before the commsision I did not have any convict called, but relied entirely for substantiation of those charges upon such evidence as might be adduced from the officials of the institution. So, as regards the calling of convicts to give evidence, that was up to the commission entirely, and in that matter I certainly think they acted very peculiarly.
Let me give an instance, and this will appeal particularly to the lawyers in the House. A certain man named Rose, serving a life sentence at Kingston, was brought before the commission to give evidence in
connection with the charges made against one of the officials

not a charge made by myself. The next day after giving his evidence, Rose asked to see the warden and myself. The warden, Col. Irvine, and I had an interview with Rose, in which he told us that the evidence which he had given against the official the day previous was false. He said he had perjured himself in giving that evidence, and had done so at the instigation of another official. In the presence of Col. Irvine, I called the attention of the Chief Commissioner, Mr. Macdonell, to that fact, thinking that he would recall the man and question him in regard to his evidence of the previous day, which had gone on record. But he refused to recall him, stating that it would be a serious matter if Rose were found guilty of perjury. Personally, I do not see how it could have made matters much worse for Rose, because he was serving a life sentence anyway. I want to call attention, particularly of the lawyers of the committee-and the hon. minister is himself an ex^judge-to this: Although the chief commissioner refused to recall this man and question him in regard to the voluntary statement he made to me and Cbl. Irvine, that the evidence he had given the previous day was perjured, later on actually called this self-confessed perjurer to give evidence before the commission on another matter. I am not a lawyer, but I do not think it requires a legal mind to conclude that a commissioner who had no more idea of proper procedure than that- well, I think it goes a long way towards justifying my statement of a moment ago that he was not worth fifteen cents, let alone the amount he received.
The inspectors state that no prison punishment was inflicted or authorized to. be inflicted on an inmate of the insane ward. In that connection I wish to call the attention of the commission to page 787 of the evidence, where Guard Bryant-this is not convict evidence-who, I believe, is still on the staff of the institution, swore that he did see insane convicts stripped of their clothing, their arms strapped to their sides and their legs strapped together, immersed in ice cold water. ex-Guard Babcock on page 796 of the evidence confirms that statement, and says that he took part in the tubbing of these insane convicts. McWatters was another of the guards who came forward and swore that that sort of thing was going on in the institution. In the face of that how can, or how dare, the inspectors sign this re-

port and make the statement they do here that "no punishment was ever authorized or inflicted on an inmate of the insane ward." And what do the commissioners say in regard to that? I quote from the evidence at 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.
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. Yes. -
Q. In the cold water?-A. Yes.
Dr. Etherington:	An insane patient?
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. Yes.
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 say, it has been established beyond any question, by men who are not convicts, by reliable men, men who are still in the institution as officials, that insane convicts were subjected to this tubbing. The inspectors must have had these facts before them; and I do not see how, in the face of that, they could make the statement they do, that no punishment was inflicted on an inmate of the insane ward. Unquestionably that punishment was inflicted again and again; the insane person was stripped, his hands were bound, his feet were tied together, and he was put into cold water just as it came from the tap, whether it was January or July.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The hon. gentleman read a question as put by Mr. Stewart?


William Cameron Edwards: That was a lawyer, not the inspector. Now I wish to call attention to another statement made in the report of the inspectors:
The evidence fails to disclose a single case of cruelty or inhumanity.
Well, as to that, I would refer hon. members to page 17 of the report. The com-

missioners were questioning Inspector Douglas Stewart in regard to hosing. This is the conversation that took place:
Q. You 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. Yes, it never failed yet.
Q. To beat an incorrigible convict into submission?-A. Yes.
And, further on:
Q. Is that the most severe punishment?-A. No. I think shooting is more severe.
Q. You mean killing a man outright?-A. Yes.
Of course, Inspector Stewart is entitled to his opinion, as I am entitled to mine. He thinks it all right to turn the hose on a convict with water at a pressure of sixty or seventy pounds to the inch, as he says it was in St. Vincent de Paul. He thinks it is effective; in fact, according to his own statement, he thinks there is only one thing more effective, and that is to _ shoot the man. He not only thinks it effective, but in his judgment-and I give him credit for being honest in his opinion-it is humane. I take exception to that; I do not think it is humane. I think it shows a very wrong state of affairs when a cell is specially constructed with rounded corners so that the convict cannot escape, the convict is put into this cell and the hose is _ turned on him at a pressure of sixty or seventy pounds to the inch. " The wind is knocked out of him," as one of these witnesses says, and he is knocked about the cell like a football. I say, in my judgment, that is not proper treatment, and no good can result from it. It may be all Tight to use the hose to disperse a mob, but to turn it upon a man in a small cell is not, in my judgment, humane, and I think it does not reflect any credit on the inspectors who say that that is proper treatment, nor upon the officials of the institution where such treatment is permitted. In this, of course,
I am expressing my own opinion, as I have a perfect right to do.
Now, I have one or two questions I wish to ask the Minister of Justice. That hon. gentleman occupies a position of very great, importance in the government of the country; I cannot conceive of a position of greater importance than his. It is a posi-

tion that has been occupied in the past by some very able men. The responsibility rests upon the Minister of Justice of seeing to it that the laws are administered fairly and equitably to all. I am not going to make any charge that they are not so administered, but I am going to call to the attention of the minister one or two things of which I should like an explanation. He may have-I hope he will have-a clear explanation in regard to these points. I called his attention to them on a former occasion in this House. He did not then give any explanation, but I hope he will favour me with an explanation on this occasion.
In 1912 one of the officers of Stoney Mountain penitentiary was caught carrying in or taking out letters, Which is contrary to the regulation. He lost his position because of that act, and was fined, I believe, whatever pay was coming to him at that time. In August, 1914, another official of that institution, the Roman Catholic chaplain, Rev. J. A. Joubert, was caught doing the same thing. The acting warden of that institution telegraphed to Ottawa on August 12 the facts 'concerning the suspension of this gentleman.
His prison order book shows this:
Aug. 12, 1914. Order No. 2. The Rev. J. A. Joubert is suspended from duty as Roman Catholic chaplain until further notice from this date.
(Signed) W. R. Grahame, Deputy Warden.
Subsequently he received a telegram from the minister which led him to make this entry in the book on August 13, 1914, as order No. 3:
The suspension of the Roman Catholic chaplain is withdrawn to conform with the wishes of the Minister of Justice.
(Signed) W. R. Grahame,
Deputy Warden.
I hope that the minister has a clear explanation with regard to this matter. It is a matter of indifference to me who acts as chaplain of that institution, but I want to point out that an immense responsibility rests on the head of the Department of Justice. It is important that the people of the country should not think, rightly or wrongly, that the same standard of justice is not accorded to all. I do not say that there are two standards; I am simply calling these facts to the attention of the minister in the hope that he will give an explanation which will satisfy the public that there was a good and substantial reason
134	'
fox treating one man differently from the way another was treated.
At the time the investigation was held in Kingston it became apparent to the commissioners that certain officials were accepting money from the friends of convicts; that they kept some of this money as a sort of percentage or commission, and handed the rest to the convicts. When, the commissioners became convinced that something of that kind was going on, they issued a sort of proclamation in which they stated that while the act was a criminal one, if any guards who had been guilty of these acts would come forward and confess their fault, they would lose their positions, but no criminal action would be taken against them. Two guards did come forward and admit that they had been trafficking in that way; accordingly, as was quite proper, they lost their positions. In looking for evidence in regard to this matter, the records of the post office were searched, and it was found that three money orders had been cashed by Rev. Mr. McDonald, Roman Catholic chaplain of Kingston penitentiary. One was dated May 3, 1912, another July 16,
1912,	and the third was issued in January,
1913.	These money orders, which were for small amounts, were sent by Mrs. McNeill, the mother of convict McNeill, who, I believe-although I am not sure of this- was one of the notorious Stoney mountain gang. This matter must have been brought to the attention of the minister. My first knowledge of the affair came from Inspector Hughes, who showed me the money orders in the inspector's office. It was there that I got the information and copied the dates and the amounts. I suppose that if the inspector of the penitentiary would give me the information, the Minister of Justice and the other inspector could not be unaware of the facts. Whether they were or not, the point I want to make is this: it would appear, and it does appear to some, that in the two cases that I have cited there was discrimination. As it happens, the'official who was dismissed at Stoney Mountain was a Protestant; the one who was not dismissed was a Roman Catholic. As it happens, the two officials who were dismissed, and properly so, at Kingston, were Protestants; the one who was not interfered with was a Roman Catholic.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Would the hon. gentleman give me the names of the gentlemen to whom he is referring?


William Cameron Edwards: I cannot do so offhand. I think the minister can take my statement



for it that two guards were dismissed on that occasion.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not questioning
that. The hon. gentleman is asking me to make a distinction between cases, and it is somewhat difficult for me to point out the distinction, if there he one, when I cannot lay my hand on the particular cases.


William Cameron Edwards: I can assure the hon.
minister that the two guards at Kingston were dismissed because they admitted that they had got money from outside persons; they had taken a commission on that money and conveyed the rest to the prisoners. 1 am not now saying for one moment that that is what Rev. Mr. McDonald did. I am not saying that he took a commission on the small amounts that were sent to him. But that does not make any difference; the regulations state that no official of the institution shall carry in letters, or carry out letters, or carry any money or any other article to a prisoner confined in the institution.


Edmond Proulx: Does the hon. gentleman know what the money was used for?


William Cameron Edwards: No, I do not know what it was used for; I do not know whether it was used at all. I am not concerned about that. I am bringing this to the attention of the minister; it 'appears, without any explanation at all, as if there was discrimination. I am not saying that there was discrimination. On the contrary, I hope the minister will be able to give an explanation with regard to this matter that will demonstrate to the public that there was no discrimination whatever, and that there was good and sufficient reason for not dealing with Father McDonald, who apparently was the medium by which moneys were conveyed from the outside to the inside. We have in this Dominion people of different races and creeds, and it is up to the head of the Department of Justice, more than the head of any other department, to demonstrate to all races, classes and creeds in this country that there is no discrimination in these matters. It is incumbent upon him	to remove	any	suspicion	ofthat	kind, and	that	is why	I
refer to these matters. It would appear on the surface, and it has appeared to many, that there was discrimination. It appears to me as it has appeared to many down at Kingston, that some officials in the institution there can do things that others cannot do, and that some are punished for things in respect of which others are allowed

to go scot free. It became clear a very few years after the investigation of 1897, when the Liberal party came into power, that every guard, every keeper, every man who gave evidence on that occasion and whose testimony in any way affected or seemed to affect the higher officers, had to walk the plank. In time they got them; it took longer in some cases than it did in others. Since this last investigation came on it has been apparent that a certain clique and class in that institution are deliberately hounding the lives out of some men there, making unjustifiable charges against them in the determination of driving them out of the institution. That sort of thing will continue until it is made apparent that all men are going to be used alike in that institution, whether they are guards or whether they are prisoners. I say that they have not been used alike in the past. So far as the convicts are concerned, there has been discrimination. Men like Travers have got privileges which are not accorded to other convicts in that institution; certain guards have been accorded privileges which were not accorded to others.
I have no apology to make for my connection with the investigation into the affairs of the penitentiary at Kingston. I knew that, previous to 1911, things could not be right in that institution as it was then being conducted. I knew it was impossible for things to be right so long as ex-convicts were appointed as officials of the penitentiary, and that was the practice previous to 1911. Because of certain things which were brought to my attention which I thought should, be investigated, I made certain charges. I believe that, imperfect as that investigation was, it has resulted in good. I believe that the institution is better to-day than it Wias before the investigation, and that the removal, of insane convicts was a move in the Tight direction. I want to express my opinion that if something could be done along the lines of segregation, making special provision for young men, for the boys of 16, 18 and 20 years of age so as to keep them separate from the old and hardened criminals, that would be a great step in the direction of reform. But so long as proper employment is not found for the prisoners, so long as 60 or 70 men are allowed to work, day after day, and week after week, and year after year, at nothing more than breaking stones, the institution must be far from perfect, and the people of this country will be far from doing their duty by

the 2,000 men who are incarcerated within the walls of our various penal institutions. These men should be put at employment in which they would have some exercise for their minds as well as for their bodies; and until that is done the management of our institutions is not, in my judgment, all that it should he.
I wish again to enter my protest against this annuity being paid to Dr. Phelan, for the reasons I have already stated. I do not think that his course as an official in the institution warrants any such generous treatment as he is now receiving. I should also like an explanation from the minister of the particular cases to which I have referred, for the reasons I have stated. I have no doubt that he will be able to give such explanation to the committee.
Mr. McKENZIE .[DOT] Do I understand that
convicts are not permitted to have any money in their possession?


William Cameron Edwards: I think the rules are very strict against their having any money. Any money or valuables which they may have when they enter the institution are taken from them and kept safely until their release.


Mr. McKENZIE:: If it is at all permissible for a convict to have money, to receive a few dollars from relations or friends without the penitentiary, I should regard it as a very small offence on the part of the chaplain or any other official to take a money order received by a convict and get it cashed for him. If it were in circumstances of that kind that Rev. Father McDonald cashed the money order, even if he made a mistake, if it were his first offence, I should consider it a rather harsh rule that would cause his dismissal from office, if there were no other charges against him.


William Cameron Edwards: If that were the case I certainly would not see any ground for complaint; but that is not my understanding. I understand that the rules are very strict against officials conveying money or any papers to or from any convicts within the walls.	[DOT]


Arthur Bliss Copp: Do I understand that the Mr. Stewart referred to was a lawyer employed to assist the commission in the investigation? '


William Cameron Edwards: I presume that would be the position.


Edmond Proulx: The hon. member for Frontenao has tried to make out a strong case against the minister for having recommended the superannuation of Dr. Phelan. I do not know Dr. Phelan, and I do not know if the hon. member's statement of the facts is absolutely correct. I shall not pass judgment on that because I do not know him, and do not know whether the allegations against him were all true. But I would remind the hon. member for Frontenac that the Minister of Justice is not the only sinner in superannuating officers or employees of this Government. The hon. member seems to think there was discrimination in the case of certain officers at Kingston. I would draw his attention to another case which occurred a few years ago. We had a law clerk of the House of Commons who was drawing a -salary of $3,350 a year at the time of his superannuation, in 1913. He was then only 48 years of age and had served only 17 years, yet 10 years were added to his time of service. The hon. member for Frontenac blames the Minister of Justice for adding 10 years service to the time of Dr. Phelan. Wh-at was the reason alleged for the superannuation of Mr. O'Brien? Abolition of office. But the office was- not abolished in reality; the name was changed from law clerk of the House of Commons to parliamentary counsel, but the office still exists and is well filled to-day by Mr. Gisborne, at a higher salary than Mr. O'Brien was getting, and the superannuation paid to Mr. O'Brien is larger than that paid to Dr. Phelan, being $1,741.50.
Mr. O'Brien is practising his profession to-day in the city of Toronto, and the country will have to pay him, perhaps for twenty-five or thirty years, the annual sum of $1,741.50. We know that there was an investigation held with regard to the conduct of that officer. Mr. O'Brien seemed to have what I might call the persecution mania. He thought he was persecuted by his assistant, who is, perhaps, the most inoffensive person employed by the Government. We were told that Mr. O'Brien carried a revolver to protect himself against his assistant. An investigation was held by the Speaker of this House, not the present Speaker, but his predecessor, and when he saw that he would have to report unfavourably against Mr. O'Brien, he refused to go further, and asked to be excused, My hon. friend from Frontenac said that there was discrimination in favour

*of Dr. Phelan because he was a Roman Catholic.


William Cameron Edwards: I never said anything of the kind.


Edmond Proulx: I understood that he said there had been discrimination in favour of officers of the Kingston penitentiary who were Roman Catholics, as against those who were Protestants:


William Cameron Edwards: I beg my hon. friend's pardon; I did not say that. What I did say, and I thought I made it very clear, because I repeated it two or three times, was that I did not make a charge of discrimination, but I asked an explanation from the minister of what might appear to be discrimination. I further stated that I hoped that the minister would have an explanation which would show tnat no person was justified in having suspicion of discrimination. So far as Dr. Phelan is concerned, I did not mention his religion from first to last. In regard to Dr. Phelan's superannuation, it is not a question of whether a man who had performed his duties properly is entitled to superannuation. I am not arguing that; I am taking the ground that, in my judgment, Dr. Phelan was not a competent officer and had not performed his duties properly, and that, therefore, he was not entitled to superannuation, no matter how long he had served, whether 18 or 100 years. I do not say that superannuation is wrong if an official has proved a good official; my whole argument is that Phelan was not worthy of consideration, and should have been put out long before he was' because he was inefficient.


Edmond Proulx: Perhaps I may have misunderstood my hon. friend, but I certainly understood him to say that there were some officers in the Stoney Mountain penitentiary who were punished, or dismissed, because they were Protestants.


William Cameron Edwards: One.


Edmond Proulx: And that there were some officers in the Kingston Penitentiary who were not punished or dimissed because they were Roman Catholics. To return to what I was saying regarding the law clerk of the House of Commons',	the
Speaker asked to be excused from investigating the matter further, and the Government employed a lawyer in this city to continue the investigation. A report was made, but we have not been able to get it.
CMr. Proulx. ]
A motion was made by the hon. member for Laval (Mr. C.1 A. Wilson) for the production of that j'eport, and I remember that the right hon. the Prime Minister asked the hon. member for Laval to go to his private office and consult him about it. I do not know what transpired between them, but the report has never been presented to this House.


The CHAIRMAN:: I have not interrupted the hon. member because I hoped that he was referring to that case by way of comparison. I hope he will not continue the discussion of the subject at any length.


Edmond Proulx: I desire to refer to it
only by way of comparison, and I will be as short as possible. The gentleman referred to was transferred for a few months to the Department of Justice at a higher salary, I think $5,000 a year, to fill a position which had been created shortly before. I do not know what the reason was, but he did not stay there. Perhaps the Minister of Justice did not like to keep him.


Charles Joseph Doherty: He did not like to stay; he retired.


Edmond Proulx: He was retired, and the country has to pay $1,741.50 per year. It has been rumoured that very strong pressure was brought to bear on the Government by members of the society to which the gentleman belonged to induce it to grant him superannuation.
The hon. member for Frontenac blamed Inspector Hughes for a lot of the trouble which occurred at Kingston Penitentiary. Perhaps he is sorry to-day that he was responsible in a large degree for the appointment of Inspector Hughes. I remember that at one time Inspector Hughes was very anxious to be appointed warden of Kingston, and the hon. member for Frontenac got a petition signed by his Conservative confreres in the House asking the Minister of Justice to appoint Mr'. Hughes as warden. .	*


William Cameron Edwards: I did not get any petition signed.


Edmond Proulx: Did the hon. member not sign a petition?


William Cameron Edwards: I did not sign a petition.


Edmond Proulx: Did my hon. friend not
recommend Mr. Hughes for the position of warden?


William Cameron Edwards: I did.


Edmond Proulx: When Mr. Hughes was not appointed warden he got the inspectorship. I can understand the hon. member for Fronteniac thinking that Inspector Hughes was not very grateful for the support of my hon. friend in getting the position of inspector because he went back on him, and would not help him to prosecute the investigation that my friend started at the penitentiary. He said that when Inspector Hughes got an increase of salary, his mind changed. I do not know to what extent his mind will change now that he is getting double salary, as the Minister of Justice admitted this afternoon. Besides getting his salary as inspector, he-is being paid a salary as lieutenant-colonel of the militia. I think my hon. friend from North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) was right in stating that even if the chaplain had exchanged money orders for a few convicts, it should not have been made a crime against him. The hon. member for Fron-tenac said that things were going very badly at Kingston Penitentiary before 1911, but according to his own story, they seem to have been worse since that year. He stated that before 1911 some ex-convicts acted as guards, and he seemed to think that that was an awful thing. In these days, we are glad to keep ex-convicts out of this House. If all he said is true, I do not think the conditions have improved very much since 1911; indeed, I am rather inclined to think they are worse than they were in 1911.
At six o'clock the House resumed and then took recess.
The House resumed at 8 o'clock.



[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 29, respecting certain Patents of The Pedlar People, Limited.-Mr. Smith.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee on Private Bills, Mr. Rhodes in the Chair.
Bill No. 31, to incorporate the Eastern Canadian Conference of Seventh-day Adventists-Mt. Smith-in 'Committee.
Frank Oliver: I have no desire to offer any objection to this Bill but possibly it is of sufficient importance to warrant an explanation.


Robert Rogers: The hon. gentleman in
whose name it stands is not present. Perhaps it had better stand.
Bill stands.
The following Bills were considered in Committee, reported, read the third time, and passed without discussion:
Bill No. 32, respecting The Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company.- Mr. T. J. Stewart.
Bill No. 50, for tHe relief of Raymond Conliffe Savage.-Mr. Douglas.
Bill No. 53, for the relief of Robert William Thompson.-Mr. J. A. M. Armstrong.
Bill No. 57, for the relief of Nora Louise Jackson.-Mr. Douglas.



[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Rhodes in the Chair. ,
Justice Department

Penitentiaries-Kingston, $210,600.
['It is pretty late.\nProgress reported.\nOn motion of Mr. Rogers, the House ad-, journed at 12.15 a.m Saturday.\nMonday, March 27, 1916.']
Charles Joseph Doherty: I desire to answer as briefly and as clearly as may be possible quite a few of the observations which the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) has found it his duty to make in regard to certain matters in connection with Kingston penitentiary. The first matter to which he adverts is the manner in which the determination of the superannuation allowed to Dr. Phelan, upon the abolition of the office that he held, was made. He points out that whereas the amount paid to Dr. Phelan as superintendent was $1,512, he is replaced to-day by two gentlemen whose united remunerations amount to $1,360. So far as the statement of fact is concerned, he is correct., but I would like to point out that in the first place these ' two gentlemen are performing duties merely as surgeon or physician to the penitentiary, for which the salary formerly paid to Dr. Phelan was $1,700 a year, and that the annuity which he was given 'bears not only upon that salary, but upon the salary of $1,000 a year which he had as superintendent of the insane asylum, an office which neither of these gentlemen occupy. Furthermore, I think that it is fair to say that perhaps the reason the remuneration paid to these gentlemen is very moderate this year-and it certainly is very moderate-is to be found in the fact that the system which we have adopted of retaining two physicians-a visiting and a consulting physician-is a new sys-

tern, and inasmuch as neither of these two gentlemen give their entire service, the whole amount that could be allowed under the statute is $1,360 between the two. We have but one salary for a-surgeon. Should this new plan which is being tested prove a success-and I think the hon. gentleman agrees with me in hoping that it will be- it is not impossible that it might be considered a larger remuneration ought to be paid; but that is a matter for future consideration, the two gentlemen being satisfied for the time being to assume the duties under the conditions mentioned. But I understand that substantially the criticism rests upon the fact that the hon. member for Frontenac does not think that the conduct of Dr. Phelan, while he held his office, jusified his being allowed the annuity which he was allowed. I understand, more particularly from an answer made by the hon. gentleman to some observation made by the hon. member for Prescott, that that is the gravamen of his complaint. The hon. gentleman did point out, however, that out of 45 employees who had been retired this year, the case of Dr. Phelan was the only one where this additional ten years was allowed. I presume that he is correct in that statement of fact, though I have not had occasion to look into it myself. But I should like to point out that there is absolutely nothing to show that any of the other 44 came within either the one or the other of the two sections of the statute under which Dr. Phelan came, arid under which this additional ten years is permissible; so that unless some of those gentlemen came within those conditions, there is no conclusion whatever to be drawn from the fact that they were not granted the ten years. I am not prepared to affirm that none of them did; but I have no knowledge that any of them did, and I do not understand that the hon. gentleman contends himself that they did, or is in a position to say that they did. But I can say this without any fear, though there may have been some, there certainly were not 44. The House will have noticed the conditions under which this may be done, and those conditions make the cases where it may be done very exceptional indeed. So that necessarily the men who are granted the additional ten years, as compared with the bulk of the men who retire or are superannuated, are a very small number. But, as I have said, the gravamen of the complaint is that by reason of the conduct of Dr. Phelan he should not have obtained the advantage 
which, under the statute, the conditions in which he found himself entitled him to, or, at all events,- put him in a position to receive. I do not desire to take up longer time than is absolutely necessary in any discussion of the conduct of Dr. Phelan. I desire, however, to meet as fully as I can, what has been said upon the subject.
It is first said that Dr. Phelan was unworthy of receiving this, because of two findings with regard to particular charges made by the commission which investigated the affairs of Kingston penitentiary. The first of these, as the hon. member for Frontenac stated it, is that Dr. Phelan was found guilty of having used violent and filthy language, so violent and filthy "that it would not be allowed to print it." Now, each one can supply his own qualifications of the language that a man used. The commission in its report does not use quite as strong a language in describing the words attributed to Dr. Phelan a-s the hon. member for Frontenac used. Their finding is:
The charge of using violent and indecent language to a guard In the presence of others is established; hut it is claimed that it was used in jest. The finding leaves this uncertain.
So that the finding of the commission was that, whatever the language may have been, it was uncertain whether it was used in earnest or jest. They go on to say;
In any case the surgeon entirely forgot the dignity of his position and the discipline of the prison in making use of the language he did, and the incident discloses an unhealthy state of things.	.
In effect, therefore, it was found that upon this particular occasion the surgeon forgot the dignity of his position and the discipline of the prison in making use of the language. That, no doubt, is not commendable. The question, however, is not whether that was absolutely commendable or not, but whether that, with the other things mentioned, was a sufficient reason why Dr. Phelan in effect should, if his office had not been abolished, have been dismissed; because unless he should have been, he would have been entitled to go on, and, if he had lived, in course of time would have got the addition that is now in question. While I appreciate the delicacy which makes the hon. member for Frontenac refrain from repeating the language attributed to Dr. Phelan, I do think that justice requires of us that we should-how should I express it? harden our ears, and I am going to ask the House to stand the horror of listening to these horrible words.

I understand them to have been described as being of the most indecent kind, and the impression made upon my mind by the remarks of the hon. member for Fron-tenac was that he considered them-and in fact represented them-as being something of extreme indecency.
In fact, if my note is correct, he indicated that it was such violent and filthy language that it could not be .allowed to he printed. Now, as I said, I am going to ask the House to stand listening to a repetition of these words, for if Dr. Phelan is to be judged for his use of these words, and my *conduct in judging of them is to .be approved or disapproved, it 'is only fair that the House should know what they were. So, if the House will get itself together so as to be able to stand the awful shook, I will read the words:
Dr. Phalen was standing in front of the warden's offlse in the passage lead ng into the prison. As soon as he saw me-
That is, the witness, George AikenS.
-he siid-
Now, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I hope you will be able to stand it:
-Hullo! you damned big tub of guts, your holidays are over.
I suppose we had better wait until we get our breath again. The other thing that he said-I do not know whether you will find it worse or not-is thus reported:
You are the damnedest crank and the God damnedest disturber X ever seen.
You will notice that the grammar is open to criticism. I do not say that this is elegant language. But I ask in all fairness and common sense, of a gathering of men who have sometimes listened to language that is on occasion used even by people occupying more lofty positions than that of surgeon of a penitentiary and superintendent of .an insane ward in a penitentiary, whether their ears have not sometimes been smitten with words even more indecent than that, even-if I might say so-even proceeding from the lips of a member of Parliament.


An hon. MEMBER:: Never.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I ask, in all seriousness, if one of us had a doctor in attendance upon him and found him a competent doctor, and his treatment all that it ought to be, and if we were informed that the doctor had used just that language to somebody outside, should we think that we ought
to dismiss that doctor? And now, you are further to remember that the answer was, not that the language had not been used, but that it was used in jest; and the commission report that that remains uncertain, but they do find that the doctor lacked in dignity on that occasion. I think this is a case in which he among us who is without sin had better be allowed to cast the first stone; or, I think I might say, has cast the first stone. The rest of us, who may not be without sin, I am sure will refrain from casting stones.


William Cameron Edwards: If I may be permitted -of course, it is a matter of indifference to me whether the hon. minister regards the language as nice or otherwise-as to the question of it being used in jest, Dr. Phelan felt so seriously about it, at all events, that he endeavoured to get one of the men who heard him use the language to enter the witness box and perjure himself with regard to it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I will come to that in a moment-I like to take these things one thing at a* time. The hon. gentleman says iit is immaterial to him whether I think this language nice or not. Well, I do not think it nice. But I do not think that the use of it would justify me in saying that the man who used it was unworthy of holding the position that he held-even making the very worst of it. I do not know what the judgment of this House may be on that matter, but I leave it to their judgment. It is said that the language was so bad that the doctor tried to induce somebody to commit perjury about it. It is true there is one witness who said the doctor talked the matter over with him, and to whom he said, as he said to the commission, that he had used the language, but had used it in jest, ahd he said to this witness: You might say you did not hear it. That is not a suggestion that it was desirable to make, either. But exactly what meaning is to be attached, to these words, I think, is a matter of question. To say that they meant that he asked the man to commit perjury is, I think, perhaps, straining things. I do not think he ought to have said that. But it stands on the mere statement of one witness-no doubt telling the truth as he recollects it, but putting, no doubt, his own interpretation on what was said to him. Dr. Phelan may have been over-nervous and may have been anxious that thife gentleman should coincide with his view that he had used these words in

jest, and even may have thought it possible that the man ought to say that he had not heard it. I take it for what it is worth, but he did say that the man might say he had not heard it. It is to be noted that the commissioners express no condemnation and that they rest no decision upon it, one way or the other. I take it for what it is worth, and I cannot see that it is a reason why that to which Dr. Phelan was entitled by eighteen years of service should 'be withdrawn from him.
There is a second accusation-or, perhaps, I should say a third, because this point of the witness not having heard the ' words is made part of the case-and that is, that Dr. Phelan' had been a petty grafter, in that he had charged four different guards-not guards, it is well to point out, but applicants for appointment to the position of guard-a dollar apiece for examining them. It is to be noted that the commission does not find that that action on his part was the getting of money for the performance of anything that it was his duty to perform for the salary he received, for it was no part of his duty as surgeon of the penitentiary to attend people who were not, as yet, employees. He is condemned by the commission, not because it was his duty to make these examinations for nothing, but because, under the terms of his agreement, he was not allowed to carry on general practice, and, therefore, he should not have collected money for services rendered to anybody outside the penitentiary. I am quite prepared, to accept the view of the commission with regard to that, and I take it as established that Dr. Phelan committed himself to that extent.
So far as charges brought against him directly and categorically are concerned, these are the things found to rest against him-that he used the language I have repeated, though it is uncertain whether he used it in jest or not, that it was not dignified language, and that he had received $4, being a foliar apiece from four applicants, which was a violation of his obligation not to do outside practice. The hon. gentleman has pointed out the serious responsibilities that belong to my position as Minister of Justice. I am not blind to those serious responsibilities. I have the responsibility, not specially, perhaps, because I am Minister of Justice, but as a Minister of the Crown, of trying to deal justly with everybody who comes under my authority. I am prepared to say

that it would be impossible for me to reconcile to my sense of justice the dismissal of a gentleman occupying the position that Dr. Phelan did upon the grounds of the three things that have been stated here. I am in the judgment of tnis committee as to whether or not that is a proper conclusion. I do not say that the language was desirable language to use, and I am prepared to say that I think Dr. Phelan should not have collected those $4; but I could not reconcile it to my sense of justice to say that for those two things I would have been right in depriving him of that which the law entitled him to upon the abolition of his office and after his eighteen years of service, when he had reached the age of 61 years.


Edmond Proulx: Was he not in a position to continue his services to the penitentiary?


Charles Joseph Doherty: He was in a position
to do it, if his office had not been abolished.


Edmond Proulx: But the minister has appointed two others in his place.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Not to the office that
he held. He was me physician attached to the penitentiary, bound to give his exclusive service to that institution, and he was the superintendent of the insane ward. For those services he received a salary of $2,700 a year. That position has now ceased to exist; there is no insane ward, and, therefore, there can be no superintendent. Further, we have changed our system of employment of physicians. We retain no one as exclusively the surgeon to the penitentiary; we employ outside medical men to give attendance at the penitentiary, they remaining free to carry on their practice. That was not the position to which Dr. Phelan had been appointed and which he had accepted, and we were not in a position to compel him to accept that new position under those different conditions. The positions which he had occupied were abolished, and under the statute he was absolutely entitled to his superannuation. The only matter concerning which there was question was the addition of the ten years. His office had been abolished, but in addition to that there was the fact that he had come into the service when he was more than 30 years old, and had come in because of special professional qualifications. The statute authorizes the Governor in Council in either of those cases to make the addition of ten years; we were face to face with a case where "both of

those conditions existed. The gravamen of the objection of the hon. member for Fron-tenac is not that it was improper to do this, but that it was done in an improper ease by reasons of the shortcomings of Dr. Phelan during his holding of office.
There is another matter that is referred to by the hon. gentleman, which, if Dr. Phelan be the person properly to bear the responsibility, and if the conditions were as grave as the hon. member for Frontenae describes them, is a much more serious matter for consideration than the particular matters which I have referred to. The particular matters which I have referred to form part of special charges brought against Dr. Phelan by the hon. member for Froo-tenac. The matter that I am now going to refer to is one that did not come under the head of any of these charges; it is one which the commission, in the performance of their general duty of looking into the state and management of the penitentiary, had their attention brought to and with regard to which they made certain observations. That matter covers the management of the insane ward and the conditions under which it was carried on, and the general hospital conditions that prevailed in the institution. If there never had been any commission appointed and an investigation made, I should have adopted the course which I have since adopted with regard to the insane ward. I myself formed the opinion, not very long after I had come to occupy the position that I now occupy, and after one or two visits to the penitentiary and some consideration of the subject, that an insane ward, an adjunct of a penitentiary, carried on under penitentiary management, was no suitable place for insane people, even though they were convicts. I say that I had formed that opinion, but as I had thought it desirable 'to have an inquiry into the general conditions of the penitentiary, I did think it was not- unwise to let that matter, as well as others, be passed upon by the commissioners, that I might have the benefit of their advice. Upon the subject of the existence of the insane ward their opinion coincided with mine, and their report has since been acted on by the transference ol the insane convicts to the insane asylums of the different provinces. That the system was wrong there is not any doubt in my judgment. The system is condemned by the report of the commissioners. It is condemned by Dr. Phelan in his own evidence, and fault is found with him because
his reports year by year apparently showed everything to be right in connection with the administration of the insane ward. It is just to Dr. Phelan to say that he did not create the system. He found the system in existence when he went there, and it continued in existence until its recent abolition. So far, therefore, as the system itself was concerned, Dr. Phelan was not responsible for it.
It is said that the amount of attention given to the insane patients was not sufficient. But Dr. Phelan was not given the insane ward with the proper attendance for an insane ward; he was there in. the joint capacity of superintendent of the insane ward and surgeon of the penitentiary, -and I do not find it suggested that he was lacking in any duty that under that system his superior officers called on him to perform.
He might have been a more forceful man and might have protested against the system; but we must remember that we are dealing with an employee and that the responsibility for the system rested with his employers.
With regard to the hospital conditions, they, too, are criticised and condemned by the commission. I do not now pretend to go into the whole question of the evidence upon which that condemnation rests. My own disposition in such a case is that, wherever there is anything that in the judgment of reasonable men may be reasonably susceptible of improvement, an effort should be made to effect such improvement. The question that arises here is, who had the responsibility for the conditions that existed? The commission says that the responsibility should be shared between the surgeon and the inspectors. But this fact remains, that the conditions, whatever they may have been, which they condemned, existed, and, as appears by the report itself, to the full knowledge of the superior officers of Dr. Phalen; and these officers expressed no dissatisfaction with those conditions. It is true that it was suggested that Dr. Phelan might have reported upon those conditions; but the commissioners themselves say that, while he might have done that, it does appear that those conditions were known to his superiors. I am not dealing with the question of whether something better might not have been done by Dr. Phelan, but with the question of how the matter should be dealt with, and the question of whether or not he was responsible for the conditions

that existed, and so should have laid upon his shoulders the entire burden of responsibility and the punishment to be allotted, if punishment were called for. I have given to this matter the most careful consideration of which I am capable. I have read the evidence as it bears upon Dr. Phelan, and I have read the report of the commissioners; I have listened with attention to the remarks of the hon. member for Frontenae this afternoon, as I have done on previous occasions.


William Cameron Edwards: What is the minister's own opinion with regard to the conditions in the hospital?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think there was room for great improvement in the conditions at the hospital, but those conditions were what one might call the physical conditions.


William Cameron Edwards: 
William Cameron Edwards: I did not refer to it in that connection, but has the minister any doubt that there was tubbing of insane prisoners?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Recently?


William Cameron Edwards: I did not say recently.


Charles Joseph Doherty: How far back does the testimony with reference to tubbing go?


William Cameron Edwards: The minister knows that the investigation was limited to a period of five years.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I limited it to five
years, but I made an exception for any matter anterior , to the five years which the commissioners might consider had any bearing on the actual condition of affairs. Under that proviso very many matters that dated back more than five years were gone into. But I ask this House whaA interest have we in investigating to-day whether five years ago or four years ago, under the control of men who are not now in the penitentiary, there was or was not tubbing? The important thing is that there is none going on to-day, and, unless it has a bearing on the question of Dr. Phelan's treatment- and it is conceded that it has not


William Cameron Edwards: I produce that report
to show that the report of the inspectors was false.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Then, I have got it in the wrong order. The hon. gentleman says that Mr. Carlyle said that if some one would show him the man that some one hon-

oured, he would be able to appreciate the value of the man who did so. I do not know that I feel called upon to make exhibitions of the people I have honoured. In many ways I would be pleased to honour the hon. member for Frontenac; so that the exact application of Mr. Carlyle's observation does not strike me. It was not a question of honouring Dr. Phelan or of not honouring him; it was a question of doing our duty, as justice required us to do, in dealing with this officer whose connection with the Government had ceased. We were not of opinion that there had been established against him such fault as would justify us of depriving him of that which might be granted to him under the law. I gave my best thought to that question; what I thought then I think now, and I am willing to take the judgment of this House, and of the public, for what I did.
A statement was made by the hon. gentleman about supper having been given to the prisoners at a very early hour on Sundays, almost immediately after their lunch. There is some difference of opinion as to whether or not that was done on more than one occasion. I am not going to enter into any discussion of the matter, but let us assume that it was done; it certainly is not done now. I do not propose to enter into the discussion, which the hon. member entered upon, as to the truthfulness of the report of Inspectors, Stewart and Hughes. Their report is to the minister conveying to him their views. It is, in the first place, their statement of facts as they see the facts in connection with what goes on in the penitentiary.	The particular report
referred to did give their views upon the effect of evidence that was produced before the commission.	The commission had
made a report which, in some respects, reflected upon the inspectors. The inspectors, when they came to make their report to the minister, thought themselves entitled to make their answers. I do not understand, and I have no doubt the hon. member for Frontenac does not understand, that the report is the work of the minister. It is a report to the minister, and the minister would not be justified in saying to these officers that they must report to him otherwise than in accordance with their own judgment and their own views. I am not therefore going to go over again this discussion as to whether or not they are right in so far as they differ from the commission, or whether the commission is

right. Nor am I going to discuss the question of whether they are right or whether the hon. member for Frontenac is right in so far as he differs with them as regards their statement of the facts with reference to what has occurred in the past. I do not know that there would be any purpose served by my taking sides in that discussion. I may say that my great concern is to discover what can be done to-day to make things better. Whether somebody was wrong a year ago, or two years ago, or three years ago, seems to me a matter that, from the point of view of the administration of the penitentiary, and as bearing upon the future conduct of the penitentiary, is immaterial.
As far as Go!. Hughes is concerned, I do not know but that perhaps it might have been thought that there would be a truce on the subject. Col. Hughes to-night is in the trenches somewhere in France. Col. Hughee is not here to answer attacks made upon him, as he is facing the shell fire of the enemy and the attacks of German snipers. I thought that perhaps under the circumstances matters involving accusations against Col. Hughes might have been allowed to stand until his return. The hon. member for Frontenac was quite within his rights in determining whether it v^as necessary or useful that he should refer to these matters. But I point out that Col. Hughes's absence puts me in a position where I have no means of putting before the House what may be the reply, if there be a reply, of Col. Hughes to what has been said in regard to him.


William Cameron Edwards: I said nothing whatever about Col. Hughes.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Inspector Hughes.


William Cameron Edwards: Inspector Hughes is the man I was referring to.


Charles Joseph Doherty: He is Col. Hughes.


William Cameron Edwards: He is W. S. Hughes. I was referring to W. S. Hughes, inspector of penitentiaries. I have nothing to say about Col. Hughes at all.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The gentleman who is W. S. Hughes, inspector of penitentiaries, happens to be Col. Hughes.


William Cameron Edwards: I have nothing to do with that.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Well, he has only one physical personality, and as colonel, being in the trenches this evening, it is not pos-

sible far him, as inspector, to be here. I refer to it merely as explaining why, were it proper I should do so, it is impossible for me to convey to the House any thing he might desire said by way of reply. I do not, however, think it is material to inquire what are the exact merits of this difference of opinion, or this difference of statement in regard, to facts as between Inspector Hughes and the hon. member for Frontenac. I do not propose, therefore, to go into a discussion of the criticism which the hon. gentleman has made of the report of the inspectors.
There are some specific things that he has said, though, that I would like to meet. It has been said that there was gross discrimination as between convicts. This has been specified to the extent of a statement with regard to Travers, a convict detained in the penitentiary, that while he was there he had been furnished with money, that 'he had been treated differently from other prisoners, that he had cigars and a pipe, and that when he was, under order of the court, taken to Toronto to give testimony, he was allowed to order liquor. This is the first time I have heard the statement that any such thing had happened. My officers report to me that the hon. gentleman is misinformed; but I want to say here that if there is evidence to establish that I will be glad to have it at my disposal in order that I may deal with those who may be responsible. In the meantime, it is fair to my officers to say that their report is that the hon. member has been misinformed. Then, also, it should be pointed out that if anything of the kind had happened, in so far as the statement of what occurred in Toronto is concerned, while Travers remained in Toronto at the disposition of the court, he was then, as I understand it, under control of the prison authorities there.
The hon. gentleman made some criticism in connection with the investigation of the commissioner?, more particularly in reference to a prisoner named Rose. We had some considerable discussion at the last session of Parliament with regard to the action of thepe commissioners, during which my hon. friend expressed his opinion in regard to them. I then said what I conceived to be proper in that connection, and I do not deem it necessary to add anything to my statement to-night.
But there were some things in particular to which the hon. member called my attention, because he said he wanted to give me
an opportunity to make an explanation. As I understood him, there were two matters which he states occurred at Kingston, and two matters which he states occurred at Stoney Mountain penitentiary. As to the statement of facts, I understand his suggestion is that some people might conclude that there was some disposition on my part to discriminate as between employees, and that the facts would indicate that that discrimination turned upon their respective religious beliefs. If I might say one personal thing, it would be that after having lived to be 60 years of age in a community of Catholics and Protestants, it is a little difficult for me to keep a serious face when I find it seriously suggested that it makes a difference to me whether the man with whom I am dealing is a Catholic or a Protestant. That is where it strikes me personally. But I recognize that, inasmuch it has been suggested that under my rule, some people may believe that something of the kind may take place, and I therefore realize that it is important that the suggestion should be met. I find no fault with the hon. gentleman for asking me for an explanation. In regard to the Kingston penitentiary, he says that there were two guards who happened to be Protestants, and who, having admitted that, in violation of the rule, in fact, I think, of the statute,	they had brought money
in to	convicts,	were discharged.
That is true. What he contrasts with that is a case with regard to the Roman Catholic chaplain in the Kingston Penitentiary. I understood him to say that it transpired towards the end of the investigation that was had by the Royal Commission, that there was evidence that the reverend gentleman had committed the same offence, that is, that he had brought money in to convicts. I want to be correct.


William Cameron Edwards: I did not say that, because I did not know that to be a fact.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not stating it as a fact.


William Cameron Edwards: I appreciate that the
minister wants to be correct. I said that the evidence provided by his inspector showed that three money orders had been cashed by the Reverend Mr. McDonald. I called his attention to the fact that since the money came from the mother of one of the convicts, the presumption was that it was for the convict. I consider that the minister should have investigated and

found out the facts. Perhaps the money was for the priest himself.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I should like to point
out just what we did .after that was called to my attention. It was ascertained in connection with the inquiry that quite a number of letters, some of them registered, I think, and some of them containing money orders, had come to different persons, connected with the penitentiary from persons related to different convicts, and among those to whom such letters had come was the Reverend Father McDonald. There were quite a number of these letters, certainly some twenty or twenty-five.


William Cameron Edwards: What was that?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The names were on a list which was handed me by the inspectors, I believe. There were quite a number of them; their religions, of course, I do not know. Whether I first saw the names on a list, or a list was made from other documents or sources of information, I do not know. At all events, a list was finally shown me. After I had heard the statement about Mr. McDonald-and the first time I heard it was when the hon. gentleman made it in the House-I made inquiry, and was told that there were a number of such cases, with regard to which the suggestion was that some individual should be appointed to look into them, as it was not thought necessary to carry on the entire commission to look into these details. What I did in this regard was to have the different people written to who had appeared to have received registered letters, asking for an explanation of the letters they had received. I received explanations from all of them, and those explanations on their faces looked to be satisfactory. One man said that the money he received was for the purposes of making payments to a building society. Different explanations were given, and the answers seemed reasonable. The Rev. Father McDonald's explanation was that he had received money orders from the mother of a convict. Perhaps there was a presumption that that money went or may have gone to the convict. Rev. Father McDonald took the position that he was not at liberty to divulge the purpose for which the money had come to him, and though perhaps one might have been justified in not pushing inquiries further, I did push them further, and asked for a further explanation. The sender of that money-the mother of this convict-sent the following document:

This is to certify that I have never, at any time, sent any money to Rev. Father McDonald, of Portsmouth, for the purpose of having the same paid to my son, now confined in Kingston penitentiary. I have had several communications with the sai'd Rev. Father McDonald, relating to matters of a private and confidential character, and being such were intended for R:v. Father McDonald alone, and of which he has no right to make disclosures to anybody else, and cannot properly do so without committing a breach of confidence.
I leave it in all fairness whether I should try to force the mother of this unfortunate boy to reveal those things which she says were of a confidential nature between her and her clergyman. I think the hon. member will recognize himself that until I have some evidence other than I have, I should not be justified in setting on foot an investigation that could only be satisfied by compelling that woman to reveal what were the purposes for which she gave this money to the priest who occupied the position which he did.


William Cameron Edwards: What about compelling the man who got the money?


Charles Joseph Doherty: This woman says he
could not reveal the purpose for which he got the money without a breach of confidence, and, very properly, he says he will not Teveal it. Here we have the woman's positive statement that the money was not to go to her son. I want to say. quite frankly that it is a matter of absolute indifference to me to what church or denomination a clergyman might belong, but in the face of a statement such as I have read, I do not believe that the finding out where the money went is of such importance as to justify me forcing the revealing of what this woman communicated to the priest, presumably her spiritual adviser, in absolute confidence. I am not going to say, in the face of that statement, that there is such grave suspicion of wrong doing on the part of the clergyman, that I am going to undertake to .force the revelation of a confidential communication between this woman and her clergyman.


William Cameron Edwards: There seems to be no doubt that the gentleman received the money.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is no doubt.


William Cameron Edwards: If the money was not given to the convict, there is no fault; but, if it was given to the convict, the prison rules were violated, just as in the cases which caused the dismissal of the other two fellows; they were not quite wise

enough to say that they had conscientious scruples about revealing the matter. 'My point is that whether it is Rev. Father McDonald, or reverend this, that or the other, a Roman' Catholic priest or a Protestant clergyman, he is a man in an official capacity, and has no more right to violate the regulations than any other man.


Charles Joseph Doherty: He has no more right to violate the regulations than any other man. But before I proceed to investigate, I must have evidence that he did violate the regulations. More than that, he received money from the mother of this convict, and she tells us categorically and clearly that it was not for her son, but it was for purposes and in connection with matters absolutely confidential between her and the clergyman.


William Cameron Edwards: I did not understand
the minister to say that before. If the lady said the money was'not for her son, of course, that is a different matter. My whole point was that that money was conveyed to the prisoner, which constituted a violation of the regulation, and he had no more right to violate the regulation than anybody else.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is no question
about that. Here is the lady's statement:
This is to certify that I have never, at any time, sent any money to Rev. Father McDonald, of Portsmouth, for the purpose of having the same paid to my son, now confined in. Kingston penitentiary. I have had several communications with the said Rev. Father McDonald, relating to matters of a private and' confidential character, and, being such, were intended for Rev. Father McDonald alone, and of which he has no right to make disclosures to anybody else, and cannot properly do so without committing a breach of confidence.
She begins by saying she never sent any money to be delivered to her son.


William Cameron Edwards: My contention is that if Father McDonald conveyed the money to the convict, he violated the regulations, and that no priest or clergyman who is an official should be treated any differently from any other official.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Some people think that in dealing with absolutely confidential matters, they should make no answer. You may have one confidential thing where it is quite possible for you to make an answer, yes, or no; but you may have another confidential thing in regard to which, if you begin answering questions, conclusions may be drawn. In the face of this declaration, I, for one-and I may say that my view was
concurred in by my officers-thought that we were not called upon to proceed further.
Now, there is another question, also, with regard to the Catholic chaplain of a penitentiary. It is said that at Stoney Mountain penitentiary a guard was dismissed for passing letters in to a convict; and that the Roman Catholic chaplain was charged with the same offence, and was not dismissed. In fact it is said-and it is perfectly true-that upon the warden telegraphing to the minister that he had suspended the chaplain, the minister telegraphed the warden asking him to suspend the suspension and to forward to him, the minister, by telegraph, the facts of the case; and the chaplain was not dismissed. These things are perfectly true. There was different action in these cases; but it was because the cases were of an absolutely different nature, different in their circumstances, different in their gravity, and different, above all, in the guilty knowledge of the man who was concerned.
The guard who was dismissed was named McArthur. Let me read the report of the inspector who investigated this case, and upon whose report the guard was dismissed:
I ascertained from Canadian Northern railway headquarters that Trofton-
He was a former convict who was corresponding with a convict named Tucker in the penitentiary.
-was still at St. Norbert, and went out and got his sworn testimony in which he swears he sent convict Fuller four or five letters and received seven or eight from him, all while the said Fuller was in the penitentiary. He swears he sent all the letters addressed to Mr. John McArthur, Stony Mountain, and got all Fuller's letters through McArthur. He also swears he sent to John McArthur fifteen dollars in cash, same being sent at different times.
So we have four or five letters and fifteen dollars in cash going to this convict. Furthermore, it appears that on toeing examined, McArthur at first denied the charge, but when this evidence of the man who had sent the letters was put before him, he admitted it and admitted also that he fully knew he wae doing wrong.
Now, what was the case of Father Jou-bert, chaplain? I do not know just how long after Father Joulbert's appointment, but very shortly after, the warden found that Father Joubert had taken a letter out for' a convict. The warden himself thought that the proper thing was to call Father Joubert's attention to the fact that this

was a violation of the rule, and he did so. Father Joubert 6aid that he had not given thought to it, and that it should not happen again. What led to the suspension, was that, after this conversation, the warden found that another letter had been sent out, and apparently was under the impression that this had been done after Father Joubert's promise that it should not happen again, and he suspended him at once. That fact was telegraphed to me. I asked to have the suspension suspended, and to have the grounds of the warden's action communicated to me. So far as that action of. mine is concerned, independent of the final decision, I want to say quite frankly that I do not think you can deal with a chaplain, as regards the warden's power of summary suspension, as you might deal with a police officer. And for; this very simple reason-that we conduct ohr penitentiaries upon the principle that a valuable aid in the carrying on of the work of the penitentiary is the bringing to 'bear upon the convict of such religious influences as he -may he responsive to. I am not here to discuss whether that is wise or not"; all I say is that it is the system.
Personally of course I think it is wise. But, whatever I may think about it, that is the -system. If that system is to work effectively, surely our officers mu4t bear in mind the importance of letting it appear clear to the convict whom we seek to influence that thp minister of religion, whatever may he his denomination, is a person to 'be dealt with respectfully. He -must not be allowed to violate rules with impunity, but he is to be dealt with respectfully. And I have taken the position, with regard to a chaplain, Catholic or Protestant, that if there is ground of complaint against him, it is a proper matter to refer to the minister, and we will tey to do justice; and that, as long as there is a telegraph in existence which enables the warden to communicate speedily with the minister, there is no need for him to suspend the chaplain instaniter. I think that is a necessary requirement for the maintenance of proper respect for a man in th-e chaplain's position, and it is one that can do no possible injury to the penitentiary system.
So much for my request for the suspension. As to the offence itself and its beinj; dealt with, it was discovered, after the warden had _ so promptly suspended,

that he was mistaken in the supposition that there had been any repetition of the offefi-ee after attention had been called to it and the promise made. What did happen was that he came across a letter which had been sent previous to his observations on the subject, so that there had been no repetition of the offence, as the warden 'Supposed there had been after he gave the warning. These letters were in -themselves perfectly harmless, carried as they were to the relatives of the prisoner. Here on the one hand we have this offence of a newly appointed chaplain who, when it was pointed out to him, immediately expressed his Tegret, showing that he did it with thoughtlessness. On the other hand, we have the offence of a man who was carrying a series of letters between a convict and an ex-convict, and receiving money for the ex-convict. This man at first denied the offence, and only admitted it when he was confronted with the sworn testimony of the man who had sent him the letters. Then, of course, he acknowledged that he knew that it was entirely wrong 'to do this. These are the two cases. This guard was a Protestant; there is no doubt about that. I know it because the hon. gentleman has told me, and I take his word, but at the time I had no knowledge as to his religion.
I doubt the necessity of these explanations, but I do not know whether people believe that we investigate the religion of these different officers before we deal with them when charges are made. For my part, I do not do so. I suppose that if I am open to the suspicion, my statement is not worth much; but if -any one suspects that, I want to say for myself that I make no investigation as to a man's -religion. There is n-o doubt that it is unavoidable when the matter of a chaplain has to be dealt with., but my knowing his religion in that case does not affect my method of action.	These are the two cases.
I	leave	it to	the judgment of
this committee whether any improper motive may be atributed to me in the action that was taken. The action that was taken with regard to the guard was taken upon the recommendation of Inspector Hughes- whose Protestantism is, I think, beyond doubt. As regards the suspension of the suspension, I followed the rule that I have always followed with regard to chaplains. It happens that attention is called to my action with regard to Catholic chaplains; I have no doubt it is because these are the only cases that have been brought to the

hon. gentleman's attention. In one or two instances I have had to deal with questions concerning Protestant chaplains; in these cases there was no ground to find fault with the reverend gentlemen, and I did not find it necessary to take any action. I dealt with them myself, because I thought that was the proper way to deal with complaints against the chaplains. It is not in the interests of good administration that the warden should summarily suspend a chaplain, and I can see no evil coming from the minister's dealing with questions concerning these gentlemen. I do see in it a guarantee for maintenance among the convict population of that respect for these gentlemen which is absolutely essential to their being useful in the work which they do. The very head and front of my offending goes to that extent and no further, and I have no apology to make for it. If the case of the guard McArthur had been on all fours with the case of Father Joubert, I should have dealt with it in the same way; but it was totally different, and I dealt with it as I thought justice and good discipline required. The hon. member for Frontenac, since he has had reason to believe that there was a motive-which, as a matter of fact, did not exist-behind the action in regard to these things, has acted quite rightly and properly in affording me this opportunity of explaining the circumstance. I have an abiding confidence that fair-minded people-and the great bulk of our population, no matter what their religion may be, are fair-minded people-will he satisfied with the explanation that I have given, and that they will continue, at all events those who have known me in the past, to believe that no question of a man's religion weighs in the balance when I am called upon to try to do justice as between two individuals, or with regard to any one individual with whom fault may be found.
The hon. gentleman concluded with some observations with regard to improvements that might be made in our. penitentiary system, and adverted to the continued existence of the stone-pile and the necessity of useful employment. I do not think there is any difference of opinion between himself and .myself on that subject. I have listened, not only this evening, but on other occasions, to the hon. gentleman speak at greater length upon the general question of improvements that might be made in our penitentiary system. I may say, speaking generally, that I have sympathized very largely vrith the views that he expressed.
135	'
I should be very glad if it were practically possible for me to provide useful occupation within our penitentiaries for the men who are employed there, and I do look forward to being able to bring into existence a' system under which that may be done. We had this matter threshed out in the session of 1914, and I was looking forward vefy hopefully then to modification of our legislation with regard to penitentiaries, and to being able to make some arrangement by which, in connection with the other departments here, our penitentiary men might be employed in supplying their wants. But there came the war, and the great bulk of our people outside the penitentiaries were almost entirely dependent upon being employed in connection with things that were being made for the Government. Strong as was my desire to improve the conditions in the penitentiaries, I did not feel that that was an opportune moment for us to introduce the labour of the penitentiary in competition for the supplying of things that the Government might require. I do hope-we all do hope-for better days in that regard, and when the time comes I can assure the hon. gentleman that he will not be more anxious than I am to bring about improvement in the direction that he mentioned. Perhaps I may venture to hope that at that time I may have the valuable assistance of his cooperation and his suggestions as to what would be the best lines upon which we could carry out a policy of that kind. In the meantime, we have been endeavouring in a small way to improve conditions as they exist in Kingston penitentiary, and we hope to be able to extend that effort. I have put in a very considerable period of time in	working upon
an improved system	of regulation.
What I can do without changing the legislation-because I feel that I cannot legislate on the subject now-I am anxious to do; but that work has been delayed. A whole plan and scheme of new regulations has been prepared, but I have desired and still desire personally to go over them with a view to seeing how best I can improve the existing conditions. This has necessarily delayed the work. There are, unfortunately, many other things that call for a man's personal attention. We are working there, as I have said, short of one of our good inspectors, which increases the work to be done by the others. While I cannot claim any great achievement, I do assure this House, in all sincerity, that the



work of .improvement in penitentiary conditions is one in which I am greatly interested. and that I am very desirous of bringing about some improvements that will be really effective. I hope that when that time comes I may have the advantage of the counsel and co-operation of my hon. friend the member for Frontenac, who has taken so much interest in the conditions in these institutions.


William Cameron Edwards: I am very glad to assure the minister that in so far as the management of penitentiaries is concerned, and the improvement of their conditions, if he does me the honour, at any time in the future, to consider an opinion from me in that matter worthy of his consideration, I shall be only too glad to do anything I can to aid in that good work. I said this afternoon that some improvements had been made at Kingston since this investigation was held. It was an improvement to remove the insane convicts from that institution. I am led to believe that since the investigation there has been no tubbing of convicts and that the hose has not been used. These are steps in the right direction. I hope the time will come when we shall be able to segregate the younger convicts, the boys who are serving their first sentences, and that in the very near future men who are now pounding out their lives and souls on the stone-pile will be given useful employment, and that the stone-pile will be done away with. This will be a great step in the right direction.
In regard to the case of Rev. Father Joubert, of Stoney Mountain, the minister said that McArthur's dismissal was recommended to him by Inspector Hughes. I think that the removal of McArthur was perfectly right. He had deliberately violated the regulations. I- may say that my informant in regard to these two cases was the man who recommended to the minister the removal of McArthur. Those eases are not the only ones to which I might have referred, and which did give colour to the suspicion that there was a difference in the treatment of guards and others in the penitentiaries; and that, added to the very positive and emphatic statements of Inspector Hughes, led me to ask the questions which I felt justified in asking on the floor of this House, and which have at- last brought forth the explanation of the minister to-night.
The minister thought it was in bad taste on my part to refer to Inspector Hughes, because he is now in France fighting for
[Mr. Doherty.! '
his King and country. I have not said one word to reflect in the slightest degree upon Colonel Hughes, a colonel of the militia. If I had any opinion to express of him in that regard, it would have to be favourable, from all I have heard. But I must say that when a man who is an inspector of penitentiaries feels that he has a right, in making a report, to place certain statements in that report reflecting on me as one of the persons who saw fit to ask an explanation, statements which in my judgment are not true, the fact that he is not now in the country is no reason why I should refrain from referring to him. I did not refer to Colonel Hughes, but I did refer to Inspector W. 6. Hughes, and if they happen to be the same person that is no concern of mine. I am not discussing him from a military aspect at all; I believe that he is doing his duty very efficiently and well. But I say that when, as one of the inspectors of penitentiaries, he appended his name to that report, he signed statements which he must have known were untrue and misleading.
In regard to Dr. Phelan, the minister has given reasons why he felt justified in granting him a pension. I have no doubt the minister is perfectly sincere, and thinks that he did right. But, notwithstanding his remarks, I am still of the opinion that I entertained in the first place, that this man Phelan did not conduct himself, while surgeon of the penitentiary at Kingston, in a manner which justified the minister in pensioning him at $1,500 a year. In regard to the language which he used and which will embellish the pages of Hansard to-morrow, I might say that I do not think that is quite all the language employed on that occasion. The minister holds the view that the language was not desirable language, that it did not conform to the dignity of the position the man held; and the only reason I had for referring to it was that the language was, to a certain extent, an index of the man. That, taken in conjunction with other things, led me to believe that this man should not have received the consideration which was accorded to him. In regard to his. suggestion to the witness Redden that he should not speak the truth when he went into the box, I think that if the minister refers to the evidence he will not find exactly the words he quoted to-night. I do not think he will find that Dr. Phelan claimed that he had said this in jest, but he will find that Dr. Phelan did ask this man Redden to go on the witness stand, and, after taking an

oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, deliberately to refrain from telling the truth. I do not know how the minister can get around that, because that is another indication of the character of the man. Taken by itself that might not be sufficient to justify one in condemning the man; but 1 say that is an index of the man's character and disposition. He admits having received some money from men who the minister says were not guards at the time. But that is not the point. Every man who seeks to become a guard has to be examined by the surgeon of the penitentiary, to see whether he is physically fit for that position.


Charles Joseph Doherty: He may be examined
by the surgeon of the penitentiary.


William Cameron Edwards: I understood that even if he had been examined outside, it was one of the duties of the surgeon to pass upon him.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The practice is as
stated.


William Cameron Edwards: When a man comes in, the practice is to examinfe that man. That is one of the duties the surgeon is supposed to perform without extra remuneration. The fact that he admitted receiving. $4 is neither here nor there. That does not mean that that was all he received; it merely indicates that it was the only case brought up and proved. The commissioners said there was no use in taking up further time with cases of that kind as they considered the charge proved. It is all very well for the minister to say that the surgeon of t}ie penitentiary 'vyas not responsible for the system, that the responsibility should not be placed upon his shoulders, and that his employers are responsible for that system. To a certain extent that is true, but is it not also true that the Minister of Justice, as the head of the department, expects to receive from the surgeons of the various penitentiaries suggestions in regard to improvements along the line of their work. He expects to receive suggestions from chaplains in connection with their work. He gets reports from the surgeons. He is the minister to whom is stated what is required, or what should be done in the way of effecting improvements in the hospital. If he does not get reports from the surgeons of the various penitentiaries pointing out what should be done, how is he to know what is required?
It would be unreasonable to expect a
1.351
lawyer, an ex-judge, a man who has had no medical training, to say what is required in the hospitals or insane wards. What he has a right to expect is that the men in charge of these departments will make suggestions to him as to the improvements that should be made, and the fact remains that the man who was in charge of that department in Kingston penitentiary not only did not make suggestions of improvements, but, in his reports to the minister repeatedly misrepresented the condition of things in the penitentiary in regard to the hospital and insane ward. He not only misrepresented the conditions in his report, but misrepresented the Minister of Justice.
While the minister was speaking with regard to the hospitals, I asked him if he did not think there was room for improvement in the conditions.
10 p.m. He said, " Yes, he thought there was room for considerable improvement in the general conditions, as to cleanliness and so on." But what does this surgeon say in his report to the minister and to the country? He says:
The hospital, as in former years, has been kept immaculate as regards cleanliness and sanitation. The Minister of Justice, when on a visit to this department, expressed his extreme satisfaction with the. methods of its management, the absolute cleanliness of its cells and corridors, and the care and attention given the patients. It would be, indeed, difficult to find anywhere a ward in any public hospital maintained in such a spotless condition, due regard, of course, bein given to the character of the patients and their absolute custody.
Here is a man who says that the Minister of Justice went there and found the hospital fine, and expressed his supreme satisfaction with the 'conditions, and with the cleanliness, while the Minister of Justice, referring to the matter to-day, says- there is room for vast improvement in the genera] conditions, and especially as to cleanliness.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I was speaking of what I gathered from the report of the commissioners. I do not recollect that I used that language, but I may |say that, |OB the particular day on which I visited the hospital, it did strike me as being clean. 1 certainly did not make a' speech, and I do not remember that I expressed myself on the subject. When my hon. friend asked me whether there was room for improvement I was speaking of what I had gathered from the general tenor of the commissioners' report. When I visited the hospital, I did not pretend to make a care-

ful scrutiny, but on that particular day it looked clean.


William Cameron Edwards: The minister has no recollection of having expressed his extreme satisfaction; had he done so, it would have impressed itself on the cells of his brain and he would have recollected it. I am not charging that the minister did say this; I will take the minister's word.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not say I did not.


William Cameron Edwards: It is one of those cases of being on the fence. What I am saying is that the surgeon of that penitentiary makes a report, in which he says that the Minister of Justice expressed extreme satisfaction with the conditions there. What does the commission, appointed by the minister, say in regard to this? We have here the opinion of Dr. Etherington, who was one of the commissioners, in regard to this hospital and its immaculate cleanliness, the hospital that was absolutely spotless, according to the expressed opinion of Dr. Phelan, the hospital of which the sanitation and ventilation were absolutely perfect, and where nothing was to be desired. What do the commissioners say in regard to that? They say:
It is difficult to conceive what characteristics of the building; set apart for the care of the sick at the Kingston penitentiary warrant it being designated " hospital."
Dr. Phelan could not be held responsible for the poor build,ing; that is not the point. They go on to say:
There is nothing in the building or equipment which justifies the name. Some 36 inside cells, inferior in their arrangements to the cells occupied by the healthy prisoners, house those whose Illness is serious enough to make necessary their admission. In these cells there is not effective ventilation.
A direct contradiction of what Dr. Phelan reports to the minister and to the country. The. commissioners further say:
There is not effective ventilation; and save for an obsolete bucket for the excreta, sanitary appliances are absent. The two baths and water-closets are hopelessly out of date. Under no conditions are the patients permitted to have exercise in the fresh air, nor indeed to leave their cells for any purpose.
The operating room (so-called), where serious cases have been, and must he dealt with as they arise, has an old wooden table hut no other equipment:
A fine hospital, everything up to date, according to the report which Dr. Phelan made, and yet in the operating room they had nothing but an old wooden table, no other equipment whatever. The Minister
fMr. Doherty.]
of Justice might never notice anything of that kind:; he would not be expected to notice that sort of thing. As long as he did not find a pile of dirt in the middle of the floor, or some old broken chairs around he would say, " This is fine, this is splendid, this is all right." His knowledge, though vast, though very extensive, though very broad, and though it covers a multitude of things-in this I think it covers a multitude of sins so far as Phelan is concerned-is not adequate to enable him to appreciate the conditions in that hospital, and he might easily be fooled in regard to them. The commissioners say:
When your commissioners visited this room, many old books lay about the floor and the place was not clean.	.
Yet they placed that under the direction of Dr. Phelan. It may be that Dr. Phelan was mat responsible few the muxaJber of square feet in the room, or for the size of the hospital, but I will say that the wildest endeavour to excuse the inefficiency of this man cannot convince us that he was not responsible for the cleanliness of this place or that he should not be held responsible for the fact that there were old books and papers on the floor. The commissioners say:
In all, there was a condition of affairs which should not have been tolerated.
Tolerated by whom? The one man who had it in his power to have this changed was the man who said that everything was all right. .
Again, there is to be noted an all but complete absence of satisfactory records. Inspector Stewart's commendation of the existing conditions can only mean that he is not competent to express an opinion upon this aspect of prison management. Although his annual reports give a different impression, the surgeon in his evidence before the commission stated that many changes were necessary to make the hospital whiat it should be.
I am not basing my contention that Dr. Phelan is not entitled to the superannuation he has received on the one point of language, on the one point of perjury, on the one point of graft, but I am putting all these things together. I say that the most important point is in regard to rule 52. He absolutely disregarded that rule. The evidence shows that he disregarded it. Case after case came before the commission in regard to that rule where it was shown that he made no examination whatever, not even a cursory examination, of prisoners to see if they had any infectious disease. Case after case came before the commission until the commission finally said that there was

no use of introducing further witnesses to establish the fact. We have conclusive evidence that he absolutely disregarded rule 52. As a result of his failure to examine first offenders who came in, tubercular and infected prisoner^ were herded with men who were healthy. That was the state of affairs which this report showed to exist, and it is a state of affairs which would not exist under an efficient surgeon in a penitentiary. The same is true with regard to rule 53, which has to do with hygiene. These are the things that I hold him most responsible for. He was the surgeon of the institution, and as such he was responsible for the diet of the prisoners, he was responsible for seeing that the prisoners obtained exercise in the open air, he was responsible for the ventilation and sanitation of cells in which the prisoners were confined, and he was responsible for the fact that, for a time at least on Sundays, prisoners got their three meals at nine, eleven and one o'clock, and got nothing more until next morning. If the surgeon of the penitentiary had reported to the minister that sick prisoners were having their meals crowded into two or three hours in the day, and that they got nothing to eat until next morning, what do you suppose would have been the result? There is no doubt about the truth of the statement that during all these hours between one p.m. on Sunday until next morning they had nothing to eat, and were confined to their cells without any proper ventilation. If he had called that to the attention of the minister I am sure that condition would have been immediately changed. It is because of these facts that I enter my protest against Dr. Phelan being accorded the treatment he has received in so far as his pension is concerned. It will not make any difference, he will get his pension just the same, and he will go on practising his profession in Kingston. I hope he does well, but he will have to do better when he is dealing with the general public in Kingston than he did when he was dealing with the prisoners at Portsmouth or he will need every dollar that the Government has so kindly bestowed upon him.
Mr. ARTHUR B. COPP (Westmorland): I am sure we are all very much interested, and a little shocked, to hear the charges made by the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) in regard to the conduct of affairs at Kingston penitentiary. I know how dangerous it is to interfere with family quarrels, and therefore I do not intend to
intervene in this quarrel or disagreement between the hon. member for Frontenac and the hon. Minister of Justice. The hon. member for Frontenac has made some very serious charges regarding the conduct of the Kingston penitentiary. He has confined his remarks largely to this institution, but he has also given some attention to the conditions at Stony Mountain. It does not matter to me whether the hon. member for Frontenac is correct or not in regard to the superannuation of Dr. Phelan by the Justice Department. As I understand, he has been superannuated, he is drawing his allowance, he will continue to draw it, and nothing that can be said or done here will change the situation in regard to that. But, it seems to me that the strongest condemnation uttered by the hon. member for Frontenac had to do with the conditions that may arise in all the penitentiaries throughout the Dominion in regard to the reports of the inspectors who have a very great deal to do with these institutions. The hon. member for Frontenac has charged that the inspectors have made false reports to the minister in regard to these institutions. That is a very serious charge and one which must be admitted by every hon. member who has anything to do with public affairs or with these institutions in which unfortunates are confined either ias prisoners or insane convicts. The Minister of Justice rather intimates that nothing should be said in regard to one of the inspectors who made a report in regard to one of these institutions, as he is now at the front. I have nothing to say in regard to that gentleman-I do not know him personally, and I am sure that I would be one of the last to cast any reflections upon his character or reputation in regard to the matter. But the charge is made by an hon. member of this House that this officer has made a false report to the Minister of Justice in regard to the Kingston Penitentiary.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think I would not be differing from the hon. member for Frontenac if I pointed out that, while the hon. member for Frontenac says that the statements in this report are false and unsustained, the report of the inspectors is in the nature of an answer to the report of the Royal Commission that was appointed to carry on the investigation, and which Royal Commission took evidence. The difference between the two reports consists in a different appreciation, by the Royal Commissioners on the one side and by the penitentiary inspectors on the other, of the results

of the evidence. It is hardly a matter of an issue of fact as between them. It is true they differ about questions of fact, but they are dealing with facts established by the evidence. One says the evidence proves this and the otheT says that it proves something else. However, the minister has the evidence before him. It is not a question of veracity about a specific fact on the part of the inspectors. They may be wrong in their appreciation of the evidence and the Royal Commissioners may he right. I do not understand the issue to be as to an absolute misstatement in the report of a fact known to an individual.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I am very gl-a,d to hear the minister's explanation, if it may be called such, of the difference between the Royal Commission and the Penitentiary Commission. But I was referring more particularly to the charge made by the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards.' that the inspectors had made a false report in regard to the conditions. That is a serious charge, whether it b,e true or not; the question of veracity may rest between the two commissions, or between the hon. member for Frontenac and the Minister of Justice. What I say is that it is a very serious charge for an hon. member to make, unless he can back it up with facts. The hon. member for Frontenac says that a commission was appointed'-I presume by the Minister of Justice-consisting of G. M. Macdondll, Dr. Etherington, and J. P. Downey, and he claimed that that commission was no good, that they were not worth fifteen cents a day. My hon. friend is getting in a dangerous zone when he has the temerity to criticise a commission appointed by this Government. A few days ago -when hon. gentlemen on this side of the House ventured to suggest a Royal Commission might not give the exact attention to public matters that we thought desirable, we were branded as disloyal, and as forgetting the duty of members of this House. How dared we suggest that a commission would do anything but what was right and proper? But to-night rwe have the hon. member for Frontenac, for years a prominent and loyal supporter of this Administration, making these very serious charges 'against the Government; and all the more serious because he does not want to find fault with this Administration, of which he is such 'a loyal supporter. But his conscience forces him to do it, on behalf of the poor 'unfortunates in our penitentiaries.
fair. Doherty.]
Their voice cannot be heard; they are behind the iron doors, and, if we are to believe the hon. member, are treated in a most inhumane way by their keepers. It seems to me that the duty devolves upon the minister to appoint, if necessary, another royal commission to inquire whether the charges made by the hon. member for Frontenac are true. I care nothing about Dr. Phelan; that question is a mere bagatelle. But what I do care about is that the unfortunates in our penitentiaries from the Atlantic to the Pacific shall not be treated in the inhumane way that has been described in Kingston. I think a very grave responsibility rests upon the Minister of Justice to ascertain whether there is any truth in the charges made by the hon. member for Frontenac against the officials of Kingston penitentiary.


Charles Joseph Doherty: When we were discussing these matters to-day, we were discussing things that had happened; we were talking about the past. It is not suggested, as I understand it, that there is any ill-treatment of prisoners at the present day. At all events, I have not heard any such charges, and I try to keep myself as well informed as I possibly can.


Arthur Bliss Copp: We hear a great many complaints. I understand, of course, that it is easy to make complaints. These unfortunates are naturally dissatisfied, and not of the very best class of citizens, and that must be taken into consideration when considering these complaints. I hear quite a number of complaints in regard to the Maritime penitentiary, which is situated in my county. I do not say that these complaints are grievous, but it is well to take care that they do not grow; we do not want the same conditions there as prevailed at Kingston.
If it is true, as the hon. member for Frontenac charges, that the inspectors are not carrying out their duties in a proper manner, what guarantee has the Minister of Justice that the same conditions do not prevail in other penitentiaries throughout the country? The Minister of Justice tonight in defending his department led me to believe that he was very sincere in his statements; almost tender-hearted in fact, to the penitentiary officials. While there might be little things here and there, he found it very hard to harden his heart and dismiss these men. I gathered that if he erred at all, it would be on the humane side.

The hon. member for Frontenac has found fault with the large superannuation allowance paid to Dr. Phelan. In my own county, in the Dorchester penitentiary, there is a man whom I have known for a number of years. He was the chief keeper, and is in the very prime of life, being no more than forty-five years old, if that. An investigation was held with regard to this man. I cannot say who conducted the investigation, but I had occasion to read the evidence. At the time this investigation was held, I had been in politics in my province for some fifteen years, and had never up to that time had the slightest idea whether this man was a Liberal or a Conservative.
He was a good official, a young, bright, energetic, capable man, eminently qualified to fill any such position as that which hb held. The gravamen of the charge against him was that he had picked up a newspaper-and it happened to be a Liberal newspaper, published in the city of St. John-and apparently it was against the rules to read a newspaper within certain hours. But the newspaper came in and he picked it up. It was reported to the Justice Department that this man had broken one of the rules of the institution. An investigation was held, and the man was retired on a gratuity of $1,985, which he had earned by his service of twenty-one years, eight months and, seven days in office. After his case had been investigated he was told that unless he resigned he would be dismissed and forced out on the streets with nothing. He resigned and took the gratuity from the Government. I say confidently and without fear of successful contradiction, I care not 'from whom, that there was no reasonable charge made against this man. It was found that he was a Liberal, and his head was demanded by the Conservatives of my county, and the Minister of Justice, in spite of his humane ideas, hardened, Ms heart and cutxoff that man's official head, even though, as he tells us, he could not do it in the case of 'the man in Kingston.


William Cameron Edwards: I might point out to my
hon. friend that the gentleman at Kingston was also a Liberal.


Arthur Bliss Copp: That does not make it any better or .worse. But when the minister attempts to defend his department against the charges made by my hon. friend, from Frontenac and tries to convince us that he has been influenced by humane motives, I
merely put before the committee the fact that in the case of this man in my county be turned him out with a gratuity of less than two thousand dollars, though I defy any one to show that Leonard Hutchinson was not a useful, capable official. I do not know whether the inspectors held an investigation in that ease or not. But if the inspectors are simply the political creatures of the department, to go about the country and make false reports, as charged by the hon. member for Frontenac, these reports should not be considered or acted upon by the minister. If these things have occurred in Dorchester penitentiary, no doubt other things of the same kind have occurred in other penitentiaries. Let the minister come out openly and state his position. If he is going to take politics into his department and dismiss officials that are opposed to him politically, let him say so, and we shall know where we stand. Here was a man who had given twenty-one years of good service in this institution, and had worked his way up from the position of guard to that of chief keeper; yet to suit the whim and fancy of some individuals his head was cut off. I put it to the minister, who tells us of his soft heart and his tender conscience, whether it was not a pretty small piece of business to discharge in this way the man who had spent so many years in the service of the department over which he presides. He tells us that he wished Dr. Phelan to get justice, he having been for some years in the employ of the department. I know nothing of that case; but if it would have been a hardship to Dr. Phelan to be turned adrift, it was equally a hardship in the case of this man in Westmorland county. The minister not only drove him out of the penitentiary, but he drove him out of the province. We are paying handsomely to bring immigrants into our province, but the minister drives out men who are worth far more than any immigrants.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. gentleman's
pleading of the case of Leonard Hutchinson does definite credit to his capacity for clothing a case in affecting and pathetic language. But it also reveals the fact that the hon. gentleman is utterly and entirely misinformed as to the facts. I never heard what Mr. Hutchinaoin's politics were until the hon. gentleman informed us to-night that he was a Liberal. No one outside the penitentiary ever made complaint about Mr. Hutehin-

son, but it was claimed by officials in the penitentiary that he was guilty, not only of the offence of bringing in a newspaper on one occasion, but of very grave insubordination, as was clearly and distinctly proven. I do not quite grasp what reproach is made to me. I might have dismissed that man and so made him lose his gratuity; but, with the soft-heartedness for which the hon. gentleman gives me credit, I gave him the opportunity to resign, so that he got his gratuity. The hon. gentleman tries to make a contrast between the case of Dr. Phelan and that of this gentleman. Dr. Phelan got what he got under the law, just as Mr. Hutchinson did. I think that when the hon. gentleman ascertains the real facts -and he can see the reports if he wishes to see them-he will find that there was no trace of political partisanship from start to finish. I am blamed for being too good to the Liberals, and on the other hand I am blamed for not being good enough to them. It has been pointed out that Dr. Phelan is a Liberal, as we are told Mr. Hutchinson is also. Dr. Phelan came in at a time when he could secure a pension under the law, and he had been paying two per cent of his salary all along in order to have his superannuation; but Mr. Hutchinson, at most, was entitled only to a gratuity. As I say, I greatly admire the hon. gentleman's eloquence in putting his case, but when he knows the facts, I am sure he will see that Mr. Hutchinson had no injustice to complain of.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I am much obliged to the
hon. minister for the information he has given me, but that does not settle the matter. Maybe I know more about this matter than he thinks I do. Does he want this committee, or does he want me, to believe that when a man's dismissal is desired a letter is written to the department stating that the man is a Grit and demanding his official head?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I had not any correspondence of that kind.


Arthur Bliss Copp: That is exactly what I say. He will not get correspondence of that kind; but from the action he took in dismissing Mr. Hutchinson it is quite evident he understood the correspondence whether he received it from the officials of his department	or from	anybody	else.
The officials who laid charges against Mr. Hutchinson were Conservative officials who did not want him there. The inspectors and other officials in my hon. friend's
fMr. Doherty.]
department listened to these representations, and an investigation was held which proved that the charges were of a very trivial character indeed. I have read the evidence, and my hon. friend cannot make the people in that locality, not even his own friends, believe that there was no politics in connection with the dismissal of [Mr. Leonard Hutchinson. I know whereof I speak; I know something about the correspondence, something about the evidence, something about the affidavits that were made with regard to Leonard Hutchinson's politics. The' investigation was held with no other intention, irrespective of the evidence, than that of securing Mr. Hutchinson's resignation or dismissal. When Mr. Hutchinson was told what would happen to him if he did not resign, he took, my hon. friend's advice and did resign, to save the few hundred dollars that were doled out to him for the benefit of his wife and family for the next 25 years of his life, if he lives that long. This is his reward for' the true and loyal service that he gave the department for 21 odd years.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. gentleman may know all about things in that locality, but I know just what happened in the place where it Was decided to dismiss the gentleman, and just on what evidence it was done. I do not know what people were saying down in that locality; that had nothing to do with it. I made the decision, I made it on the evidence, without knowledge of what Mr. Hutchinson's politics were, and entirely without knowledge of all the things that the hon. gentleman does know-that is, of the things that were being said in that locality.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I am sorry to hear the Minister of Justice say that he takes the full responsibility of the dismissal of Leonard Hutchinson from the position that he held in the Dorchester .penitentiary. Ilf ever there was a true, loyal and faithful servant, .it was Leoenard Hutchinson. I know whereof I speak; I have been there.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I am very glad indeed that my hon. friends have something to take their minds off the seriousness of the charges made by the hon. member for Frontenac in regard to the Kingston penitentiary. Their faces have been very long this afternoon and evening, and I am glad that something relieves them from the ten-

sion they have been under during this discussion. I have been at Dorchester penitentiary many times. The hon. member for Rimouski this afternoon referred to the fact that we have no French officials in Dorchester penitentiary; I know the officials who are there, and splendid officials they are. I am sorry that the hon. minister, holding the high position that he does, should, for the sake of satisfying a few friends down in that locality, dismiss Mr. Hutchinson from office and pay him nearly $2,000 to get him out of the way for the sake of helping one of his political friends to an office which he could not get unless Mr. Hutchinson was out of the way.


Mr. MORPHY:: Mr. Hutchinson, was
appointed over twenty-one years ago, by a Conservative Government.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Is not the fact that he has been in the service over twenty-one years all the more reason why he should be given consideration?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. gentleman
said that I had dismissed him because he was a Liberal.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I beg my hon. friend's pardon, I said nothing of the kind. I said that my hon. friend dismissed him for no other purpose than to please some of his political friends in that locality.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. gentleman is no doubt convinced of what he is saying, but he has never made a statement more absolutely untrue than that there was any motive of that kind in connection with the dismissal of Mr. Hutchinson. I am the man who dismissed him, upon the evidence that was before me, showing that he had been guilty of insubordination. That, in my judgment, called for his dismissal. Perhaps every one in that locality is saying the things to which my hon. friend refers, but I want to put myself on record as to the fact in that particular matter. I know the fact and the other hon. gentleman does not.


Arthur Bliss Copp: When the hon. minister tells me that he did this without taking Mr. Hutchinson's politics into consideration, then I do not wonder that the hon. member for Frontenac questions the administration of the affairs of the Justice Department. I know the schemes that were laid to bring these charges against Leonard Hutchinson. I know the plotting that was done, the arrangements that were made, the caucuses
that were held to get a charge against him.
If my hon. friend does not know that, he is not as shrewd as I take him to be. There must be something; he must have smelt a rat, if I may use a slang expression, in regard to the dismissal of Mr. Hutchinson.


Frank Oliver: The hon. member foi Frontenac has made the allegation, in setr terms, that the inspectors of the Justice Department do not deal justly with the affairs of that position, and that, in consequence, wrong has been done. That is to say, the minister is depending on officials who do not deal honestly by the business that is placed in their charge, and for that reason he becomes, as is alleged by the hon. member for Frontenac, a party to what is other than justice. That is exactly what the hon. member for Westmorland asserts.
I have not troubled the House or the Government very much with complaints about such transactions in my own constituency, but I must say that there was a transaction in connection with the wardenship of the penitentiary in my own constituency that bears out exactly the contention that has been made. I do not suggest that the Minister of Justice would use his high position for merely political purposes knowing that he was doing so. But, having heard the remarks of the hon. member for Frontenac and the hon. member for Westmorland, my opinion is that those upon whom he has depended for his information have deliberately and intentionally misrepresented the conditions to him, leaving him to take a course not in accordance with justice and not in accordance with the best interests of the administration of the Department of Justice.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is a very grave charge. As I understand the statement of the hon. member for Frontenac, it is that the report of the commissioners to the minister, for publication, was not true.


Frank Oliver: That is it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That report, as I have pointed, out, rests on the commissioners' appreciation of certain evidence, and is written, not as a statement of particular fact to be reported to the minister, but as their conclusions as to the facts established by certain evidence. That evidence itself was before tbte minister, and there was likewise before the minister a report of a Royal Commission which reached different conclusions on the same evidence. My hon. friend suggested that that raises a question of veracity between the Royal

Commission on one hand and the inspectors and the hon. member for Frontenac on the other. I think we are a little at cross purposes. They take a different view of what was proved on a particular occasion, and each argue their view of it. It is a veTy serious charge, as the hon. member for Edmonton will recognize, against the inspector, and if either the hon. member for Westmorland or the hon. member for Edmonton is prepared to put before me anything in the nature of evidence to establish that charge I shall certainly most carefully look into it. If, on doing so, I find that there is conclusive evidence to prove such a charge, I shall be grateful to the hon. gentleman for calling attention to it.
Mr. OLIVER^ I have not brought this matter to the attention of the minister on my own account. I merely say that, taking the argument of the hon. member for Frontenac, accepting his assertions as true, I am bound to reach the conclusion that the action taken was taken because of improper representations made for improper purposes, for purposes aside from the public interest. But I am not taking action in the matter and do not desire to take action. While the minister argues that there is no question of veracity against the penitentiary commissioners as alleged by the hon. member for Frontenac, let me say that these penitentiary commissioners are the men upon whose reports the minister bases his action in the large majority of oases. In the particular case mentioned, he found that the opinions of these penitentiary commissioners were opposed by a Royal Commission. I suppose that they did not agree with the views of the minister in that case. But had there been no Royal 'Commission, had there been nothing to check the report made by these penitentiary commissioners, would not the minister have been misled in that case? On the face of it, a manifest injustice appears to have been done in the case I referred to. Being satisfied that these commissioners have reported erroneously and intentionally erroneously to the minister in the case mentioned by the hon. member for Frontenac,
I am bound to suppose that they did so in the Edmonton case of which I spoke. I quite agree that the charge is a most serious one, and I put it before the minister, not with the intention of attacking him in any way. The administration of his department ultimately comes back to- him. He is 
absolutely responsible for tblaft administration,' and it is no final or satisfactory answer to say: I acted on the report of my officers. In the end it .must be carried beyond that, and the minister is responsible for the character of the report his cdmmis-sioners make. It would not be doing justice to the minister, after having heard the definite statements and the .strong position taken by the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards), not to inform him that, on the face of the case at Edmonton, the suggestions of the hon. member for Frontenac were well supported and well warranted.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In regard to the case
of Hutchinson, my action was not on the mere report of an inspector; the sworn evidence was before me. As to the case at Edmonton I cannot say.


Mr. OOPP:: Who held that investigation?


Charles Joseph Doherty: If my memory serves
me it was Inspector Hughes, but the depositions came to me.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Did the inspector make a report in regard to the dismissals?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I presume there was a report, but on a matter that turns on a question of fact I always read the evidence.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I do not doubt that; but is it not a fact that there was a report pertaining to the dismissals?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have no doubt thert was.


Arthur Bliss Copp: After reading the evidence you acted on the report and the evidence?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes. <


Arthur Bliss Copp: But the investigation was held by an officer of your department, and a report was made to you by one of the inspectors, to the effect -that Hutchinson be dismissed?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, with the evidence.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: What is the actual population of the St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary, and are there any statistics- showing -the particular causes of crime? Is the greater proportion of that crime due to the abuse of liquor?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The actual population is about 450.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is there a decrease for the last year?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think there has been an increase in the last fiscal year. We have in the -whole penitentiary population an increase of about sixty or seventy, and there is a small increase in St. Vincent de Paul.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In view of the importance of the debate which took place the other day on the question of prohibition, would the minister inform the House whether the principal cause of crime, taking all the penitentiaries, is the abuse of liquor? I mention this because my brother, who is the sheriff of Montreal, happened to study that question in the Montreal jail at Bordeaux. He sent a letter to the hon. member for Bonaventure the other day saying how appalling was the effect of liquor in respect of crime. He says that in the jail at Bordeaux, where there are generally from 400 to 600 inmates, the real cause of the large number of imprisonments is liquor. I would like the minister to state to the House, for the information of the public and of the members, if, as a matter of fact, liquor is not the supreme cause of crime in Canada.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The last report on penitentiaries shows that in St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary in 1914, the total number of inmates was 401, of whom 207 are classified as intemperate, and 194 as temperate.
I understand, that these statistics rest merely upon the statements of the convicts themselves. The only means we have of ascertaining in the penitentiaries whether ,an inmate is temperate or intemperate is his own statement.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I thought that, when every prisoner was sent to a penitentiary, there was a report from the judge mentioning his antecedents.


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, all that comes to us is the committal showing the date of the trial, the offence of which the prisoner is convicted, and the length of the sentence. When the convict comes 'in he is questioned, and I understand that the statistics, of the kind to which I have referred, rest upon the statement the convicts make. In the Remission branch, we do get a certain amount of information in the judge's report with regard to the habits of the prisoners when application is made to release them, but in the penitentiary records there is nothing to show what their habits have been except the information -which is collected in the way I have described.


Rodolphe Lemieux: -Can the minister ascertain in a general way from his officer whether the real cause of crime is not due to the abuse of liquor?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I shall communicate with the wardens and see to what extent they are prepared to express an opinion on that question. I think that that would be the only way to get the information. The wardens, or the penitentiary surgeons might be .able to give us some light, but they would have to rely on the prisoners' statements. I think the reports of the criminal courts would afford a better means of getting the information.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I thought that the department had criminal statistics showing
that.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The statistics purport to show who are intemperate and who are temperate, and, they show that 11 p.m. a great majority are, on their own confession, intemperate
people.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has the minister maintained the excellent practice of allowing the Salvation Army to receive prisoners when they are released? Some years ago a predecessor of my hon. friend, Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, I think, permitted the Salvation Army to send representatives to the gates of the penitentiaries. I know that they go to the St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary, and I presume the practice is carried out elsewhere? The prisoners, when they come out, are received by the representatives of the Salvation Army, who give them the glad and, helping hand. I would like to know if that practice has been maintained, because I think that the Salvation Army has rendered most valuable service in that regard to our prisoners. If my hon. friend has not maintained it I would ask him to do so. In our large cities the Salvation Army are doing wonderful work, and, no better institution could be found to help the prisoners when they leave the penitentiary.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In many cases the Salvation Army representatives do take charge of the prisoners, more particularly those released on leave, and we have always been happy to continue the relations that were established, I think through thfe parole officer, and to avail ourselves of their assist-

ance. But, while the work of the Salvation Army is exceedingly valuable, there are other societies who do work of that kind, and we are always glad to have the co-operation of these societies.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I understood, my hon. friend to say that in dealing with the evidence that came before him in regard to the case of Hutchinson he did not know what his politics were.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have no recollection that his politics appeared on the face of it.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The minister has not the slightest doubt that the inspector who made the report recommending Hutchinson's dismissal would know about his politics.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I did not ask him; I really do not know whether he would or not. I cannot answer my hon. friend's question.


Mr. D. A. LAFORTUNE (Montcalm):: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, I heard a moment ago, the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) asking of the Minister of Justice what is the chief determinant of crime in most cases? You will allow me, Sir, to make -a reiply from a full knowledge of the question. For the last ten years I have been acting as crown attorney in Montreal, I am quite familiar with what hakes place at the criminal assizes, at summary trials and in the police courts. I moreover, as a royal commissioner, had to investigate in 1897 conditions existing in St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary. At that time I looked up the docket of every convict to find out the grounds for his conviction. I say without hesitation that in the majority of cases, the primary cause was drunkenness, as is the case in all convictions, at the assizes or the lower courts. I am now convinced that mostly all crimes may be traced back to the drinking habit. During the last term, ending yesterday, 150 cases came up 'before the Montreal courts. I had to examine those cases very closely and with very few exceptions, the abuse of liquor was the main instigator of crimes. During this last term, men were condemned for manslaughter, the result of speeding at the hands of intemperate drivers. Take forgery: as a rule a man who has not lost his wits, will not deliberately commit this infamous and awful crime. And what about arson? When you ask those who have set 	.
fire to their neighbour's house or bam what prompted them to do so, you get a reply something like the following: "Well, we went to law together and I lost my case; I went on a spree and in a spirit of revenge, I set fire to the building." That is a sample of the explanation commonly given everywhere. And now, how does a man become a murderer or a burglar? Generally the prime mover is liquor. Quarrels, grievous assaults always follow drunkenness. I intend my words as a reply to the hon. member for Rouville and likewise for the hon. the Minister of Justice. It is easy to find out when a prisoner- is addicted to drinking. Their confessions are not our only criterion, we have their -pedigree. The old offenders are well known. The habitual frequenters of police courts are easily recognized by the provincial police and also by the constables of Montreal and surrounding towns. Their habits are always noted in their jail-entry and penal certificate, and on their being bronght back to the court, we produce their docket to see whether they are of intemperate or temperate habits; and in every file at St. Vincent de Paul or Bordeaux, the convicts' habitual behaviour is noted by the magistrate who has sentenced the prisoners. The general conduct of each individual prisoner is noted. If they are unknown to the officers, an investigation is held by the police and detectives in order to find out the general behaviour of those convicts. That information also reveals the fact that with very few exceptions drinking is the chief cause of crime. It is easy to get the pedigree of prisoners who are brought before police or criminal courts. A man is always known in his town or village and if he is addicted ito strong drink, the fact is notorious.
I take as example the parish in which it has been my privilege to live for the last thirty years; there is not a man whose general habits are not common knowledge Every one in a locality knows when fa man is temperate and if he is intemperate, the people know it even more readily.
A mistake becomes impossible. When a man is arrested, if it is required to find out what were his antecedents with Tegard to the use of spirits, you have only to ask his neighbour and you can find out. However, I just cannot but state right here that an improvement is taking place. I have noticed that for three or four years past, the indulgence in strong drink is de-

creasing, even gradually dying out. The courts have to deal more nowadays with cases of fraud. Hard times, poverty, commercial, and industrial stringency all tend to increase fraudulent dealings considerably. A large number of people are hard pressed; they have gone into speculative transactions that have turned to their disadvantage; they^put up a lot- of money and lost all. Many even among professional men, have unfortunately made themselves liable to arrest. Busiuess stress and difficulties have caused new misdemeanours.
Mr. Chairman, while we are discussing the Estimates tor penitenitaries, I will call to the minister's especial notice the defective classing of convicts in penitentiaries. It must be deplored that young people convicted for the first time, perhaps for a serious offence, should be sentenced and confined indiscriminately with old criminals, thieves and even murderers, old offenders for the most part who become dangerous company for those younger prisoners.	.
In 1897, when we had to report on the conditions in St. Vincent de Paul, there was inserted a very special recommendation that a special department be set apart for young prisoners. How can it be expected that a young, man after entering a penitentiary for a couple of years will be able to reform when be is thrown in' the company of professional crooks? They are forever lost.	.
If the Department of Justice saw to setting apart in the penitentiary a special department for those new convicts, they might be amenable to reform and turned into good citizens. I took every occasion under the old administration to suggest that classification, which however was not made. The Minister of Justice would be well serving society in segregating those who. are convicted for the first time away from old criminals. The minister cannot be too strongly impressed of the importance of the benefit he would confer in acting along the lines I suggest. Quite often, courts and crown attorneys are loath to send those prisoners to a penitentiary on that account, because we realize that there is a chance of their becoming worse instetad of improving.
A word now as to a certain class of criminals. There are men in the penitentiary who make a profession of passing their lives in prison. As soon as they are discharged, their chief aim is to be brought hack and
convicted so as to pursue within the walls of the penitentiary their disastrous and immoral work. I know very well whereof I speak and such has been my observation during my thirty-five years at the Bar and ten years as crown attorney. I therefore plead that everything he earnestly done to carry out that suggestion; in the name of humanity I ask that the segregation of first offenders be brought about.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Does the minister receive a report from the juvenile courts?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not think we receive any report from juvenile courts. They are provincial institutions.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I know, hut I thought
that the minister received a report on their work.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not think so. It has not come to my personal notice. I will look into it.	s
Excise, $1,134,876.25.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue explain the increase?


Hon. E. L. PATENAUDE (Minister of Inland Revenue):: There is an increase of
$5,051.25 in the first item, which is due to statutory increases and changes. There is no increase outside of that. On the second item, for extra duty pay at large distilleries and other factories, there is an increase of $1,000 due to increase of business. The same explanation applies to the increase of $500 in the third item, duty pay to officers serving longer hours at other than special survey. In the fourth item, p eventive service contingencies, the increase is only apparent because it is made up of several items. The department is creating a new fund so as to bring the preventive service under one heading. The creation of this fund does not occasion an increase, because certain amounts are taken from other funds, such for instance as the appropriation in connection with the adulteration of food. In preventive service contingencies, there is a decrease of $3,000, in excise contingencies a decrease of $70,000, and in gas and electric light inspection a decrease of $11,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: You take from other
services and apply to this new service?


Esioff-Léon Patenaude: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: And you do not increase the general vote?


Esioff-Léon Patenaude: There is no increase at all. You will find a decrease in all these items. On page 93 there is a decrease of $16,000 in the item of adulteration of food. The decreases total $100,000, and there is a clerical error of $1,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I dare say we might
leave an item until the next time we take up these Estimates.


Robert Rogers: We might leave item 348.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will the hon. gentleman, at the next sitting of the House when we consider his Estimates, give us a statement similar to the one given by his colleague the Postmaster General in regard to the matters that I shall mention? I would like to know the number of officers appointed in the outside service of his department since 1912 in the following cities: Halifax, St. John, Quebec, Montreal, Sherbrooke, Three Rivers, Ottawa, Toronto, Kingston, Hamilton, London, Winnipeg, Regina, Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver and Victoria.
I would like a statement of the amount of the salaries paid to these outside officers in 1912 and in the last fiscal year together with the number of employees. Then, I would like to ask my hon. friend what is being done with the metric system. Is the department still interested in the system and is it continuing the educational campaign which was started some years ago in the hope that some day this system will be adopted. I noticed that in England, which is a very conservative country as regards questions of weights and measures, as all countries are, a motion was moved some years ago in favour of that system. Although it has not been adopted, I believe that the question is very seriously considered whether or not the metric system, which has been adopted in practically all countries of continental Europe should not be adopted also in the Mother Country.
I am not advocating the metric system; we all have our own views on that. But I should like to know whether the educational campaign is still going on in Canada.


Esioff-Léon Patenaude: We are following the policy that has been pursued for many years-distributing maps, literature, etc.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I see there is a new service for preventive officers. Could my hon. friend give a little explanation of that, and say how many officers are going to be appointed?


Esioff-Léon Patenaude: No new officers are to be appointed. At the present time t 
many excise officers are doing the duties of preventive officers. We want to get them all under the same head.


Frank Oliver: Would the minister let me have on Monday, if possible, information
as to the amount of revenue per gallon that the department raises under excise on whisky and beer; also a division of the amounts by provinces. I want to know how much revenue is derived from the distillation of spirits, and how much from the brewing of beer, in each province.


Esioff-Léon Patenaude: I will try and let my hon. friend have that information on Monday.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is the department still experimenting with peat bog? I think they had some in the county of Prescott.


Esioff-Léon Patenaude: That comes under the Mines Branch.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Oh, yes, it was transferred, wasn't it? What is the explanation of the large increase in the salary of Inspectors of Weights and Measures?


Esioff-Léon Patenaude: There is an increase of about $33,000, $5,000 of which is accounted for by the appointment of three grain inspectors for elevators in the West, and $26,000 taken from the next item, " rent, fuel, etc.," out of which temporary officers were paid.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How many are there?


Esioff-Léon Patenaude: About 40. We have notified them that they will be required to pass an examination next spring. Those Who qualify will be appointed permanently.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I suppose that Dr. Haanel and the tests he is making come under the Department of Mines now? I think the work was transferred from the Department of Inland Revenue.


Mr. BLONDIN:: Yes, Mines Department.


Frank Oliver: Would the minister give me information as to the last item, " to enable the department to supply methylated spirits, etc." Does the department manufacture methylated spirits?


Esioff-Léon Patenaude: The department buys alcohol and manufactures methylated spirits from it. The spirits are then sold for industrial purposes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What quantity was sold last year?


Esioff-Léon Patenaude: About 140,000 gallons.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What revenue was derived from that?


Esioff-Léon Patenaude: "There is an excess of about $20,000.


Frank Oliver: At what price per gallon do they supply this spirit?


Esioff-Léon Patenaude: Until this year the department has been purchasing the wood alcohol at $1 a gallon. For the next three years we have made a contract at 87 i cents.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Where is the Electrotechnical Commission held?


Esioff-Léon Patenaude: In England. It is a permanent commission, and we allow $400 every year.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I suppose one item will remain open for discussion of any expenditure?


Robert Rogers: Yes.
Adulteration of food, and the administration of the Act respecting fertilizers, fraudulent marking and commercial feeding stuffs, $35,000.


Mr. GUSTAVE BOYER (Vaudreuil):: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, at the session which ended in April or May, 1915, Parliament decided to amend the Act concerning the Adulteration of Foodstuffs so as to cover the sale of maple sugar and syrup in Canada.
The amendments were enacted in proper time and all those interested in that industry admit they ought to be beneficial. The expected results possibly aTe not yet apparent, but it must be taken into account that the law has hardly been introduced and that some months must be allowed to pass before a full test is made of its efficiency.
At any rate the provisions of the Act are of great benefit to the farming community, since the manufacturers of pure maple sugar are mostly farmers.
The hon. member for 'Champlain (Mr. Blondin), the then Minister of Inland Revenue, must be given his share of credit for what he brought about, and I feel that his successor in office will show the same spirit and see to it that the law is fully enforced.
On the 29th of February last, some 600 producers of pure maple sugar and syrup attended the annual convention at Rigaud and among other resolutions the following was passed with a proviso for having it transmitted to the Government. I hope
the hon. minister will allow me to read it.
Excerpt from the minutes of the third convention of the Go-operative Society of the Producers of Pure Maple Sugar and Syrup held at Rigaud on Tuesday, February 20, 1916:-
Be it resolyed that notwithstanding the Act passed hy the Parliament of Canada in session assembled in the month of April, 1915, by which was prohibited the imitation of maple products, it is found, as stated in bulletin No. 324 of the Department of Inland Revenue that,out of 234 samples of sugar examined, 204 were found unadulterated, 5 complied with the requirements of the law and 25 were adulterated. The examination of a second set of samples, as reported in bulletin No. 243, found 192 unadulterated, 4 complying with the legal requirements and 43 adulterated;
Moreover that under the name of "Maple-ine " was advertised for sale in the Montreal Star on October 14, 1915, January 25, 1916, February 2 and 24, 1916, an extract for the preparation of Maple syrup;
That therefore this convention while assuring the Government of its appreciation of the enactment of the provisions of 1915 insist on the Act being strictly enforced through exercising greater care to bring to account all trespassers.	,
Jos H. Lefebvre, Secretary.
Rigaud, February 29, 1916.	*
My object in voicing in tbis House the complaint of the convention, is not to bring home to the Department of Inland Revenue any neglect of duty on its part; on the contrary, as I shall prove in a few minutes, the department is to be congratulated on its endeavours to see that the law is carried out. But I only wish to call to the notice of the minister the carelessness of persons who in certain quarters ought to comply with the law like the rest of us. The Act is of general application and nobody is exempted from its operation; the Government cannot therefore set up two standards for exacting compliance with its provisions without thereby endangering the effectiveness of the reform which was brought about. What, then, are the provisions which came into force on the 15th day of April, 1915, being chap. 9, sec. 29 A:-
29a. No person shall manufacture for sale, keep for sale, offer or expose for sale, or sell, any article of food resembling or being an imitation of maple sugar or maple syrup, or which is composed partly of maple sugar or maple syrup, and which is not pure maple sugar or pure maple syrup.
2.	Any maple sugar or maple syrup which is not up to the standard prescribed by the sixth schedule to this Act, or, if such standard is changed by the Governor in Council, to such standard as the Governor in Council may from time to time prescribe, shall be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of this Act.

3.	The word "maple" shall not be used, either alone or in combination with any other word or words, or letter or letters, on the label or other mark, illustration or device on a package containing any article of food, or on any article of food itself, which is not pure maple sugar or pure maple syrup, and any article of food labelled or marked in violation of this subsection shall be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of this Act.
31.	Every person who willfully adulterates any article of food or any drug, or orders any other person so to do, shall
(a) if such adulteration is, within the meaning of this Act, deemed to be injurious to health, for a first offence, incur a penalty not exceeding five hundred dollars and costs, or six months' - Imprisonment, or both, and not less than fifty dollars and costs; and for each subsequent offence, a penalty not exceeding one thousand dollars and costs, or one year's imprisonment, or both, and not less than one hundred dollars and costs;
(&) if such adulteration is, within the meaning of this Act, deemed not to be injurious to health, incur a penalty not exceeding two hundred dollars and costs, or three months imprisonment, or both, and not less than twenty-five dollars and costs, and for each subsequent offence, a penalty not exceeding five hundred dollars and costs, or six months' imprisonment, or both, and not less .than one hundred dollars and costs.
32.	Every person who, by himself or his agent, sells, offers for sale, or exposes for sale, any article of food Or. any drug which is adulterated within the meaning of this Act shall
(a)	if such adulteration is, within th3 meaning of this Act, deemed to be injurious to health, for the first offence incur a penalty not exceeding two hundred dollars and costs or three months' imprisonment, or both and not less than fifty dollars and costs, and for each subsequent offence a penalty not exceeding five hundred dollars and costs, or six months imprisonment, or both, and not less than fifty dollars and costs;	.
(b)	if such adulteration is within the meaning of this Act, deemed not to be injurious to health, incur, for the first offence, a penalty not exceeding one hundred dollars and costs, or three months in jail, or both, and not less than twenty-five dollars and costls, and for each subsequent offence a penalty not exceeding two hundred dollars and costs, or six months in jail, or both and not less than fifty dollars and costs.
3.	Section 37 of the said Act is repealed and the following is substituted therefor:
37. Every person who knowingly attaches to any article of food or any drug any label which falsely describes the article sold, or offered or exposed for sale, or who neglects or refuses to label or mark any article of food or drug in accordance with the requirements of this Act shall incur a penalty for the first offence not exceeding two hundred dollars and not less than twenty-five dollars or two months in jail, or both, and for each subsequent offence a penalty not exceeding three hundred dollars and not less than fifty dollars, or four months in jail, or both.
4.	Section 40 of the said Act is repealed and the following is substituted therefor:

40. Under such regulations as may be made by the minister, an amount not exceeding one-half of the penalties imposed and recovered under this Act may be. paid to any person who has given information or otherwise aided in' effecting the recovery of the penalty, and the other portion of the penalty shall be paid to the Minister of Finance, and shall form part of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.
It is easily seen that the Act, which may be improved later on, leaves, as it stands, few loopholes for adulteration. It prohibits entirely the use of the word " maple " in the designation of -any compounded or other syrup which is not the pure maple product. That prohibition -concerning the use of the word " maple " -extends of -course to any label and advertisement of whatever kind.
It follows that a newspaper advertisement of a " mapleine " product constitutes an infringement of the Act and makes the publisher liable to the penalties enacted therein.
The producers of sugar and syrup must not then be taken as complaining wrongly against the Montreal Star of October 14, 1915, January 25, 1916, February 2 and 25, 1916, for publishing in bold type the advertisement of the -Good-win firm- for " Mapleine " to manufacture maple syrup, at 15 cents, 25 -cents and 45 cents a bottle.
It cannot be ag-ain said that such an advertisement is in- its intent and actual working a clear -case' of infringement of the law and of the protection which it was its purpose to -afford to the producers of the genuine article -and to the consumers. And the worst feature of it is not in the advertisement; the inside recipe -tells clearly how -to make a quart, a gallon-, etc., of maple syrup.
I am glad to point out however that the department has already put its ban on this compound, -as may be seen -by the letters I shall now bring to your n-oti-ce.
The following letter from a wholesale firm in Calgary dated November 6, 1914, was sent to the -society of maple producers:



[Stage Direction]
Head office: 306 Ross Ave., Winnipeg,
Calgary, Alberta, Nov. 6, 1914.
To the Maple Sugar and Maple Syrup Producers Association, Montreal, Que.
Gentlemen,-
Enclosed please find copy of a letter received from the Department of Inland Revenue, concerning the use of the word "Mapleine".
It is contended here that this "Mapleine" is only used to impart a flavour of 'Maple Syrup. But as we are aware from the trade in restaurants that this article is put on the market

as a substitute for maple syrup, it may be that the above named manufacturers are right In claiming that the said article is merely an extract and is excluded from like articles which are protected under the Act.	.
We shall be glad to hear from you as to what you think of the matter.
Very truly yours,
W. Xi. Mackenzie & Co., Ltd.
W. W. Jackson,
Calgary, Alta.
Copy of a letter received from the Department of Inland Revenue, dated November 1914.
Re:	amendment to the adulteration Act
regarding maple syrup and sugar.
I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 27th October, and in reply must state that if the articles labelled "Mapleine" are not maple sugar and syrup, both perfectly pure, the word "Mapleine" must be left out, or else it constitutes a violation of both the spirit and letter of the adulteration act relating to maple syrup and sugar.
Tours truly,
(Sig.) P. E. Blondin.
I am ready to acknowledge bow good were the intentions of the Minister of Inland Revenue; yet I find that the " extract of Mapleine " is still for sale, as may be seen by this sample which was 'bought on January 14, 1916, that is 15 months later than the minister's letter, as well as by the advertisements which I have just mentioned offering that article for sale. With those facts brought to his notice I am sure the minister will see to putting a stop to the illegal practice.
Is the sugar industry such as to warrant our taking strict measures to ensure its development? I have no hesitation in saying we should do all in our power along those lines and I am sure I have the indulgence of the House in shortly expounding the outlook for the industry, as it is such as must induce the government to provide as much as in its power lies for the development of this. national industry, and the greatest inducement for our giving the matter serious consideration is the fact that this vast industry presents a vast field of development still unexploited. What I mean by a vast field of development is the magnitude of the area of maple forests in-Canada and particularly in Quebec as -compared with the very -small number of m-aple trees now worked -every spring.
The report goes that Canada has 55,000 sugarmen or people capable of producing maple sugar or syrup.
Of this incredible number, it has been established that -one thousand at the utmost are equipped -in a modern way for production. Suppose those 55,000 owners were to
work only ten acres each of -maple -bush, we should reach the splendid -area of 550,000 acres of maple bushes under exploitation. If we are right in estimating 100 trees to the acre, we reach a total of 55,000,000 trees. And just for the purpose of reasoning if we go on with our computation, we -may accept the statement of experts who state that a tree of ordinary size will yield enough sap to make two pounds of sugar, though some aTe found to yield more and seldom any to yield less. That would mean a total production of 110,000,000 pounds of sugar, which at 10 cents a pound, would net the splendid sum of $11,000,000. The province of Quebec alone would account for $7,150,000, since it produces 65 per cent of the actual output, and 35,000 of the 55,000 sugarmen found in the official census live in the province of Quebec.
I am willing for the -sake of -argument to cut -the figure in two and work from an average t>f 5 acres for each farmer or sugar bush -owner. The result would show 250 miles of bush, 55,000,000 pounds of suga^ valued at $5,500,000, with 5,500,000 gallons of syrup of equal value. Yet the total output of maple products in 1914 could be valued at $2,000,000. The census of 1910 fixed the figure for the province of Quebec at $1,680,000.
Now let us, for the sake of illustration, confine our di-scussion to a smaller area. The counties of 'Soulanges and Vaudreuil have in their area 459 sugar bushes or owners of sugar bushes. Of these 286 are in Vaudreuil and 173 in Soulanges. Yet I am not far from the truth when I state that at least 25 per cent of those bushes are not worked.	,
At the time of the census in 1910, -the output from the maple industry was estimated at $20,681.70 in Vaudreuil, -and $6,253.60 in iSoulanges. I Already had occasion to state that in 1914, 128 farmers of Vaudreuil obtained from the sugar and syrup crop $15,000, -quite a fair amount.
If we surveyed the area -in Vaudreuil where we account for 286 bushes and took it that each bush was worked to the extent of 10 -acres, then a-s figured out above there would be forthcoming -from the crop $57,200, that is $37,000 more than the census of 1910 -and, $42,000 more than the report of 1914. $57,200 for three week's work would average more than the dairy industry in six months. *
The county of Soulanges which has an area of 173 sugar bushes would share to the amount of $34,600 while the census of 1910
[Stage Direction]


estimates the output at barely $6,200; figures which must justify us in concluding that in a small area such as those two united counties, the sugar crop would yield from $90,000 to $100,000 for three week's work at the utmost. With such statistics before us, which are subject to slight flue-tuations, are we not forced to admit that the sugar industry is more [profitable than any other branch of farming, even the dairy industry?
There is yet another aspect which must not be overlooked: 75 per cent of the land where the maple tree grows, on account of its rocky nature, is unsuited to the growing of grain and the farmer is therefore unwise if he does not extract from it the yearly income which is right at hand.
To-day many turn their maple groves into fuel wood. The Government should put a stop to this improvident practice. I am ready to admit that a certain income is had for the time being. Where the land may afterwards grow grain, there may be some reason for such a practice, but if not, he who commits that folly is like the man who every year encroaches on his capital, instead of investing it and living on the income. A sugar bush on a farm is more profitable than a herd of cattle which must be fed during one season in order to give returns the next. The maple bush requires neither care, nor maintenance and when its season comes, it yields its product.
I will say also that it would be wise on the farmer's part in clearing his arable land to keep, if he can, a maple bush, as the maple is valuable not only for its sugar but for its excellent lumber, which can be put to a large number of uses.
If we look back, we cannot see that anything has been done in the past to develop this natural industry. Formerly on the farm, maple sugar .and syrup were made for family use and also as a relaxation in season. It was a tradition with us to have a " sugaring " in the early spring. A very small quantity of what was turned into sugar or syrup was put up for sale. As a matter of fact, sugar and syrup were made by a moTe or less primitive process, and the prices were not..at the time such as to urge to further production by means of better equipment.
Shgar statistics locate the sugar regions in Quebec, Ontario and the Maritime provinces. Quebec accounts for about two-thirds of the production. The statistics I have referred to go as far back as 1850, and from that date to 1860, Canada pro-

duced 135 millions of pounds of maple sugar, and from 1860 to 1870, 175 millions of pounds, an advance of 40 millions of pounds; from 1870 to 1880, 190 millions, an increase of 15 millions for that decade; from 1880 to 1890, 225 millions of pounds, an increase of 35 millions, but from 1890 to 1900, we only produced 212 millions, a decrease during that decade of 13 millions. And then, from 1900 to 1910, 196 millions, a further decrease of 16 millions during that decade. I think the reason for the difference must be found in the adulteration then prevalent.
Canada's population is on the increase and so the demand for more expensive goods, and' with a sufficient protection against the falsifier there is no reason why our industry should decline instead of advancing.
To-day the situation is completely changed, maple sugar and syrup have become expensive commodities. Their market price has doubled.
Why will the sugar industry give good returns if we seriously take to it?
First, because we are now protected by law.
Secondly, because we have schools which teach and supervise the process of sugar making.
Thirdly, because, outside of local markets, we have the American market, which will be free to us after the 1st of May and two new markets in Europe, one in England and one in France. The greatest enemy of the sugar industry was adulteration. The canning of the adulterated article marks the beginning of the decline of production and it is easy to follow the increase in the process of adulteration by the decrease in the production by the farmers themselves.
At last adulterated sugar and syrup held the market. The traders sold nothing but the spurious article and with it carried on a dishonest and most harmful competition against the absolutely pure product. Every gallon of pure syrup, which was sold at 50, 60 and 75 cents had cost the producer time, labour and wood, while every gallon of the adulterated goods which was sold for the [DOT]same price had cost hardly a sigh in time and money to the falsifiers.
Such conditions became unbearable. To go' on meant the destruction of our sugar industry, I should say our national industry, because if ever an industry deserves that name, that is it, since Canada is the only country in the world that produces maple sugar and syrup. Realiz-

ing the harm being done, I, as representative of a county interested in maple sugar and syrup, decided to give the alarm by bringing the question before the Dominion Parliament. Later on, in 1912, the executive of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association took a stand and protested vigorously against the adulteration of maple products. Afterwards, petitions were sent to the ministers of Inland Revenue and of Agriculture-one. of which is noteworthy as it contained 20,000 names-requesting energetic and immediate action. But, as is always the case when a government seeks a solution which will not be prejudicial to the various interests concerned, the movement made slow though relentless progress. We have at least this to say that since last year, that industry has made giant strides, through the action of Parliament and the co-operation of the hon. minister who introduced the well-known legislation. It may be remarked that it is not enough to have a vast field to exploit, but that a market is required. To this day the local market was almost the only one. There was little exportation of sugar. For five years, Canada exported about 8,685,000 pounds of maple sugar and 20,000 gallons of syrup. Of that amount of sugar, the United States received over 99 per cent, that is 8,642,000 and about one-half the -maple syrup, while six-sevenths of the other half were exported to Great Britain. The quantity of syrup exported is insignificant, 20,000 gallons altogether during the last five years, being equivalent to 80,000 pounds of sugar which is one-fiftieth of the total weight of the exported sugar or one-thirty-fifth of its value in money. Exports, then are relatively inconsiderable, when we keep in mind that during the same time the production of sugar was about 196,000,000 pounds every year.
Therefore there need be felt no apprehension as to having a market to dispose of the sugar, since there is already a local market, and when desired there can be found as many foreign markets as are necessary because maple syrup and sugar are made only in Canada and in the New England States, -and especially because tomorrow the adulterated' product will no more bb labeled maple syrup, and a stop will be put to the dishonest competition that was carried on heretofore.
Canada offers a ready market, the consumer will be sure of giving his money in exchange for pure maple sugar and syrup.
1.364
In 1914, the hon. Mr. Caron distributed through th© railway companies nearly
25.000	samples of pure maple sugar, which turned out to be a wonderful advertisement. From all over he received letters of congratulation and the merchants received orders.
It is feared by some that'the'protection which is sought for that natural product and which is likely to be granted by the Government will result in an increase in the price and therefore in a disadvantage to the consumer. -I think there is no grounds for such fears. I rather think that the result will be to lower the prices of all the syrups that overstock the markets today and which heretofore have been sold under -the name of maple syrup and sometimes pure maple syrup. Would the consumer be better off by leaving things as they are and paying the same price for the spurious goods and the real article? Even were pure maple sugar and syrup to rise in price, when the producer has bettered them, it would be only fair to the producer. At any rate, let a stop be put to the dishonest competition carried on heretofore, and the producers will be -satisfied with present prices so long as the consumption is confined to Canada. Besides the local market, we may successfully endeavour to reach foreign lands when we shall be producing in excess of the local demand.
In 1914, on Christmas eve, Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Connaught, wife of the Governor General of Canada, had -a small box of maple sugar distributed to every Canadian soldier at the front. That gift, when it was exhibited in a large store in London, was greatly admired. The result is that orders for -several tons of sugar -have come from London, the largest city of England.
Not only England wants our sugar but there has -come an order for 45 tons or
90.000	pounds from a -single merchant in France. Lately I received from Chicago an order for 25,000 pounds of maple sugar in one-pound loaves, and the peculiar fact is that they wanted it of a rather yellow colour, as they wished to label it over -there " Golden." I answered immediately that I was neither a dealer in nor a producer of maple sugar, but I would hand over their order to one who could certainly satisfy them.
My conclusion is -that our sugar industry has a splendid outlook and if we would develop it, the Government must by all
[Stage Direction]
means see that the law is enforced and, on the other hand, the producers must put up a better article to satisfy the people.
Our butter and cheese making has been perfected so as to secure better prices, and to-day nobody is sorry. That is due to the many efforts -of the various agriculture department's who deserve to be congratulated on the result. The same thing must be done by them towards the sugar industry; they must see to spreading the knowledge of the best methods of manufacture,! so that the sugar industry may become a source of revenue for the farmer.
Mr. L.AFORTUNE (Translation): Mr. Speaker, I took part in the discussion concerning this measure, when it was first introduced and enacted. At that time I congratulated the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Blondin) on what he had accomplished for the farmers.
As representative of an agricultural district where .much maple sugar and syrup is made, it is incumbent on me to see that my electors are protected to the 'fullest extent and so I concur heartily in all that has just been said by the hon. member for Vaudreuil, the apostle of th-e maple sugar industry in the province of Quebec. He has done much good work; he is president of a most important association. He has been and is unsparing in his efforts for the welfare of the farmers as a class and more particularly of his electors.
When I see a newspaper of the importance and quality of the Montreal Daily Star advertising adulterated goods, I appeal to the hon. minister as a protection for us to put a stop to the practice if he has the power under the law. If the law doe3 not meet the case, it is imperative that it should be amended, so as to prohibit advertisements of that kind, .likely to deceive the public and depreciate the true article. It is a great fraud on the public and if the statute does not go that far, I should ask the minister to make a note of my suggestion and of that of the hon. member for Vaudreuil and take the necessary measures to prevent such advertisements.
Any kind of syrup, may toe advertised, but the word ''maple" should not be used. The hon. minister who introduced that Bill inserted in the statute that no one could use the word. That affords a good protection and I should ask the hon. minister to follow the example of his predecessor and to do all he can on behalf of the farmers.

Of course, a greater protection would be secured. There is yet much room for reform along those lines.
I fully agree with the remarks of the hon. member for Vaudreuil and I insist on behalf of the country people I represent, that adequate protection should be secured against adulteration.
Esioff-Léon Patenaude: The lion.-member for Vaudreuil is right in giving so much attention to that truly Canadian industry. Nobody need fear ail overplus in. the production of maple sugar and syrup. The large number of imitations show clearly that there is a market for all that the farmers can produce. The department will certainly see that the law is enforced as rigorously as possible and will endeavour to do away with all imitations. Many prosecutions have taken place already under the Act, and all may rest assured that no effort will be spared to provide that profitable industry with every possible safeguard. In such a protection we have at the same time a means of reforestation which'is as advantageous to. the country as the [DOT] sugar industry itself.


Gustave Benjamin Boyer: Has the hon. minister- at hand some report giving the number of inspections .made since 1915?


Esioff-Léon Patenaude: The department has issued a bulletin', No. 304, containing the number of inspections made. In it, I see that the inspectors have collected 234 samples, - and further on, I find a report of the analysis of the different .samples. I can let the hon. member ha've a copy, if he cares.
Mr. BOYlER (Translation):	Are	the
officers entrusted with that work, special inspectors, or have they something else to do?


Esioff-Léon Patenaude: They are officers appointed by the department as food inspectors. They take up those samples for analysis at the department laboratory.


Edmond Proulx: Has	the
department been dbliged to prosecute any one?


Esioff-Léon Patenaude: There was a large number of .prosecutions. Thus I see by the list before me that from 30 to 40 persons were summoned with regard to maple sugar. I must state that we prosecuted every time there was a complaint.

Air. PROUiLX (Translation): Was there a conviction in each case?


Esioff-Léon Patenaude: A number of cases are still 'pending and from the list before me I gather that there was a conviction in every case where a judgment intervened.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has the fine been paid?


Esioff-Léon Patenaude: Yes.


Gustave Benjamin Boyer: Once more I beg to call the minister's attention to the letter I have read from Calgary. His predecessor (Mr. Blondin) had stated: It is not permitted to put the word "maple" on any article which is not pure, especially an article like "mapleine." That is the kind of practice we want to stop as it is through the sale of such articles in hotels and on boats that the producers of the genuine article suffer most. I see no objection whatever to any compounded article, but let the word "maple" be taken off their labels. The Act is quite clear as to that and the ex-Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Blondin) put it quite plainly.


David Arthur Lafortune: I believe that even to advertise it and offer it for sale is prohibited.


Esioff-Léon Patenaude: I shall make inquiries and whenever the law can be enforced I shall deal sternly with such cases.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would suggest, as the attendance is slim, but as some other members may wish to discuss matters arising from the estimates of the Minister of Inland Revenue, that this item be allowed to stand, with the understanding that under it 'any item in the minister's estimates may be discussed.


Robert Rogers: The Secretary of State
is anxious to go on.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is pretty late.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Rogers, the House ad-, journed at 12.15 a.m Saturday.
Monday, March 27, 1916.