1917-06-15

PROCEEDINGS OF IMPERIAL WAR CONFERENCE, 1917.


Right Hon.   S@: I beg to lay upon the table of the House a despatch from the Right Hon. the Secretary of State for the Colonies to His Excellency the Governor General, transmitting copies of a parliamentary paper containing extracts from the minutes of the proceedings of the Imperial War Conference, 1917, and papers laid before the conference. If my right hon. friend has no objection, I would move:
That rule 74 he suspended in order that the documents so laid upon the table of the House be printed forthwith for the information of the members.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: I have no objection.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon.   S@: With the consent of the House, it might be

appropriate for me to read in this connection the announcement in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom by the Prime Minister with respect to the holding of an Imperial War Cabinet during the present year, and the proposal that it should be held annually in future. That announcement would not be readily available unless it is placed in Hansard, and as the announcement is of some importance, I think it might be well to record it in that way. The report reads:
Mr. McKenna:	May I ask the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make in regard to the Imperial War Cabinet?
The Prime Minister (Mr. Lloyd George) :
I think that I ought to report to the House a very important decision that was arrived at as a sequel to the recent meetings of the Imperial War Cabinet. It is desirable that Parliament should be officially and formally acquainted with an event that will constitute a memorable landmark in the Constitutional History of the British Empire. The House will remember that in December last His Majesty's Government invited the Prime Ministers or leading statesmen of the Overseas Dominions and of India to attend the sittings both of the Cabinet and of an Imperial War Conference to be held in this country. It is to the former body which assembled In March, and held fourteen sittings before separating, that I desire to refer. The British Cabinet became for the time being an Imperial War Cabinet. While it was in session, its overseas members had access to all the information which was at the disposal of His Majesty's Government, and occupied a status of absolute equality with that of the members of the British War Cabinet. It had prolonged discussions on all the most vital aspects of Imperial policy, and came to important decisions in regard to them-decisions which will enable us to prosecute the war with increased unity and vigour, and which will be of the greatest value when it comes to the negotiations of peace. I should like to add on be-ha'f of the Government that the fresh minds and new points of view which our colleagues from over the seas have brought to bear upon the problems with which we have been so long engrossed, has been an immense help to us all. So far as we are concerned we can say with confidence that the experiment has been a complete success.
The conclusions of the Imperial War Cabinet are of necessity secret, but there is one aspect of them which we feel ought to be communicated to the House without delay. The Imperial War Cabinet was unanimous that the new procedure had been of such service, not only to all its members, but to the Empire, that it ought not to be allowed to fall into desuetude. Accordingly, at the last session, I proposed formally on behalf of the British Government that meetings of an Imperial Cabinet should be held annually or at any intermediate time when matters of urgent Imperial concern require to be settled, and that the Imperial Cabinet should consist of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and such of his colleagues as deal specially with Imperial affairs; of the Prime Minister of each of the Dominions or some specially
accredited alternate possessed of equal authority: and of a representative of the Indian people to be appointed by the Government ot India. This proposal met with the cordial approval of. the overseas representatives and we hope that the holding of an annual Imperial Cabinet to discuss foreign affairs and other aspects of Imperial policy, will become an accepted convention of the British Constitution.
I ought to add that the institution in its present form is extremely elastic. It grew not by design, but out of the necessities of the war. The essence of it is that the responsible heads of the Governments of the Empire with those ministers who are specially entrusted with the conduct of Imperial policy should meet together at regular intervals to confer about foreign policy and matters connected therewith, and come to decisions in regard to them, which, subject to the control of their own Parliaments, they will then severally execute. By this means they will be able to obtain full information about all aspects of Imperial affairs and to determine, by consultation together the policy of the Empire in its most vital aspects, without infringing in any degree the autonomy which its parts at present enjoy. To what constitutional developments this may lead we did not attempt to settle. The whole question of perfecting the mechanism for continuous consultation about Imperial and foreign affairs between the autonomous nations of an Imperial Commonwealth will be reserved for the consideration of that special conference which will be summoned as soon as possible after the war to readjust the constitutional relations of the Empire. We felt, however, that the experiment of constituting an Imperial Cabinet, in which India was represented, had been so fruitful in better understanding and in unity of purpose and action that it ought to be perpetuated and we believe that this proposal will commend itself to the judgment of all the nations of the Empire.


Mr. DEVLIN:: Was there any discussion as to what would be the best form to be adopted in prosecuting the war for a concerted action on the part of the different Dominions beyond the seas?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: The institution of the Imperial Cabinet itself was entered upon with the view that the consultation thus brought about would result in greater unity of purpose and in more effective cooperation.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Was any decision reached by the members of that Committee or Cabinet as to what concerted action should be taken by the Dominions beyond the seas?
, Sir ROBERT BORDEN: No special consideration beyond what I have already explained on another occasion was given to any matter of that kind. The deliberations were of a general character with regard to the conduct of the war and the task that had to be accomplished, and the best means of fulfilling that task.



CANADIAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE.


Hon. A. E. KEMP (Minister of Militia):: The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) asked the number of Canadian troops in England, the number in France and the number in Canada. The answer is as follows:
1.	On the 4th June, 1917, there were 136,400 troops (all ranks) in France; there were also 747 in the Near East, and 130 at St. Lucia.
2.	On the 4th June, 1917, there were 108,736 troops (all ranks) in England-not counting those in hospitals and convalescent homes, but counting those on passage from Canada to England.
Of the foregoing total, however, only 26,000 men were immediately available for reinforcing purposes.
3.	On the 1st June, 1917, there were 17,353 C.E.P. troops (all ranks) in Canada.
I have a document illustrating the manner in which troops are classified in England, dated 14th May, 1917. I shall lay about sixty copies of it on the table of the House for the use of members.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: Would it be possible to have this statement giving the clasification of Canadian troops inserted in Hansard as part of the hon. gentleman's remarks this afternoon? These sheets are destructible, while if this were placed on Hansard it would be available for all time.


Robert Laird Borden: There is no objection to that! With the consent of the House, it will be embodied in Hansard.


Wilfrid Laurier: I presume the Speaker will direct accordingly.


Mr. SPEAKER:: If it would meet the
wishes of the House, I think it would be preferable if the motion were made to have this statement printed as a separate return. I think the custom of placing documents on Hansard should be curtailed as much as possible. I do not press the point, but simply make the suggestion.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am quite
agreeable.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: With the consent of the House, Mr. Maclean of Halifax moves, seconded by Mr. Guthrie, that Rule 74 be suspended, and that this statement be printed forthwith.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Hon. CHARLES MURPHY:: In connection with a statement of the Prime Minister a few days ago in which he mentioned the number of Canadian casualties I think

about 100,000, I do not recall that the right hon. gentleman stated how many of these may have returned to the treuches as efficient fighting men.


Robert Laird Borden: No, I did not.


Charles Murphy: Can such a statement
as that be prepared?


Robert Laird Borden: I could not say, but I shall ask the Minister of Militia to give his attention to it. Some of them undoubtedly have returned.


Charles Murphy: I submit that that information is necessary before we enter upon the discussion of the right hon. gentleman's Conscription Bill. I would ask the minister to bring down a statement showing the number of men struck off the strength as being medically unfit, either in Canada or in England, all of whom, I understand, may possibly have been rated -as casualties at one -time or -another. That information I understand is necessary in order to apprehend the numbers of men in different classes.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not understand that persons struck off in that way are included in the casualties I mentioned.


Charles Murphy: Not as mentioned by
the right hon. gentleman, but I understand that any man who, by reason of illness or some other -cause, is considered medically unfit and as so is regarded as imparing the fighting strength of the force, is rate" as a casualty, although he may return very soon to the ranks.


Albert Edward Kemp: I will get the information, so far as possible.



DAYLIGHT SAVING BILL.

[Stage Direction]
Sir GEORGE FOSTER moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 82 to provide for the time in Canada being in advance of the solar mean time during the summer months.
Wilfrid Laurier: Would my right hon. friend explain?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: The explanation is simple: the purpose of the Bill is to have the clock advanced one hour and thus gain an hour of daylight during specified times in the season.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Within what
months?


George Eulas Foster: By proclamation of the Governor in Council. We cannot predate the Bill in respect of time which is passed, but September is the time which is contemplated in the autumn.


Mr. MACDONALD:: The subject is one of some interest ,and the minister's explanation has not been very full.


George Eulas Foster: I shall give a full explanation of it on the motion for the next reading of the Bill.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is the Bill to apply to the year 1917 or the year 1918?


George Eulas Foster: The Bill is for 1917.



SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH COUNCIL.

[Stage Direction]
Sir GEORGE FOSTER moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 83, relating to the Honorary Advisory Council for Scientific and Industrial Research.
Wilfrid Laurier: Will the minister kindly explain?


George Eulas Foster: This Bill provides in statutory form for the constitution and powers and duties of the Advisory Council, which now rests upon Order in Council. It follows entirely the Order in Council which has already been brought down.



WESTERN COAL MINERS STRIKE.

[Stage Direction]
On'the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. E. KNOWLES (Moosejaw):: What can the Minister of Labour tell us with regard to the progress being made in settling the western coal miners' strike? I observe an item in the press this morning to the effect that the hon. member for Kootenay (Mr. Green) will return unsuccessful. What has the minister to report about the mission of that hon. member?


Mr. CROTHERS:: I received a message from Calgary this morning stimulating the hope that an agreement may be very soon
concluded.



IMMIGRATION OFFICERS AT WINDSOR.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington) :: Has the Minister of the Interior
heard of any difficulty at the frontier at Windsor, Ontario, in regard to immigration? Information comes to me that the mayor of Windsor has lodged a complaint in regard to the action of J. G. Gardner, special immigration officer, who is charged with using violent and abusive language, and with doing real injury to Canada by his harsh administration of the law, which has the effect of driving American residents at Windsor back to Detroit, and is
calculated 'to injure the Canadian summer resorts in that locality. On account of the [DOT] action of Mr. Gardner, conditions are not very pleasant at Windsor.


Hon. W. J. ROCHE:: A telegram has
been received from Dr. Walker, president of the Chamber of Commerce at Windsor, not complaining of Mr. Gardner especially, but of the too drastic action of some outside officials who were sent to Windsor. Owing to the rush backward and forward between Windsor and Detroit, we have had to 6end some additional officers to control the exit from Canada, and' we employed a few returned soldiers, and complaint has been made in regard to the conduct of these soldiers. We have instructed our inspector to proceed to Windsor immediately to investigate.



THE MILITARY SERVICE ACT, 1917.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Robert Laird Borden: The hon. leader of the Opposition has requested that we should not move the second reading of the Military Service Bill this week, and I assented to the request. It has been - suggested that we should let the second reading stand till Tuesday next, but, with every desire to meet the hon. gentleman's convenience as far as possible, I think it would be better to proceed with the Bill on Monday, if possible. I purpose, therefore, to take it up as the first order of business on Monday.



HON. ROBERT ROGERS.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Wilfrid Laurier: I inquired yesterday with regard to the proceedings of the McLeod-Tellier Commission. I read a statement in the press that the commission was sitting in Montreal. Is that correct?


Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) :: Yes, I believe the commission has commenced its work in Montreal.


Wilfrid Laurier: Are the sittings public or private?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The right hon. gentleman will, perhaps, recollect that, under the commission, the first duty imposed on the commissioners was to examine the reports and the evidence, with a view to determining whether there was evidence to justify the observations in the report with regard to the Hon. Mr. Rogers. That operation, of

course, involves an examination of the reports and a study of the record, and I understand the commissioners are occupied in that work at the present time. In the nature of things, that work could not be done in public.


Wilfrid Laurier: Is it the intention that the further sittings of the commission shall be conducted in public or in private, and will counsel be allowed to appear before the commission?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I would assume that if, upon the question which comes first irf order, as to whether there is evidence to justify the report, the commissioners should be of opinion that the assistance of counsel will be useful, they might, either on their own motion, or on the application of anybody who desires to be represented, permit the appearance of counsel. I am not aware that they have yet come to deal with that question. If I were called upon to express my opinion, I should think it would be a proper thing that a hearing of that kind should be held in public. If the commission should find it necessary to proceed with the additional inquiry which they are empowered to make, in the event of their reaching the conclusion that there is evidence to support the report-with regard to which they might think it necessary to hear further evidence for the purpose of determining its truth or otherwise-I should think, though I am not speaking on their behalf, or giving their view, because I have had no communication with them, that it would be a proper thing that such an inquiry should be held in public.



STEAMSHIP' SERVICE BETWEEN RIVI-ERE-DU-LOUP AND THE NORTH SHORE.

[Stage Direction]
On tire Orders of the Day:
Mr. JOS. 'GIRARD (.Ohicoutimi-S ague-nav) (translation) : Mr. Speaker, before taking up the Orders of the Day, I desire to give a few personal explanations on some remarks that were made in this House on the 13th of June, and in which my name was mentioned, in connection with an item of 80,000 for a steamboat service between Rivi-erekiu-Loup, Tadoussac, etc. In the course of his remarks on that occasion, the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Gau-vreau) used the following words:
But, unfortunately, polities carried weight even in so serious a matter as this. In 1912, Mr. BfirubS was elected to the Local Legislature for Temiscouata and he happens to be a Conservative. Being unfriendly to the management of the company, he started at once

to oppose it. Then, there was the hon. member for Chicoutimi and Saguenay (Mr. Girard), a Conservative member on the North Shore. With these two warring against it, it is no wonder that the poor company was killed. The contract with that company was cancelled, and a contract was made with the Quebec and Levis Ferry Boat Company.
I wish to state to the House that my hon. friend's reference to me is utterly groundleSiS and contrary to the facts.
The hon. member for Temiscouata is aware that at the request of the TransSt. Lawrence Company I went to the cost of a trip to Fraserville in order to meet the officers of the company at the house of Dr. Perrot himself, who was, I surmise, president of the company, with a view to discussing the means of forestalling what did happen later on, the condemning of the boat by the Government officials. The meeting prepared a statement which I forwarded myself to the minister strongly urging its favourable consideration, I really did all I could to get the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) to comply with their request, but he could not see his way to do it because it would entail an expenditure much greater than the ' appropriation. Some time later the Government officers pronounced the boat unfit for service naturally without my being advised or having any control over the matter. The company refused to put on another boat, and the Minister of Trade found that he could make arrangements with the company previously referred to, The Quebec and Levis Ferry Boat Company, who took over the contract which the Trans-St. Lawrence Company could not carry out. An accident happened, true, but the new company put another boat on the line until the expiry of the contract. I think it only fair to state that the accident referred to could have happened to the Mahone, which had less power.
The member for Temiscouata further stated that the second boat was wrecked in St. Catherine's bay, I fail to see where he got that information, as no such thing ever took place.
Later on, the Government called for tenders for that service; tenders were put in but all for a larger amount than the appropriation.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I regret to have to interrupt the hon. member, but in making a personal explanation he should adhere as closely as possible to the statement complained of.


Mr. GIRARD:: I am just about finishing, Mr. Speaker.

The minister always refused to consider any increase of the subsidy because at the present time the Government does not wish to incur new expenditure. Jointly with the Government I tried in every possible way to meet the needs of that district, of both the counties of Temiscouata and Saguenay, but up to date, we have been unable to find a man or a company who cared to take up the contract for the amount of the subsidy.
Such are the facts, and I wish to deny most emphatically the imputation against me of the hon. member for Temiscouata, namely that party politics are responsible for the failure of the company.
I, for one, and my constituency, are above such petty tactics; as to what is the rule with him, I have no idea and leave him to settle the matter with his own electors.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Bainville in the Chair.
Legislation-House of Commons, salaries, etc., $449,412.50.
["It was stated during the progress of the Estimates of the other ministers that, wherever possible, it was the policy of the Government to appoint returned soldiers to all vacant positions. This recommendation of the minister was made within the last month or two, since he took charge of the Department of Inland Revenue. Since that time there must have been available a large number of returned soldiers who are professional men, or men of ability .and education, and who could perform the duties pertaining to such positions as the one in question. May I inquire, therefore, if the minister is following up the announced policy of the Government in the matter of appointing returned soldiers? Did he make inquiries with a view to finding out whether a returned soldier could be obtained to fill this important position, to which is attached a salary of $2,800?\t.\nAt six o'clock the House resumed, and then took recess.\nAfter Recess.\nThe House resumed at eight o'clock."]
Mr.   SPEAKEE@: There is a reduction of $4,387.50 under the heading of salaries. This is largely accounted for by the fact that there is no Clerk of Eoutine and Eecords, the work of that office being performed by the former assistant, who still holds the rank of Assistant Clerk of Eoutine and Eecords. So far as I can ascertain, the work of the office is being satisfactorily performed by the present staff, and unless some good reason arises for an additional appointment, this saving may be continued indefinitely. Further, according to the Civil Service regulation, the salary of the Assistant Clerk begins at a certain figure and increases by increments of $100 a year. His salary, therefore, is not as large as was the salary of the Assistant Clerk whom he succeeded. These two items account largely, if not entirely, for the reduction.


Mr. OLIVEE:: The reduction in this vote is a temptation to us to appoint a permanent Speaker. A reduction of this amount in the expenses of the House at the hands of our Speaker is, in my view, a strong recommendation for the continuance of that gentleman in office.
Mr. MAECIL; Could the Speaker give us an explanation of the circumstances under which the Chief French Translator, Mr. Laframboise, was superannuated?


Mr.   SPEAKEE@: That was done before
I took office, and I am not familiar with the circumstances. If the hon. member
wishes me to do so, I sha'l make careful inquiry and advise him later.


Mr. MAECIL:: I understand that Mr. Laframboise is still in splendid health, quite capable of doing his work, and probably as efficient as ever. Can the Speaker tell us who replaced him, and what changes were made in the office?


Mr.   SPEAKEE@: Mr. Desaulniers, next
in rank, was promoted to the position formerly occupied by Mr. Laframboise. I must make further inquiry before I can give my hon. friend a satisfactory answer.
Legislation-General, $346,600.


Mr.   SPEAKEE@: There are two increases here, one of $6,000 and another of $2,000. They arise solely on account of the increased cost .of paper and of printing, larger sums being required to do slightly less work and to furnish less supplies than in former years. Further, the stock was considerably depleted by the fire.


Frank Oliver: Would it not be possible for the Speaker to appeal to the Minister ,of Finance for a restriction on the high price of paper, so that this estimate might show the same good tendency towards reduction as the previous one?


Mr.   SPEAKEE@: These items come from the office of the Secretary of State. My information is that the Speaker has never been responsible in any degree for their *amount. To be perfectly candid, I never saw these items until they appeared in the Estimates.


Frank Oliver: It might be a good idea
to suggest that this vote be placed under the control of the Speaker in the future.


Mr.   SPEAKEE@: The work under this
vote is done by the Printing Bureau, which, as the hon. member knows, has always been under the Secretary of State; and which accounts for this item appearing in the Estimates as coming from that branch of the Government. It is somewhat of an anomaly, I must admit, that work for which, the Speaker is not responsible should appear in the Estimates in this way.


Frank Oliver: In this and the preceding item the Speaker has been able to effect a substantial reduction, but as soon as we pass to an item not under his control the cost increases. It almost looks as if the Department of Public Printing and Stationery were trying to put one over the House of Commons and the Speaker, and I would respectfully suggest that in the future this item be placed under the control of his

Honour, so that he may deal with the department from an independent standpoint and secure the same measure of economy and efficiency he has brought about in other departments under his control. There-is no reason why the House of Commons should allow the Department of Public Printing and Stationery to take advantage of circumstances.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I shall send a marked
copy of Hansard containing my hon. friend's remarks to the chairman of the special committee which has now under consideration means whereby a saving in the expenses of Parliament may be effected.


Frank Oliver: Hear, hear.
Post Office-Outside service-Salaries and allowances, $8,447,264.25.


Wilfrid Laurier: The Prime
Minister spoke to me yesterday with reference to this department, and I thought there would be no objection to going on with the Estimates, provided the right were reserved to us of making a motion on going into Supply on a Thursday or Friday, but as most hon. gentlemen on this side of the House who are particularly interested in these Estimates are absent, not knowing they were to come up, I wish the Government would go on with some other Estimates.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The Minister of Inland Revenue is ready to go on.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have no objection, providing that we can claim one Thursday or Friday on which to make a motion on going into Committee of Supply.
Civil Government, Department of Inland Revenue-Salaries, $180,412.50 ; contingencies, $22,000.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Does this cover increases in wages for any of the employees of the department?


Hon. ALBERT SEVIGNY (Minister of Inland Revenue):: Yes.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: What classes of employees will receive increases?


Albert Sévigny: All classes receive the statutory increase.


Charles Marcil: Do the statutory increases account for the whole of the increase of $7,162.50 in the vote for salaries?


Albert Sévigny: No, we have three or
four new appointments.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There are five, according to the Estimates.


Albert Sévigny: Yes.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Who are they?


Albert Sévigny: Three stenographers, one analyst, and one clerk.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Here we have an increase of over $7,200, in war time, when we ought to economize. I understand that the consumption of liquor, the inland revenue taxes upon which are collected by the department, has greatly decreased. What, then, justifies this increased expenditure?


Albert Sévigny: In the Inland Revenue Department we economize as much as possible, but one result of the war is to increase our necessary expenditure. Laws have been passed by Parliament for the collection of special revenue, and to administer these laws we must have more employees


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What laws?


Albert Sévigny: I refer especially to the War Revenues Act of 1914; and it is for the administration of that law that more employees are required.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In what way?


Albert Sévigny: Three stenographers, one analyst, and one clerk.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What has the analyst to do with the War Revenues Act?


Albert Sévigny: The analyst, I understand, has nothing to do with the War Revenues Act.


Charles Marcil: Whom does the analyst
replace?


Albert Sévigny: Mr. Kitto, who has been in the department for the last four years, and who is to be promoted.


Charles Marcil: The work of the department must havte been considerably curtailed by reason of the wave of prohibition which has passed over the country and the laws to restrict the liquor traffic that have been passed in seven out of the nine provinces. Does not that make possible a decrease in the number of employees of the department?


Albert Sévigny: I think the department
will have to reduce its outside employees in many of the provinces.


Charles Marcil: And will there be no reduction in the Inside Service?


Albert Sévigny: Yes, in some cases.


Charles Marcil: Could the minister state in what case6?


Albert Sévigny: We have dispensed with the services of seven or eight men in Ontario alone, so far.


Charles Marcil: What about Quebec?


Albert Sévigny: In Quebec, we still have the liquor traffic, and it is not possible to dispense with employees there.


Charles Marcil: As a matter of fact, have not the employees been increased last year and the year before.


Albert Sévigny: Yes, in Montreal. The district of Montreal under my department is the largest in Canada. In that district we collect over $10,000,000 a year, which is more than we collect in all the other districts of Canada combined. We have been compelled to increase the number of our employees in the district of Montreal.


Charles Marcil: Could the minister give
us the names of the new appointments? Or I would ask that later if he would prefer it


Albert Sévigny: I would prefer that.
Meantime I will get the names from the department.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I would suggest that the minister should stick to the item before us, which is the vote for the Inside Service for his department. In his Excise Branch, he has added two employees with an additional charge for salaries of $2,588 a year. In his Laboratory Branch, he has three new employees with an addition of $3,750. Then under the head of contingencies, he has an increase of $1,900 for printing and stationery, and $100 for clerical assistance. I would like the minister to take up each of these branches and explain who has been added to the staff, and why. He tells us generally that the increase is on account of the War Revenues Act. That,
I suppose, means the collection of stamps*. But that does not seem to me any particular reason for adding to the number of the Inside Service. Every minister except the hon. gentleman himself has decreased his Estimates, while he has made an increase of nearly $10,000.


Albert Sévigny: As to The increase of
$100 for clerical service, I am told by my deputy minister that that is only to make a round figure.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Why did you not
make it "three hundred," it would look just as pretty?


Albert Sévigny: I admit that, but that would be more than sufficient for our requirements.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What about the
$6,000 for printing and stationery?


Albert Sévigny: In some of the departments the expenditure has been reduced, but the Customs Department and my department, since the war broke out, have been called upon to supply a large amount of money to the Government, and our revenues have increased to a large extent. In my department, as in every other business, when affairs are prosperous and we are making money, we have to spend more money. We require more stationery on account of the new laws which have been passed and the new revenues which we have to collect.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The Customs Department is not asking any more for printing than they did last year, and it is making more money than your department.


Albert Sévigny: I suppose the Customs Department had everything it wanted before. The other item, $12,000, is the same as it was last year.


Mr. E. LAPOINTE:: I saw in a newspaper the other day that Mr. Raoul Renault of Quebec had been appointed an accountant in the Department of Inland Revenue. Is that true?


Albert Sévigny: No, Mr. Raoul Renault was recommended for the position, and the Civil Service Commission refused to give him a certificate.


Ernest Lapointe: Did the minister recommend Mr. Renault himself?


Albert Sévigny: I thought that Mr. Renault was perfectly qualified for the position, and I made the recommendation, but the Civil Service Commission refused to accept him.


Ernest Lapointe: I suppose the recommendation made by the minister of Mr. Renault does not mean that he endorses Mr. Renault's ideas as expressed in his newspaper in Quebec with regard to recruiting and other matters relating to the war?


Albert Sévigny: I do not know Mr. Renault's opinions on the war. I know that on many occasions he has condemned some papers of our province for the expressions of opinion on the war, and from what I can gather, Mr. Renault is willing to support every measure submitted by the Government to aid the Allies in this war.


Ernest Lapointe: Did the minister
read Mr. Renault's paper, Le Franc Par-leur, last year?


Albert Sévigny: No.


Ernest Lapointe: 1 know that Mr. Renault, especially with regard to the recruiting of the 171st Regiment, under the command of Sir William Price, had very violent articles against that officer, and strongly advised people not to enlist, at least in that regiment.


Albert Sévigny: I am not surprised at that because Mr. Renault and Sir William Price are not very good friends; in fact, they are the reverse; but if any attacks were made by Mr. Renault upon Sir William Price, I do not think the Minister of Inland Revenue is responsible for that. Sir William Price is a good friend of mine; he has my admiration, and when he was raising his regiment, I endeavoured to assist him. Now, my hon. friend can put any more question about Mr. Renault, but that gentleman is not appointed, and the Civil Service Commission having refused to give him a certificate, he will not be appointed.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Blain):: Shall the item be carried?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Richard Blain: Section 5 of rule 13 states that:
Speeches in Committee of the Whole must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
I do not consider that these statements come under that rule.


Frank Oliver: Are we not discussing an item relating to salaries of the department of which the minister is head?


Richard Blain: Yes.


Frank Oliver: And is not this discussion relating to the merits of appointments to that department?


Richard Blain: The item before the committee is "Department of Inland Revenue, salaries, $180,412.50, and contingencies, $22,000." Speeches in Committee of the Whole must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration. 1 do not think that a discussion on statements in regard to Mr. Renault's opinion on the w'ar published in his newspaper would come within the rule. I understand the minister to say that the gentleman spoken of is not in the emplby of the Government.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The minister said that he recommended Mr. Renault.


Frank Oliver: Inasmuch as this is an item covering salaries in the Department of Inland Revenue, the appointment of men to serve in that department is necessarily pertinent to the discussion of the appropriation. In regard to the gentleman under discussion, I understand from the minister that he considered him a suitable person for employment in the department, and that, as a matter of fact, he did appoint him, but that his appointment was not confirmed by the Civil Service Commission. The point taken by my hon. friend from Kamouraska, as I understood it, and certainly the point that I would wish to take, was that a gentleman, who is the editor of a newspaper and who uses that paper during this time of war for discouraging efforts towards the winning of the war, is not a suitable person to be recommended by the minister for a salaried position under this Government, and we take exception to the minister's recommendation of that gentleman for that position.


Albert Sévigny: Mr. Renault was not appointed by me; he was recommended by me. It is true that a certain paper, Le Franc Parleur, was published in the city of Qu ebec.


Frank Oliver: What is the translation of that name?


Charles Marcil: The Plain Speaker.


Albert Sévigny: In my judgment, it was certainly regrettable to have in that paper, especially during this crisis, certain articles, and to put an end to that, I thought it would be a good thing to close the paper.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: To give him a good
job.


Albert Sévigny: Not necessarily a good
job, but at the same time it would be in the public interest if papers like Le Franc Parleur or La Liberte at Montreal or some other papers were closed at the present time and if such papers


Ernest Lapointe: Are you going to
give him a job too?


Albert Sévigny: No, if I give him a job it will be in jail.


William Erskine Knowles: Perhaps he is not yet
thirty years of age, he may be a young man.


Albert Sévigny: Perhaps. Mr. Renault
was mentioned for a position in my depart-

ment, not a new position, but that of accountant, which is vacant, and I can assure my hon. friend that I made that recommendation especially for one reason. I owed nothing to Mr. Renault, but I thought that it would be a good thing if such a paper could be put out of existence in this crisis.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Hear, hear, instead
of putting him in jail-


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Make Bourassa a deputy minister.


Frank Oliver: I should like to draw the minister's attention to the fact that there are other means of dealing with newspapers which make improper references at this particular time. I have in mind a newspaper at Sault Ste. Marie which was suppressed by the authorities because of the character of its utterances, although I have no knowledge of the nature of those utterances. It is certainly a somewhat remarkable fact that at Sault Ste. Marie a newspaper is suppressed because of its utterances, and in the favoured locality that my hon. friend has the honour to represent, in a general if not in a particular way, such utterances are suppressed by appointment to a Government position, or by recommendation for a Government position, at, I presume, a fair salary. That appears to me to be such a wide difference of treatment between parallel instances that it surely cannot be allowed to pass without unfavourable comment at the hands of this Parliament.


Albert Sévigny: First, perhaps, it would be better to know what the utterances of the paper in Quebec were. Perhaps there was some animosity between Mr. Renault and Sir William Price, but, as I said at first, I think that Mr. Renault, since the beginning of this war, has always been well disposed to do everything possible to help the Allies, and I do not think that paper, La Franc Parleur, ever criticised our participation in this war. Perhaps some articles in that paper tvere not in the public interest, especially in the city of Quebec. I do not know if they were written by Mr. Renault or by some other man.


Mr. COPP:: He would be responsible for them if they were in his paper.


William Erskine Knowles: Along what lines did
the articles proceed?


Richard Blain: I am going to ask the committee to assist the Chair in keeping somewhere near the subject before the committee. I am sure hon. gentlemen will do that.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The committee, of course, desire to keep within the rules, and we will not refuse to abide by the ultimate decision of the Chair; but the ruling should at least be fair. We are simp'y discussing what is the policy of the department.


Richard Blain: Does my hon. friend say that the ruling is not fair?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, I do not say it is not fair. We are now discussing the policy of the department in respect to the appointment of officials. The minister has declared, in a fair manner, that it is his policy to bring into the service persons engaged! in newspaper work who might possibly be charged with writing seditious articles. Apparently it is the minister's policy that it is in the interest of the country to withdraw these dangerous men from their profession and put them into the public service. If a man is engaged in a dangerous propaganda in these days, in newspaper work, it is a question of policy, a fair question of argument for the committee to decide whether the policy of the department is right or wrong, and whether such men should be introduced into the public service. The salaries of the department are being voted, and surely it is a fair thing for us on this side to say that the minister has enunciated a very improper policy. Some men would argue, and with fairness I think, that if a man is engaged in writing seditious articles in the press he should be prosecuted or should be put in jail. The minister says: I will take them into the service and let them become servants of the King. I submit that that is a fair mattter for discussion, and I say that the policy of the minister is wrong. I was going to ask the minister if he had any understanding with Mr. Renault that, if he -came into the service of the Grown, he would abstain from writing questionable or seditious articles. Did the minister discuss it with the commission?


Albert Sévigny: I wish to say this: I do not think it is fair for the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) to say that Mr. Renault, to the knowledge of the Minister of Inland Revenue, was writing seditious articles. That is not true. If seditious articles were written by Mr. Renault, it is not to my knowledge.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I will withdraw the word "seditious;" perhaps that is not correct. But the minister himself expressed the view that he was engaged in writing



articles of some nature that were objectionable to him, and he deemed it advisable to withdraw him from that sphere of activity and put him into the public service. The articles were apparently with reference to recruiting. I withdraw the word "seditious," but that does not detract from the position I take.


Richard Blain: I am going to ask the committee to decide whether or not they think this discussion is on the item before the Chair, and if there is any hon. gentleman who wants to appeal from the Chair's decision, he has a perfect right to do so. But I propose to stop this kind of discussion.


Frank Oliver: Then I would desire to make the appeal from the decision of the Chair.


Ernest Lapointe: Perhaps you will . bear with me while I say in justice to Mr. Renault that while I believe he would be a qualified officer so far as aptitude and abilities are concerned, I really think that his opinions at the present time, and the opinions he has avowed for the last two years, are not of a nature to recommend him to my hon. friend the Minister of Inland Revenue since his conversion from Nationalist principles.


Mr. McKENZIE:: It would be well for the committee to understand just what this ruling is. I do not understand the Chair to make any particular decision, but to leave it open to himself to decide when a discussion is germane to the point. I would think it a dangerous ruling to say that we are not permitted to discuss the policy of aDpointments.


Richard Blain: I will leave it to the fair play of the members in the House, to say whether they propose to discuss under this item, newspaper articles on the w,ar.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: We wero not discussing newspaper articles.


Richard Blain: Order. Or whether we shall discuss matters dealing with the war.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Will the chairman
state what his ruling is?


The CHAIRMAN:: My ruling was given and it is not for the hon. gentleman from Pietou to say.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes it is.


Richard Blain: I am in the Chair. I call "Order," and the hon.

gentleman can appeal to the Speaker. 1 have given my decision, and I will leave it to the House to say whether a discussion of this kind, dealing with newspaper articles or the expressions of the editor in regard to the *war, comes within the item before the Chair. If my hon. friend wishes to appeal from my decision, he has the right.


Frank Oliver: I am not familiar with the rules of the House, but I desire to appeal, and take a vote of the committee. I was under the impression that an appeal must be taken without discussion. If there is opportunity for discussion, I wish to place before the committee, as shortly as possible, my view of the subject.


Richard Blain: The appeal is to the Speaker, and not to the chairman.


Albert Sévigny: I have no objection to
give -all explanations required from me as to this recommendation.


William Erskine Knowles: But the chairman will not let you do so.


Charles Marcil: The minister admits he
recommended this gentleman for appointment. I think, in doing so-, he was helping a good cause, namely recruiting, by putting an end to a certain campaign in Quebec more or less injurious to recruiting.


Richard Blain: I understood all that.


Charles Marcil: The question the committee is discussing is whether the minister was wise in recommending such a gentleman.


Richard Blain: I have already decided that the statement of the minister, and the other statements in answer, are out of order, and I appeal to the good sense of the committee to say whether they think this kind of discussion should continue.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: We are appealing.


Richard Blain: I am quite willing you should appeal.


William Erskine Knowles: How is the newspaper article mixed up with it?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


William Erskine Knowles: Would the Chairman
explain in what way the newspaper becomes part of this point of order?


Richard Blain: A statement was made by my hon. friend from Kamouraska (Mr. Lapointe) that a certain

newspaper article expressed an opinion of a man who made application to the minister for a position, and the point in the hon. gentleman's statement was his expression in regard to the war, whether it was for the war or against the war, and I ruled that that kind of discussion was out of order.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is not the point.


Richard Blain: I know that is not my hon. friend's idea, but I am giving my decision. If the hon. gentleman from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) wishes to appeal from my ruling, he can do so.


Frank Oliver: I desire to appeal from the ruling of the Chair, and I ask the privilege of stating my view of the subject


Richard Blain: The hon. gentleman can state it to the Speaker.


Frank Oliver: I move that the committee rise.


Richard Blain: All those in favour of the motion say, Aye.


Frank Oliver: I am not familiar with
the rules. I understood an appeal from the Chairman's ruling went automatically to the House.


Richard Blain: There is a motion before the committee.


Frank Oliver: I move that the committee rise.


Richard Blain: Is it the pleasure of hon. gentlemen that the committee rise and report to the Speaker?
Mr, MAROIL:	According to thq procedure, when an hon. member appeals from the Chairman's decision, it is the duty of the Chairman to report to the Speaker.


Richard Blain: I am not very familiar with the rule myself. I will report to the Speaker.


Wilfrid Laurier: I ask the
Chairman to read the report he proposes to make to the Speaker because we may not be agreed on the statement.


Richard Blain: My report to the Speaker reads as follows:
On the debate on the resolution No. 14, which reads as follows:
That a sum not exceeding $202,412.50 be granted to His Majesty for civil government.
Department of Inland Revenue-Salaries, $180,412.50; contingencies, $22,000.
Mr. Lapointe (Kamouraska) referred to certain articles published in Le Franc Parleur, a newspaper published in Quebec, and the Chairman ruled him out of order under Rule 13, paragraph 5. Mr. Oliver appeals to the House from this decision.


Wilfrid Laurier: It seems to me that that is hardly a sufficient reference. I was not in the House, but I understand that the minister was questioned as to his recommendation of the appointment of a certain Mr. Renault.


Richard Blain: I do not wish to be discourteous to the right hon. leader of the Opposition, but I hardly have opportunity of discussing the matter with him. I made this ruling much against my will, but we must maintain order in the committee.


Frank Oliver: I am not able to agree that the statement presented by the Chairman is a correct one. The subject of discussion was the proposed appointment of a gentleman to earn part of the salary being voted, and his fitness for the position as shown by articles published in a newspaper which he edited.


Richard Blain: On that point I did not rule my hon. friend out of order. When he reached the point where he stated that the article expressed an opinion on the war I then ruled him out of order. I did not rule the hon. member out of order on the question of his discussing the fitness of the man for the position; on the contrary, I decided that that was perfectly in order.


Frank Oliver: Our point was that this man, in his newspaper, used language that was not in the public interest, and that that was the reason given by the minister for recommending his appointment. We considered that that was an objection to his appointment, not a recommendation, and we were arguing accordingly.


Richard Blain: I ruled that all out of order, the minister's statement as well as my hon. friend's.


Albert Sévigny: I took the precaution to say that I did not know what articles were published by Mr. Renault in Le Franc Par-leur. If reprehensible articles were written by Mr. Renault, I have no knowledge of them. I said only this:	That there were
some difficulties between Mr. Renault and Sir William Price. Sir William Price is not the people of Canada, nor is he to decide whether or not we are to participate in this war. If there is a difference between Sir William Price and Mr. Renault, that does not mean that Mr. Renault has written sedi-

tious articles against our participation in the war.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: You prevent him from writing any more hy giving him this job.


Frank Oliver: If I may refresh the minister's memory, the discussion was in this form: Sir William Price was raising a regiment, and the criticism offered by this man in his paper against the raising of a regiment by Sir William Price was the cause of his being recommended for the position-on the understanding that he should not publish such articles. Surely my hon. friend does not wish the committee to understand that he used the public service as a means of preventing discussion among his friends. He surely gave us to understand that he recommended the appointment because it was in the public interest that such discussion should be suppressed.


Albert Sévigny: Mr. Renault was recommended to me by the best business men of Quebec city, who told me that he was a very good accountant. Besides, I know personally that Mr. Renault has good qualifications as an accountant. An accountant is required in my department; the position is still vacant. I have recommended Mr. Renault, because he is perfectly qualified for the position. If some articles were written by Mr Renault in Le Franc Parleur, I do not know of them. I know that there is in Quebec a weekly newspaper called Le Franc Parleur. I do not know who is the owner, hut I can say this: If such a paper-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Richard Blain: Is it the pleasure of the committee that I report this ruling to the Speaker?


An hon. MEMBER:: Not in that form.
Mr. Speaker having again taken the Chair, the Chairman reported as follows:
In the debate in committee on resolution No. 14, which reads as follows:	"Resolved
that a sum not exceeding $202,412.50 he granted to His Majesty for civil government, Department of Inland Revenue; salaries, $1S0,412.5'0; contingencies, $22,000 Mr. Ernest Lapointe referred to certain articles published in Le Franc Parleur, a newspaper published in Quebec, -and the Chairman ruled him out of order under Rule 13, paragraph 5. Mr. Oliver appeals to the House from this decision.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What is the decision of the Chairman?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: 
William Erskine Knowles: I want to ask a question.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. The rule is clear
that the question must be determined by the House without discussion.


William Erskine Knowles: a question.	I simply wanted to ask


['a question.\tI simply wanted to ask']
Charles Marcil: As a matter of procedure I should like to know whether, if the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole is in the House, he should not occupy the Chair.
Mr. Rainville takes the Chair.
Mr. E. LAPlOINTE:	Has anybody been
appointed as accountant yet?


Albert Sévigny: Not yet.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I understand that
the chief qualification of Mr. Renault, beyond being an accountant, was that the minister desired to remove him from the

political arena where he was writing letters. for the purpose of discouraging enlistment in the regiment of Sir William Price. If that is the policy of the Government- to recommend for positions under the Government, people who write articles seeking to discourage voluntary recruiting and aiding Great Britain in the war-it is a policy that deserves the condemnation of the people of this country. If the ministers of the Crown are thus putting a premium on the conduct of men who are asking the people of the province of Quebec not to enlist, it readily explains the state of recruiting in that province. This method of dealing with people who make seditious speeches or write seditious articles in the province of Quebec will put this Government in a very peculiar position before the people of this country.


Albert Sévigny: Mr. Renault was recommended to the position because he was an accountant of long experience. He is about 50 years old.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I think most of his time he has been editing a newspaper.


Albert Sévigny: No. During the last
few months Mr. Renault has been writing certain articles in a weekly newspaper in Quebec.


Ernest Lapointe: Does my hon. friend say he has been editor of that paper for only the last two months?


Albert Sévigny: The last few months.


Ernest Lapointe: He has been publishing that newspaper for at least three years.


Albert Sévigny: I do not know about
that. I recommended him because in my judgment he was very well qualified for the position of accountant.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Who recommended
him to you?


Albert Sévigny: Mr. J. Gignac, one of
the largest lumbermen in the city of Quebec, J. B. Letellier and J. M. Fortier.


Mr. GERMAN:: Is it true that this man has been writing articles in the press against recruiting in the province of Quebec?


Albert Sévigny: No.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: You said so yourself just now.


Albert Sévigny: I said just the contrary. I said that since the war broke out I understood that Mr. Renault had approved of Canada's participation in the war to the fullest possible extent.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I cannot permit the minister to change his statement. He said that this man had written articles in this newspaper with the object of discouraging enlistment in the regiment of Sir William Price.


Albert Sévigny: I did not say that. I
said there was a quarrel between Sir William Price and Mr. Renault, that Mr. Renault had said some things about Sir William Price that perhaps were not over nice, and that Sir William Price may have reciprocated.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The minister certainly stated that this man had written articles urging men not to enlist in Sir William Price's regiment.


Albert Sévigny: I have never seen any
of these letters in Le Franc Parleur.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Now you are dodging.


Albert Sévigny: I do not know that Mr. Renault ever advised anybody not to enlist in that regiment.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: You said so just
now.


Albert Sévigny: I did not. My hon.
friend suggested that I recommended Mr. Renault because recruiting was not very active in the province of Quebec.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Did not the minister say he thought it well to give Mr. Renault this position, to prevent him writing further articles in that newspaper?


Albert Sévigny: If the appointment of
Mr. Renault had that effect, I think it would be a good thing. If recruiting has not been satisfactory in the province of Quebec it may be because of certain appeals which have been made, not by Mr. Renault, but by other people-for instance, the Liberal candidate in Dorchester at the recent election.


William Manley German: Did Mr. Renault own
or control the newspaper in which these appeals were made?


Albert Sévigny: I do not know.


William Erskine Knowles: The minister suggested that the discouraging recruiting figures in the province of Quebec are due to certain statements made by the Liberal candidate in Dorchester.

Mr. SEVI'GNY: Yes, Mr. Cannon.


William Erskine Knowles: Did not the minister himself state in that campaign that when he was only 30, he had made anti-British appeals which he afterwards regretted? He has nothing on Mr. Cannon on that score.


Albert Sévigny: Since the war broke
out I have done the best I could to secure Canada's participation in this war, and I intend to do so in the future. I hope my example will be followed by many hon. gentlemen opposite.


William Erskine Knowles: I do not think the time will ever come when hon. gentlemen on this side of the House will sit at the feet of the minister,, learning how to aid the Empire. Does not the minister think that the appeals he made five years ago against aiding Great Britain may still be having their effect, and possibly furnish an explanation for the failure of recruiting in Quebec?


Albert Sévigny: In 1910 I was very
strongly opposed to the naval policy of the Liberal party, but I have never .at any time made any appeals against Great Britain.


Ernest Lapointe: In justice to Mr. Cannon, who is a friend of mine, I must protest against the hon. member for Moose-jaw comparing his utterances in the recent election with those of the Minister of Inland Revenue in 1911. During the Drum-mond-Arthabaska election the present Minister of Inland Revenue said, " The Bill refers to the navy of His Majesty. Who is His Majesty? We have no Majesty in Canada." Mr. Cannon never said anything like that in Dorchester or anywhere else. He was one of the men who fought against the Minister of Inland Revenue and against the Postmaster General .and the Nationalists in 1911.


George Eulas Foster: I am .afraid that the ruling which has just been confirmed by so large a majority is in danger of being toppled over if this discussion continues. Do not hon. gentlemen think that we have had enough of this and that we had better go on with salaries?


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: I
would ask the committee to confine itself strictly to the item under discussion.


Charles Marcil: How far can we go in a discussion of a recommendation for an appointment of this kind? -What are the rights of the committee?
TMr. Knowles.!


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend (Mr. Marcil) has been Speaker- of the House and he ought not to put queries such as that. He knows very well.


Frank Oliver: It is only fair to say that the ruling which has been given, and which has been supported by a majority of the House, disarranges all former ideas as to what the Rules of the House mean.


George Eulas Foster: If it is a matter of disarranging some of the talk that goes on upon the Estimates, do not we know in ouf hearts that it is a good disarrangement? Why not get on with the Estimates?


Richard Blain: The remarks of the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), I think, call .for 'a statement to be made by somebody. The decision of the Chair, sustained by a vote of the House, was, briefly, on the question whether a reference to the opinion of an editor on the war published in a newspaper was relevant to a discussion of the estimates of the Department of Inland Revenue.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Nobody knows better than the gentleman (Mr. Blain), who has just spoken, that the way in which he put the question to the House was not the way in which the question was raised.


Richard Blain: I put the question exactly as it was, and my hon. friend (Mr. Macdonald) knows it just as well as any other member of the House.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@Mr. Rainville: I wish the committee would keep to the Rules.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Before the Chairman ruled I put the question straight, whether it was open to us to discuss the policy of appointments by the minister, and the answer was that that was open to us. I take this to include the character and record of the men selected for appointment. I understood the Acting Chairman to say that we were within our rights in calling attention to these -matters. But he objected to a certain newspaper article toeing mentioned, and the'House sustained him in his ruling-
I will not say whether I think that was right or wrong. The principle was admitted by the Acting Chairman (Mr. Blain), and I presume will 'be admitted by you, Mr. Chairman, that we have the right to discuss the policy of any minister as to the kind of people that he will call to the Civil Service of this country. And that is what we are doing. I was startled by the announcement, made by the minister, that he thought it

was necessary to put an end to the articles appearing in a newspaper in Quebec which were detrimental to the best interests of recruiting and to the winning of the war, and the way he took to stop them was to bring the author of them into the Civil Service and into the heart of his department. That was to me startling- that any man whose conduct was such as to make him a danger to the country, a firebrand, had to be given the King's money and the King's appointment in order to take him out of the way. That is what started the discussion here to-day. But we need hardly be surprised that the minister followed that course, for he is a product of that line of action himself; he owes his position in the Cabinet to just such reasoning. When the right hon. gentleman (Sir George Foster), who leads the House, gave out the slogan in 1910, "Anything to beat Laurier " he announced a policy the chickens of which are coming home to roost. I't would be a strange thing indeed if we are not permitted in this House to call the attention of the minister to the fact that he is giving the reward of iniquity to the man he is calling to he an officer of Government. If this man, who was threatening sedition, did not come into the Service, it was not because the minister did not try to bring him in. He went as far as he could, but a commission, whose members, perhaps, knew more than the minister, turned him down. The fact that this man is not today receiving a reward for his flagitious conduct is not the fault of the minister; he was willing that such a man should come into, his department, and possess the secrets of that department, to spread them abroad, perhaps, against the interests of recruiting and to neutralize the efforts put forth to win the war. I hope we shall not hear again of efforts of that kind by the Minister of Inland Revenue, or any other minister.


Albert Sévigny: The hon. member (Mr. McKenzie) has referred to what took place in 1910 and 1911. In 1911, I was elected in the county of Dorchester. Two years after I came to this House I was asked by the Prime Minister to vote a contribution of $35,000,000 to help the British Naviy and increase the strength of the British Empire. At that time the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Sevigny), the French-Canadian, the "bad Nationalist," as he had been called by certain members of this House, voted for this .contribution-of $35,000,000 to help the British Empire, 'but the records
show that there were members of this .House sitting on the other side who refused to vote for that contribution. I repeat what I said a few minutes ago, that since the war broke out I have done everything possible to help recruiting and to promote the participation of Canada in the war; and it is my intention to do the same in the future. If the hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) turns his attention to current events in the province of Quebec, he will see that the press of his own party in that province is doing worse than was done in 1910 and 1911. The excuse that might be pleaded for the people of 1910 and 1911 was that we were not at war; nobody knew what was coming. Nobody knew' what was coming, but at the present time every one knows what is going on and that we are in the greatest crisis of our history; and yet all the French press of the Libera] party in Quebec is repeating exactly-


William Erskine Knowles: It is out of order to refer to the press.


Albert Sévigny: -the same things w'hich are published every day by Mr. Tanerede Marsil and Mr. Bourassa.	-


Ernest Lapointe: The minister is certainly not representing the facts as they are when he dares to say in this House of Commons that the Liberal press of the province of Quebec is to-day using the same line of abuse that he used in 1910 and 1911.


Albert Sévigny: The Liberal press is using it.


Ernest Lapointe: I challenge my hon. friend to show any newspaper representing liberal opinion in the province of Quebec which has ever published, either before the war started or during the war, such statements as I have mentioned a few minutes ago to have been uttered by the hon. gentleman and his friends in that province. The reverse is the ease. The Liberal press, from the outbreak of hostilities, has always advocated the participation of Canada in the war. The doctrine that the Liberal press is preaching to-day in Quebec is the same doctrine as that on which we went to the people in 1911, and upon whicn we asked the people of Quebec to return to this Parliament members supporting the right hon. gentleman who, in that province as throughout the rest of Canada, advocated the participation of Canada in the wars of the Empire in time of danger, and the taking of the necessary steps for giving adequate defence to Canada at any time.


Mr. EDWARDS:: What about the Liberal clubs?


Ernest Lapointe: The minister is speaking to-day of those who are using violent words in Quebec. Who are they? They are those who were going on the platforms with the minister in 1910 and 1911.


Albert Sévigny: All Liberals.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend speaks of Mr. Tancrede Marsil. He was the Conservative Nationalist candidate in the county of Bagot in the election of 1911, and he said there what he is saying to-day in the city of Montreal. Who is using those violent words to-day of which my hon. friend is complaining? Mr. Lavergne.


Albert Sévigny: A good Liberal.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Lavergne was my hon. friend's friend in 1910 and 1911.


Albert Sévigny: He is your friend now.


Ernest Lapointe: He was your leader. He is not my leader. I have a leader of whom I am proud; I supported him in 1911; I have followed him in opposition, and to-day I am proud to follow him in the stand he has taken since the beginning of the war. I did not want, Sir, to be responsible for the little storm that has occurred in the House to-day, I assure you, but unfortunately the yery innocent remarks I made gave rise to this debate. I simply asked whether Mr. Renault had been appointed to the Department of Inland Revenue, because I saw that statement in the press the other day, and my hon. friend said that Mr. Renault had not been appointed; that he had been recommended by the Minister of Inland Revenue, but that the appointment was refused by the Civil Service Commission on account of Mr. Renault's age. I did not say anything against Mr. Renault's qualification, but I thought it rather strange that Mr. Renault, whose opinions, which are absolutely on the side' of nationalism, and which have been of that nature since he started publishing his newspaper, are well known in Quebec, should have been selected by the minister for such an important position in his department. I did not say that Mr. Renault had been seditious; it is the minister who has insinuated and hinted that to this House by saying that Mr. Renault's paper has been publishing articles that were an obstacle to recruiting in Quebec, and that it was in order to stop that, that the minister recommended his appointment to a position 
in the department. I think the minister is responsible for what has happened in this committee ihis afternoon.


Albert Sévigny: I understand why these attacks are made by the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. E. Lapointe). I stated a few minutes ago that the Liberal party in the province of Quebec are much worse than the Nationalists of 1910 and 1911 were; that in 1910 and 1911 no one knew what was coming, but that to-day every one knows that we are in a crisis of our history.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. The attitude of :;he Liberal party in the province of Quebec has nothing to do with the item before the Chair.


Albert Sévigny: That is true-


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I ask for a ruling on that point. We have already been requested to adhere to the item under discussion.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: The point of order is well taken.


William Erskine Knowles: May I ask the minister a question with regard to what he stated before he sat down? When he stated that the Liberal party in the province of Quebec-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Erskine Knowles: -was more disloyal than the Nationalists in 1911, did he mean all the Liberal party or how much of it?


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: Order. That is absolutely out of order.


Albert Sévigny: I am willing to answer the question.


William Erskine Knowles: The whole Liberal party?


Albert Sévigny: The Liberal party of the province of Quebec, and I can prove my statement in two minutes from the newspaper I have in my hand.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: Order. This is out of order.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Is the minister going to prove that some one else was more disloyal than he was in 1910?


William Erskine Knowles: That is what he said.


Charles Marcil: I would like to know why Mr. Renault was recommended by the minister. I have here Le Franc Parleur, and I could read an extract from it to show that Mr. Renault did not oppose recruiting in Quebec at all. What Mr. Renault opposed

in Quebec was the way in which the Militia Department treated the French Canadian regiments in the district of Quebec. He said that Sir William Price had been given preferential treatment, and that with all the support of the department he had been able, after two years' efforts, to recruit only 550 men in the whole district, and that the French Canadian regiments commanded by Gol. Headman and Col. Piuze had not been given fair treatment and still had done better than Sir William Price had done. He stated that both these regiments had been disbanded, and that the soldiers who had enlisted in them had been drafted under false pretenses after a formal promise had been given that they would go to the front under French Canadian officers in French Canadian regiments, preserving their own identity. In this edition of his newspaper of the 9th of June, Mr. Renault objects to the recruiting methods of the Militia Department in the district of Quebec, and not to recruiting per se. In justice to this newspaper man-I belong to the craft-I thought I would make his statement plain. If the minister wishes to aid recruiting in Quebec, he should read what Mr. Renault says and apply his methods, so far as recruiting is concerned, to the Militia Department.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If the Board of Civil Service Commissioners should report Mr. Renault as qualified for the position, will the minister still appoint him?


Albert Sévigny: I do not see what is the purpose of that question. I have given my answer that Mr. Renault was not the accountant of my department, that he was not appointed, and the matter is ended there.


Mr. KYTE:: Was the minister aware
when he made the recommendation that according to the regulations of the Civil Service no person over thirty-five years of age could be admitted into the service- of his department?
Mr. SEVI'GNY:	Yes, I was aware of
that, but in certain cases, as my hon. friend probably knows, when it is a technical position, this rule does not apply.


George William Kyte: Does the minister think that the service of an accountant comes within the meaning of section 21 providing for the appointment of experts?


Albert Sévigny: Yes, it is considered as such by the Civil Service Commission.


George William Kyte: Then why did not the Civil Service Commission accept the appointment?	*


Albert Sévigny: If I remember aright,
they declared that Mr. Renault had not had enough experience to take the position.


George William Kyte: Then he was not an expert in the opinion of the Civil Service Commission.


Albert Sévigny: He was not well enough qualified for the position.


George William Kyte: Then the minister admits
that he tried to impose upon the department an expert who was not an expert.
Mr. iSEVIiGNY : The minister is not an accountant himself; but Mr. Renault was recommended to the minister by the best business men of the city of Quebec who told the minister that Mr. Renault was a very, very good accountant. The Civil -Service Commission have declared that Mr. Renault had not enough experience in departmental affairs.


Charles Marcil: What has become of the appointment, who got the office?


Albert Sévigny: It is still vacant.
Mr. MARiOIL:	No appointment was
made from Ottawa of Mr. Laverdure? ,


Albert Sévigny: No.
iMr. KNOWLES: Even' if the committee is not divided on this vote, I wish to place myself on record against passing this item. I do this for two reasons. In the first place, I am against voting money to the minister to be expended under a policy such as has been laid down. Humble member as a person may be, every one of us stands on an equal footing when he comes to register his vote, and I wish to be no party to voting money to be placed in the hands of this minister if he is going to alienate the people's money for reasons and on policies and principles such as he has laid down. He is the judge, and he is responsible. I will not say an unkind word about him, but I say that for my part I disapprove of money being voted under these circumstances. He told us clearly and plainly that the reason he recommended this gentleman was that he was writing certain articles which he thought were against our country's interest.


Albert Sévigny: That is not fair.


William Erskine Knowles: I heard the minister say-


Albert Sévigny: That is not fair, and you know it.


William Erskine Knowles: The minister can say it is not fair. I am saying what I understood him to say, and we will have to be judged by Hansard when it is issued. He certainly stated that he himself desired to appoint this gentleman that there might as a result be a cessation of certain articles of some kind, which articles he gave us to understand were objectionable to every one who wished the best interests of this country. I wish to place myself on record as disapproving of voting to a minister the people's money, to be used for such a purpose as that. If other people in this country are to be told that all they have to do in this country in order to get a fat Government job is to make a nuisance or a national peril of themselves, we will be a laughing stock in expending the people's money, and that is what we are as a Parliament and as a committee when we adopt the system by giving the minister the vote he asks. I am absolutely against giving the minister the money to be spent, when he declares that to be his policy. He has endeavoured to justify it by abuse of other people in the province of Quebec; far, far more than one-half the people in the province of Quebec have to-day had thrown at them from this Government the insult of being called disloyal in everything but in name. Absolutely, more than one-half of the people of Quebec. He says that the people of the province of Quebec who belong to the Liberal party were more disloyal than he himself was in 1911, and I say that is an insult to the great majority of his compatriots in the province of Quebec. I give that as my second reason for opposing this vote. I say that instead of being a reason to induce me to accept this vote it is a stronger reason for my not doing so. I wish to place myself on record as against voting any money to this hon. gentleman, not in a personal way to him, but I say that any minister of the Crown, speaking for himself and, for the time being, speaking for the Government, who says of his fellow British subjects in the province of Quebec that they are disloyal and that they desire to be opposed to Great Britain, our Mother Country, in this war -that he is a member of the Government whose influence makes towards disunity and discord and faction in the Dominion of Canada to-day, when above all else we need 
unity. And therefore I say that I not only oppose	giving	this vote to
the minister but I am opposed to joining, or co-operating, or concurring in any vote to this minister, so long as he throws this insult out, because so long as he is minister administering a department he is a standing offender against the people of that province. It was a very unfortunate remark. I think that it was the most terrible remark I have heard a minister make about other citizens of Canada since I have been in the House, saying what he has,said about the people of Canada in a day when we require harmony among ourselves, when we need all the unity we can have, because in unity there is strength. So, whether there is to be a division on this item or not, I place myself on Hansard as disassociating myself from this vote, disapproving of this vote, and of any vote wherein the hon. gentleman will have any part in the expenditure of the money.


Albert Sévigny: I know my province better than the member who has just spoken.


William Erskine Knowles: Surely you do.


Albert Sévigny: I know my people, too, and I tell him that the great majority of my people are as loyal to the British Empire and as anxious to help the Allies in this war as he himself or anybody in his riding.


William Erskine Knowles: You did not say that a minute ago.


Albert Sévigny: That is what I say, and I repeat it. I say that the Liberal press in Quebec, and I say the Liberal organization of the province of Quebec are playing politics only, politics first-and the press will prove it. I take up this paper, Le S'oleil, the strongest Liberal paper, the organ of the Liberal party in the province of Quebec. It is the organ of the Liberal party in the province of Quebec, as the Globe is the Liberal organ of the Liberal party in Ontario, or the Winnipeg Free Press the organ of the Liberal party in Manitoba.


Charles Marcil: The Globe does not always speak for the Liberal party, nor does the Winnipeg Free Press, nor does Le Soleil.
I represent a riding in that district, and Le Soleil never spoke for me, and I challenge the hon. gentleman to find a word from me in my career that will support the contention he has laid before you.


Albert Sévigny: Does the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) say that Le Soleil is not the organ of the Liberal party?


Charles Marcil: I am not responsible for what Le Soleil says. It does not represent my views in any respect.


Albert Sévigny: Does-


Charles Marcil: What the minister said was that the Liberal party in..Quebec was more disloyal than he had been. I do not know what Le Soleil says.


Albert Sévigny: I hold in my hand the file of Le Soleil. At the top of the editorial page I find the words " Organ of the Liberal Party." And it is true. It is the organ of the Liberal party. What do you see in the Winnipeg Free Press, in the Toronto Globe? Those papers are recommending as strongly as possible to their party a support of conscription. Here is Le Soleil, of Quebec, which says last night:-
The French Canadian Conservatives only can save the country; their vote can kill conscription.
Here is an appeal in bold-faced letters made by Le Soleil of Quebec. And if you take Le Canada, another organ of the Liberal party in Quebec, you will see the same things repeated every day. And now take all of those meetings that we have in the province of Quebec-


William Erskine Knowles: Before the minister puts that away-


Albert Sévigny: I have the floor, and
it is my intention to defend myself.


Frank Oliver: I ask for a decision on
the ruling made by the House a short time ago.


Albert Sévigny: I have been attacked,
and I am simply defending myself. The great majority of the population of my province is as loyal as the .majority of the people of any' other province in this country, but the trouble comes from certain people whom we have in Quebec at the present time. - The Liberal press, Le Canada of Montreal, Le Soleil of Quebec, Le Devoir and La Liberte of Montreal, have caused the trouble. Hon. gentlemen opposite will probably say they are my friends.


William Erskine Knowles: Sure-carried.
Mr. SEVJIGiNY:	You will see ;in Le
Devoir, Bourassa's paper, very strong attacks against the Minister of Inland Revenue, and you will see words of praise for Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I am told-I do not know whether I am right or not-that -these *words of praise in Le Devoir have only appeared since Sunday last. There was a
meeting recently in Montreal between Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Mr. Bourassa.


William Erskine Knowles: Who told you?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is absolutely untrue.


Albert Sévigny: That is what I am told. The hon. member from Piotou says it is not correct.


George William Kyte: Sir Wilfrid Laurier was not in Montreal last Sunday, he was in Ottawa.


Albert Sévigny: I said they had an interview in Ottawa.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: The hon. minister said Montreal.


Albert Sévigny: I am told it was in
Ottawa.


William Erskine Knowles: Who told the hon. gentleman?


William Cameron Edwards: The statement which
the hon. gentleman from Moosejaw was so anxious to make, on which he dwelt so eloquently and forcibly, was that the hon. minister had committed the crime of saying that the Liberal party in Quebec was more disloyal than he was. In order to make any point of that statement, the hon. member from Moosejaw would have to accuse the hon. minister with being disloyal in 1911, because, if the hon. minister was not disloyal then there is nothing in the statement that the Liberal party was more disloyal than he. But he abandons all that argument, and goes into an harangue about the accusation against Sir Wilfrid Laurier.


William Erskine Knowles: Oration, if you please.


William Cameron Edwards: If the hon. gentleman
from Moosejaw and the members on the other side of the House want to invite comparison of the records of the party on this side of the House and the party opposite, they will get that record straight from the shoulder, and we will begin dealing with the records by referring to the leader of the Opposition, Sir Wilfrid Laurier. When members refer to the operations of men like Bourassa and Lavergne and others in Quebec, who have been preaching treason, let them look back on the record of their own leader, and they will find the counterpart for these treasonable utterances in the words uttered time and again by Sir Wilfrid Laurier. It does not lie in the mouth of the hon. gentleman from Kam-ouraska (Mr. Lapointe) to read a lecture to any person in this House. The hon. gentleman took an active part in Dorchester,

bringing forward a candidate who was preaching treason on the platform, hacked up by him and his leader. If these gentlemen desire to go into the records of their party, they will get all the record they want and more.


Ernest Lapointe: I should have been surprised if a debate took place in the House, in which the province of Quebec was in the limelight, without my hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) taking a part. He is always on hand when something is said about Quebec, especially if it is derogatory to that province.


William Cameron Edwards: What did I say against Quebec?


Ernest Lapointe: Neither the hon. gentleman nor anybody else would ever frighten me, or the people of my province, either in this House or -outside of it, and the sooner he takes that for granted the better. The hon. Minister of Inland Revenue quoted one Liberal newspaper (Le Soleil) as backing up what he said about the Liberal party in the province. He said, " Here is Le Soleil, the organ of the Liberal party, and here is what that paper says." Have hon. gentlemen found anything very extraordinary in the utterances of Le Soleil? He said the Manitoba Free Press was preaching for unity in the country, and Le Soleil and Le Canada were against conscription. Does my hon. friend take the position that any man in this country who is not in favour of conscription is not loyal? Does he say that the Liberals of Quebec are disloyal because they are opposed to conscription? I am opposed to conscription.


Albert Sévigny: Order.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend before indicting the Liberal party of Quebec, and charging Sir Wilfrid and the province with disloyalty, should have something else on which to base his statements than newspaper articles stating that the people were opposed to conscription.


William Erskine Knowles: Does the hon. minister say that, because a newspaper or individual opposes conscription therefore they are disloyal?


Ernest Lapointe: Is the hon. Secretary of State, who is opposed to conscription and has resigned his portfolio, disloyal?


Charles Marcil: We might get back to
business, and find out what the minister

is going to do about this appointment. Who is filling the office in the meantime?


Albert Sévigny: Mr. Lemay.


Charles Marcil: Is he recommended by
the Civil Service Commission?


Albert Sévigny: He was in the department. He is an accountant, and the intention of the Civil Service Commission is to recommend him within six months.


George William Kyte: How long hae Mr. Lemay
been assistant accountant?


Albert Sévigny: He came into the department two years- ago.


George William Kyte: Does the minister think it
would he a good thing to adopt the principle of promotion in his department?


Albert Sévigny: Yes, .and that is what will ;be done in this case.


William Erskine Knowles: The question has not
yet 'been answered. Does the minister mean to say that opposition to conscription means disloyalty? That is a fair question.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: That is. absolutely irrelevant.


William Erskine Knowles: I am hound to bow to youT ruling, but I wish to state my position.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: The Minister of Inland Revenue has been given a latitude to defend himself, because he felt he was accused, but all the discussion up to that point was absolutely out of order.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: He gave the reasons why he made this appointment.


Mr. BOIVIN:: The Chairman has just
stated that the Minister of Inland Revenue, having been attacked, was given a great .deal of latitude-by the Chair in order to defend himself, which I think is quite proper, under the rules of the House. But in defending himself, should he be permitted to attack the whole .province and brand that province which he represents as disloyal?


Albert Sévigny: I never did that.


Georges Henri Boivin: He said the Liberal
press of Quebec were preaching disloyalty, because Le Soleil said the Liberal press was against conscription. He has been asked a fair question, whether a man opposed fo conscription is necessarily disloyal, and that has been ruled out of order. The general discussion which took place tins afternoon must have been in order,
I

or you, Mr. Chairman, would not have permitted it. The question which has been put to the minister, therefore, must be ia order. It is only fair to the province of Quebec that the minister should let us know whether or not he really thinks that that province is disloyal because it opposes conscription.


William Erskine Knowles: Will the minister answer the question?


Albert Sévigny: If the question were put in a fair way, I should be very glad to answer it.


William Erskine Knowles: Will the minister suggest a fair way?


Albert Sévigny: I have just said that the great majority of the people of my province are perfectly loyal.


William Erskine Knowles: The minister said that the Liberal party was disloyal.


Albert Sévigny: I said the Liberal press.


Ernest Lapointe: Because it is opposed to conscription.


Albert Sévigny: I did not say because it is opposed to conscription. I say that the Liberal press is trying to make trouble in the province of Quebec. I have not all the newspapers with me, hut here is one which was published last night-LeSoleil, of Quebec-which makes an appeal to the French Conservative members on this side of the House, saying they should kill conscription.


William Erskine Knowles: Is that disloyal?


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: Order.


Albert Sévigny: I never said that Quebec was disloyal.


Georges Henri Boivin: Is the statement in the press disloyal which the minister has just mentioned?


Albert Sévigny: Yes, it is.


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: I wish members of the committee to take note that this whole discussion is out of order and against the rules.


George William Kyte: Will the minister explain why he did not recommend Mr. Lemay for promotion to the position of accountant?


Albert Sévigny: When I came into the department I was told that the position was vacant. I did not know at the time that Mr. Lemay was mentioned for promotion.


George William Kyte: Who informed the minister that the position was vacant?


Albert Sévigny: I do not remember.


George William Kyte: Was the position vacant when the minister came into the department?


Albert Sévigny: Yes.


Arthur Bliss Copp: What caused the vacancy?


Albert Sévigny: The death of Mr. Vallin.


George William Kyte: Did the minister ask his deputy, before he recommended Mr. Renault, what was the practice of the department with respect to promotions?


Albert Sévigny: When I came to the department in March or April last I said to Mr. Vincent, the deputy minister, that I had recommended Mr. Renault for the position of accountant in my department. If I remember rightly, Mr. Vincent mentioned to me the name of Mr. Lemay.


George William Kyte: In what connection?


Albert Sévigny: For the position in question; but before I spoke to Mr. Vincent I had already recommended Mr. Renault.


Charles Marcil: Does the minister take any stock in promotions in his department?


Albert Sévigny: Yes.


Charles Marcil: Did he think of recommending any deserving official in his department instead of hunting up this poor, foresaken journalist in Quebec?


Albert Sévigny: It was for-


Charles Marcil: Political Teasons?


Albert Sévigny: The vacancy was mentioned to me before I had a conversation on the subject with the deputy minister. As I have said, Mr. Renault was recommended to me by good business men in Quebec city. I told them that if Mr. Renault was qualified to fill the position I would recommend his appointment.


Charles Marcil: Surely the minister does not take it for granted that he can run his department upon the recommendation of the good citizens of Quebec?


Albert Sévigny: I do not.


Charles Marcil: I can quite understand
that the deputy minister would favour the appointment of an outsider, because he himself came into the department in the first instance to occupy the position which he now holds. I assume that the minister wishes to help the civil servants; if he does, he should consider the advisability of promoting deserving officials rather than taking men from outside for political reasons

simply because they are recommended by so-and-so.


Albert Sévigny: It is my intention to promote employees wherever possible.


Charles Marcil: I understand that the
minister has quite recently appointed to positions in his department three men from outside the service. I should be obliged if the minister would give us at eight o'clock a list of appointments made to the Inside Service in his department either by him or by his immediate predecessor, noting especially those brought in from the outside.


George William Kyte: Who first suggested Mr. Renault to the minister as a competent person to fill the position of accountant?


Albert Sévigny: I do not remember.


Arthur Bliss Copp: What salary attaches to the office?


Albert Sévigny: 


Georges Henri Boivin: I should like the minister to make clear to the committee the reason why Mr. Renault was not appointed. Aside from any other consideration, the minister recommended Mr. Renault's appointment upon the assumption that he was a good accountant. I understand also that owing to the position being a technical one, the age limit was not considered by the Commissioners. Mr. Renault, therefore, was turned down either because he was incompetent, or because he wrote seditious articles. Why was he turned down?


Albert Sévigny: When he was turned down.there was no mention at all of articles published in newspapers. The reason, if I remember correctly, was that he was not well qualified for departmental business.


Georges Henri Boivin: Which means that the minister recommended the appointment of a person who was not competent to fill the position.


Mr. CURRIE:: A certain position is vacant and the minister recommends the appointment of a man who is believed by leading men in Quebec city to be competent to fill the position. The person recommended goes before the Civil Service Commission, who, coming to the conclusion that he is not as well qualified as the duties of the position require, refuse to sanction the appointment. That is all there is to it-with the exception of the attempts of hon. gentlemen opposite to make a good deal of capital out of it.


Arthur Bliss Copp: It was stated during the progress of the Estimates of the other ministers that, wherever possible, it was the policy of the Government to appoint returned soldiers to all vacant positions. This recommendation of the minister was made within the last month or two, since he took charge of the Department of Inland Revenue. Since that time there must have been available a large number of returned soldiers who are professional men, or men of ability .and education, and who could perform the duties pertaining to such positions as the one in question. May I inquire, therefore, if the minister is following up the announced policy of the Government in the matter of appointing returned soldiers? Did he make inquiries with a view to finding out whether a returned soldier could be obtained to fill this important position, to which is attached a salary of $2,800?	.
At six o'clock the House resumed, and then took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 51, for the relief of Delbert Ralph ,O'Neil.-Mr. Buchanan.
Bill No. 52, for the relief of Edward Austin Barnwell.-Mr. R. B. Bennett.
Bill No. 61, for the relief of Charles Frederick Reuben Jones.-Mr. Kay.
Bill No. 63, for the relief of John B.assnett Parker.-Mr. A. H. Clarke,
Bill No. 64, for the relief of Amy Beatrice Mathews Hilton.-Sir Herbert Ames.
Bill No. 70, for the relief of Colin Darracb Poole.-Mr. A. H. Clarke.
Bill No. 71, for the relief of Thomas Edwin Jory.-Mr. Niekle.
Bill No. 72, for the relief of Florence Eva-line Snyder Lockwood.-Mr. Kay.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 39, respecting the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company.-Mr. T. J. Stewart.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 76, for the relief of George Walter Sherald Garrett.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 77, for the relief of Gertrude Ellen Beal.-Mr. Northrup.

Bill No. 78, for the relief of Donald George Whibley.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 79, respecting a patent of Ernest Mead Baker.-Mr. Robb.
Bill No. 81, respecting a patent of James B. King and others.-Mr. Macdonell.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed in Committee of Supply, Mr. Rainville in the Chair.
Mr. MACDONALD [DOT] The Minister of Inland Revenue, before dinner, made the statement,' based on a rumour, that an interview had taken place between Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Mr. Bourassa at Montreal, or at Ottawa. I am authorized by Sir Wilfrid Laurier to say that the statement is untrue and incorrect; neither at Ottawa, nor at Montreal, nor anywhere else, was there such an interview.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Frank Oliver: The minister having made the statement-no doubt in good faith- which is now proven to be erroneous, I think he might, in deference to the committee, withdraw that statement.


Albert Sévigny: I was told that Sir Wilfrid Laurier had met Mr. Bourassa in Ottawa on Sunday last. I did not say that it had been proven that Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Mr. Bourassa had met. I accept the statement of my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald).


William Erskine Knowles: The hon. minister will remember that he stated that the tone of a newspaper which he named had changed very much on account of the interview which he alleged had taken place. Thus, be not only gave that which was rumoured, but he gave evidence as to the truthfulness of the rumour. I think that he ought to withdraw his insinuations that there was some connection between the attitude of the paper and an alleged interview with Sir Wilfrid Laurier.


Albert Sévigny: I have nothing to do with Le Devoir; I am not responsible for the articles published in that paper.


William Erskine Knowles: Will not the minister withdraw his statement that the alleged change in Le Devoir was due to an interview with Sir Wilfrid Laurier?


George Eulas Foster: The minister has accepted the denial made by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), and having done that, I think he has done all that is
necessary. I suggest that is quite a sufficient withdrawal.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am authorized by Sir Wilfrid Laurier to make the statement I have made. I ask the minister to withdraw his statement absolutely, and to state frankly in the House that he made it on no other basis than that of rumour.


Albert Sévigny: I have been told that an interview took place between Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Mr. Bourassa last Sunday. I do not know whether or not it is true that an interview did take place, but now I ao oept the statement made by the hon. member for Pictou, and I suppose it is not true that an interview took place.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Does the minister
withdraw his statement based on that rumour?


Albert Sévigny: It is impossible for me to say that there is no rumour to that effect.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Does the minister
withdraw his statement made on the foundation of that rumour?


Albert Sévigny: If Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the leader of the Opposition, says that no such interview took place, I am ready to accept his statement, as I am bound to do so.
Excise-$1,300,318.75.


George William Kyte: Some weeks ago the Minister of Customs intimated to the House that it was his policy to fill all vacancies in the Outside Service of his department by appointing returned soldiers. Is that the policy of the Minister of Inland Revenue?


Albert Sévigny: Yes, it is the policy of my department as much as possible to give positions to returned soldiers. I am informed by my deputy that we have appointed about twelve returned soldiers,


George William Kyte: Where were the appointments made?


Albert Sévigny: I expect to have some particulars about that in a few minutes.


George William Kyte: I desire to call the attention of the minister to a vacancy in his department in the town of Arichat in the county which I represent. Captain Laurence Gerrior, preventive officer at that point, died some years ago. The position is still vacant owing, I understand, to the difficulty experienced by the controller of patronage in that constituency in making a selection from the numerous applicants for

the position. Will the minister fill that office by the appointment of a returned soldier?


Albert Sévigny: I am told by my deputy that we have no vacancy in my department at Arichat.


George William Kyte: Are preventive officers at
Arichat in the department of the minister?
iMr. SEVIGNY: No, in the Department of Customs.


George William Kyte: Have there been any complaints of infractions of the law with reference to the use of war stamps on patent medicines?


Albert Sévigny: Yes, we have many complaints.


George William Kyte: Have there been any prosecutions for those infractions?


Albert Sévigny: Yes, a great number.


George William Kyte: Will the minister furnish the committee with a list of the prosecutions and the amount of fine collected in each case?


Albert Sévigny: Yes, I am willing to
furnish a list. I expect to have it in about twenty minutes or half an hour.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What is the cause of the increase of $54,000 in the item preventive service salaries?


Albert Sévigny: I am informed by the officers of my department that last year an error was made by the accountant of the department in making an estimate of $101,000, and that we have had, on account of that error, to make an expenditure from the War Fund. It is to meet the exigencies of the service that we ask for $155,000 this year.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Why from the War Fund? Was the work in connection with war expenditures in any way?


Albert Sévigny: It was on account of the application of the preventive service to the War Revenues Act?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That would only refer to stamps?


Albert Sévigny: Yes. '


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What was the amount of the item in 1915-16?


Albert Sévigny: I will give the information to my hon. friend later on.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Can the minister explain why the estimate of last year was

$50,000 below the corresponding item of the preceding year?


Albert Sévigny: We have been obliged to appoint a certain number of additional officers to see to the execution of the War Measures Act in my department.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Did the minister get an Order in Council for these appointments, or was there a Governor General's warrant to pay the officials? What authority had the minister to take money not voted by Parliament unless he had a Governor General's warrant5


Albert Sévigny: The war fund was at the disposal of the department for all expenses required on account of the war.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Who gave authority to the department to take any money at all, to divert money that ought to have gone into the treasury without the consent of council? Was there a Governor General's warrant or an Order in Council, or did the deputy minister and the minister simply take the money?


Albert Sévigny: I am told that everything was done in the regular way.


George Eulas Foster: There is no doubt about it, the war fund appropriation is distributed by Order in Council, and if, in my department for instance, there should be a piece of service that is directly connected with the conduct of the war or which is imposed by the war, I could go to Council, represent the case, get an Order in Council and pay for that service out of the war fund appropriation. I imagine that this is the same thing.


Frank Oliver: There does not seem to be any parity between the two cases.


George Eulas Foster: I think so.


Frank Oliver: I judge that in this case, according to the minister's explanation, he simply was short $50,000 in his estimates. There was no question of war fund or anything else, and he took the money out of the war fund.


George Eulas Foster: He did not take the money out of the war fund. The money did not come out of the war fund except through an Order in Council. No minister has the right to use it by himself or through his department. Such an expenditure must be authorized by Order in Council, and must be for war purposes, and I imagine that this arose from the administration of the war tax on drugs, etc.
.TUNE 15, 1917


Frank Oliver: I am not as familiar with the matter as the ministers, but this item is preventive service, salaries, and the minister explained the increase of $54,000 as between last year's Estimates and this year's Estimates by stating that last year's estimate was too low simply because of an error in making the estimate too small; and when asked how he met the requirements of the department, he said he took money out of the war fund. I must say that if it is the habit of the Government to take money by Order in Council out of the war fund to carry on the ordinary business of the department-


George Eulas Foster: Not the ordinary business.


Frank Oliver: that is hardly as we understand proper administration. This is not war service. Salaries for the preventive service of the Inland Revenue Department do not come under war service; that item is the ordinary administration of the department, as I would understand it, and the money that we vote for war purposes has no right in the world to be used even by the Government to make up a deficiency which occurs as my hon. friend has said this did.	,


Albert Sévigny: When it was realized in the department that we were short of money to pay those employees, the accountant of the department laid the question before the Auditor General, and I am told that he was authorized by the Auditor General to take the necessary amount from the war fund. At the time, those officials were employed to see to the proper execution of the special War Revenue Act.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That would not be a proper expenditure from the war loan.


Albert Sévigny: They were looking after the administration of the War Revenue Act and we had not enough money to pay them; so the accountant of my department was authorized to pay those employees with the money of the war fund.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: This explanation, if/ correct, is very irregular, and it is only proper that Parliament should express an adverse opinion upon doing public business in that way unless the whole matter is susceptible of some different explanation. I do not think it would be fair to pay out of the war fund anything in connection with the collection of revenues. The Inland Revenue Department has to do only with the collection of revenues from excise duties on tobacco and liquor, and the war
stamp tax. There was an ample vote for the collection of the war stamp tax, so that if this advance from the war fund, so-called, was on account of preventive service, it really was not properly a war expenditure. It is not fair that expenses should be met in this manner from the war account. Perhaps the minister is wrong, perhaps it was not paid out in that way at all. Is he sure of that? It may have been paid by a Governor General's warrant out of consolidated fund account.


Albert Sévigny: I am told that we have prosecuted about 400 persons since the application of the special War Revenue Act all over the country.


Mr.  A. K. MAOLEAN@: What for?


Albert Sévigny: Not affixing the seal.


Mr.  A. K. MAOLEAN@: That is included in the next item. $125,000 was voted for that.


Albert Sévigny: We took the money out of that vote last year to pay for the preventive service, because we had not enough money.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is not what the hon. gentleman said.


Albert Sévigny: That is the war fund-.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, no.


Frank Oliver: What did my hon. friend do to meet the deficiency in the vote, created thereby?


Albert Sévigny: This item of $125,000
reads as follows:
To provide for stamps, stationery, salaries, travelling expenses, in connection with war tax.
This service was performed by our preventive service officer, and when we saw that we had not enough money to pay the amount, the accountant of my department met the Auditor-General, and the accountant was authorized to pay the money out of this item of $125,000.
.Mr. MoKBNZIE: Do I understand you to say the Auditor General has authority to order a payment of that kind? I always understood the functions of the Auditor *General were, particularly, to see that moneys were paid out according to the authority of Parliament. I may be wrong, but I never understood that he had any authority off his own bat to say that moneys could be appropriated in a certain direction, and paid out, without consulting the Government or Parliament.


Albert Sévigny: I do not say the Auditor General had authority to do it, but he could tell us whether it was right or wrong to make certain payments.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: The minister surely
knows whether he has authority to spend the money, when he goes to the Auditor General. I understood he had to point out to the Auditor General that he was spending the money under a certain rule, or authority of Parliament, or Governor General's warrant. I suppose, if the minister were foggy about these things, he should go to the fountain head of all knowledge in finance matters, the Departmeent of Finance, and find out what he should do, and that the Finance Minister would tell him the proper steps to take, in order to obtain money for payments of this kind. I appreciate the fact that the minister is quite new in the office, and he is giving evidence of being very new. I think he should be excused for not knowing everything about the department, 'but he should be expected to know something about it, and I think, in the case of an extraordinary expenditure of this kind, he should be on pretty solid ground before coming to Parliament and asking to have the payment sanctioned. I understood the procedure to be that the minister would apply to the Department of Finance for money, and the Department of Finance, would either procure it through Parliament, in an Estimate, or take the necessary steps by Governor General's warrant to procure the money. He seems to have struck out in a new course of his own, and relies upon the Auditor General. I question the authority of the Auditor General to give him any money, without its first being voted by Parliament.


Charles Murphy: Do I understand from
my hon. friend that the Auditor General authorized the payment of this sum out of the war vote?


Albert Sévigny: He was consulted, and
said that was the correct procedure.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That cannot be right, 'because according to a statement made by the Prime Minister in introducing the War Loan Bill, it appeared that in the Department of Inland Revenue up to the 20th of January of this year only $522.50 had been expended out of that fund; so that, I think, it is hardly likely the minister got the money from that source. I suppose there is some explanation, of this matter.


Albert Sévigny: The work was done by
our preventive -officers, and we had to pay them their salaries. When we realized that we had not enough money in the item of preventive service to pay their salaries for the work they were doing, by the War Tax Measure we were authorized to pay their salaries out of the item of $125,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The hon. minister should have said that long ago.


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: That is not the war vote.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is perfectly evident that my hon. friend cannot expect this committee to vote this item, No. 327, on the information which he has presented to us. I suggest that this item stand until the minister is prepared to give an intelligent explanation. We are only groping in the dark. He said his accountant had made a mistake, and therefore there had to be certain juggling with funds, and he cannot tell us where the funds came from, whether from the war fund which he speaks of, in the sense we understand it, or whether from the receipts of certain war stamps in his office which were diverted. It is, therefore, impossible to pass the item now.


Albert Sévigny: Perhaps there is some
misunderstanding in reference to the words "war fund," which I used. This item in the Estimated to provide for stamps, stationery, salaries, travelling expenses, etc., in connection with waT tax, is called the war fund in my department.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Was the deficit in the item for preventive service paid out of the surplus in the item of $25,000' There was evidently an under expenditure in that item.


Frank Oliver: I think the suggestion
made 'by the hon. gentleman from Pietou should be adopted. It is, after all, a very serious matter and it is desirable there should be no misunderstanding in regard to it. Unfortunately the minister's explanation has led to a great deal of discussion ,and questioning, which certainly does not tend to satisfy the public mind in regard to the administration of these funds. We do not wish to put the minister in a bad position, but we are desirous that he should place himself right in regard to this expenditure.


George Eulas Foster: We can pass the otheT items under that head.


Frank Oliver: We can discuss the other items now and possibly when we reach them later they will not require further discussion. I suggest that the item "Preventive service, salaries, $155,000," should stand until we have a fuller explanation.


Charles Murphy: Some of the items are
interlocked with the others.
, Mr. OLIVER: The items of $150,000 and $125,000 might stand for the present, and we can proceed with the discussion of the remaining items, so as to save time later on.


Georges Henri Boivin: How much of that $125,000 vote was expended last year?


Albert Sévigny: We have spent $32,000 for stamps and $35,000 for salaries, a total of $67,000. We were authorized to use a portion of the balance remaining unspent to cover the deficit on the other item.


Georges Henri Boivin: How much of that balance was taken to cover the deficit?


Albert Sévigny: I will give the information on the items of preventive service and war stamps.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: If the minister expended only $67,000 last year out of that vote of $125,000 he should not ask for a vote of $125,000 this year unless there is a probability of that amount being required.


Charles Murphy: I suggest that the minister bring down the details suggested by the member for Halifax as to why he is asking for $125,000 when the department did not spend anything like that amount under this head last year. I suggest, also, that he bring down any correspondence with the Auditor General on the subject of taking the money from one vote and applying it to another.


William Erskine Knowles: There is no reason why the department should be blamed because an estimate proves insufficient. It very often follows that votes prove, insufficient; otherwise the estimates would be of no use. But if the amount voted proves to be more than sufficient it is quite at variance with the principle upon which we vote particular amounts to divert the money to other purposes. We ear-mark the money for a particular purpose, and if there is a surplus in one vote it is absolutely foreign to the making up of a deficit in another. The fact that about $50,000 was left over in one vote shows that we were called upon to vote a much larger sum than was necessary, but certainly a surplus in one vote should not
152*
be used to make up a deficit in another.
The minister has beclouded the
9 p.m. matter somewhat by his statement that the difficulty was initiated by an error on the part of his accountant. That is something that ought to be cleared up. If it was an error on the part of his accountant, the error should have been rectified in the proper way by Governor General's warrant. Is that not the only way? I think we ought to hear from some of the experienced members of the Government on that question. The Finance Minister is with us; perhaps.he will tell us.


William Thomas White: As I have not
been occupying myself with the discussion,
I must plead that I am not familiar with this particular item. I understand, however, that generally you are discussing the payment out of funds. So far as the general funds are concerned, moneys are paid out by the departments under the supervision of the Auditor General. It is quite impossible for any error to occur; the money must be voted, and only the amount that is voted can be used. All the money that is paid out under the votes is paid out under proper safeguards.


William Erskine Knowles: And is to be used for . the specific purpose for which it was voted.


William Thomas White: Yes. If it chances that a particular expenditure does come under two headings or may be embraced within each, the Estimates would authorize the payment out for that necessary expenditure, provided there was sufficient money.
I should think, however, that cases of that kind very seldom occur. Question has been raised as to the payment out of money voted under the War Appropriation Act. No money can be voted under that Act unless upon the express authority of the Governor in Council. In otheT words, if a department finds it necessary to make an expenditure which is properly payable out of the war vote, the minister gets an Order in Council which authorizes the payment from that vote. Needless to say it must be for purposes immediately connected with the war.
With regard to Governor General's warrants, it sometimes occurs, but not frequently, that there are no funds for some necessary service that must be performed. In cases of that kind of extreme urgency, a Governor General's warrant may issue for the amount in question. I am sure it is common knowledge amongst members of the House that payment of moneys in con-

nection with all departments is surrounded by every safeguard that experience has found necessary, in order that there may be no misappropriation of funds.


Charles Murphy: Which minister has
charge of the war appropriation vote?


William Thomas White: That is for purposes connected with the war. The ordinary departments, apart from the Department of Militia and Defence and the Department
Name.	Date.		
M. P. Gallagher	1,	1915L. E. Westman	1,	1915J. A. Magnan	23,	1916M. Morissette	
.	9,	1916E. Rooney	June 10,	1916E. A. Kinsman	Oct.	1,	1916J. M. Danis	1,	1917A. J. I. St. Marie .. ..	Feb.	1,	1917N. ChassS	. . . . Mar.	22,	1917Dr. M. Brot	1,	1916R. M. Rowat	1,	1916J. C. Breton	June	1,	1917G. E. Grattan	1,	1917J. A. Gunton	.. . .June	1,	1917O. G. Lye	June	i,	1917


Charles Marcil: What are Mr. Magnan's duties?


Albert Sévigny: He was superintendent of the Patent Medicines Branch, but has resigned. No successor has been appointed yet.


Charles Marcil: Would the minister consider appointing a returned soldier to the vacancy?


Albert Sévigny: A doctor is required for the position. If my hon. friend will give me the name of a returned soldier who is a good doctor and well qualified for this position I shall be only too pleased to appoint him.


George William Kyte: How many of these men
were appointed under the provisions of Section 21?


Albert Sévigny: Messrs. Westman, Mag-nan, Morissette, Kinsman, Brot, Rowat, Breton, Grattan, Gunton and Lye. Mr. Lye is a returned soldier, Mr. Kinsman an electrician, and Mr. Morissette a translator.


George William Kyte: Does the minister put a
translator and an electrician in the category of experts?


Albert Sévigny: These men were considered technical officers by the Civil Service Commission.


Charles Murphy: They did not use to be so considered.

of Marine and Fisheries, have almost no war expenditure at all.


George William Kyte: How many persons have been appointed to the Department of Inland Revenue during last year, and what are their salaries?


Albert Sévigny: The list of employees
appointed since October 1, 1915, is as follows:	,
Salary.	Remarks.
$2,100	Transferred to Secretary State.
1.300 3.300	Resigned.
1,600	
800	
1,500	Transferred to Inside.
2,100	Transferred to Outside.
500	
2,100 1.300 1.300 1,200 1.300 1.300 1.300


Albert Sévigny: They did not have to
pass the Civil Service examination.


Charles Murphy: Most of them could not.


Ernest Lapointe: The minister states that Mr. Danis, his private secretary, has resigned. Is he still in the employ of the department.


Albert Sévigny: Yes, as preventive officer at Qu'Appelle, Saskatchewan. He also acts as food inspector for that province. His salary is $1,800.


Ernest Lapointe: Was he a resident of Saskatchewan?


Albert Sévigny: Yes.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I notice that a very curious practice has crept in this year in passing the items of one or two departments. Some of these votes are made up of a number of items, each of which should be considered separately, and until each has been so considered and approved the vote should not be passed. Am I to understand that when the Chairman of the Committee calls "Carried" the whole vote passes?


Joseph Hormisdas Rainville: In every case I have read each item separately, and asked the Committee to express themselves on it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am not complaining about you, Mr. Chairman. We are considering Resolution 327; the whole vote cannot pass so long as these one or two items remain outstanding.


Frank Oliver: The whole item stands because no part of it can finally pass without the whole of it passing, but for the sake of convenience and to advance discussion separate items do not pass, of course, until we pass from one item to another. The the whole vote is passed
Weights and measures, gas and electric light inspection, $393,950. Salaries of officers, inspectors and assistant inspectors of weights and measures, $155,250.


Charles Murphy: What accounts for the increase of $10,000?


Albert Sévigny: This is for the regular statutory increases. Besides, we were short of money last year, and this is to make sure that we shall have enough this yeaT.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: How much were you short last year?


Albert Sévigny: About $10,000.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: You have statutory increases again this year, and with these and with a shortage of $10,000 you will need $20,000.


Albert Sévigny: We expect that with $10,000 we can give the statutory increases. And we will have to ask for more money in the Supplementary Estimates-about $5,000.


Charles Murphy: The civil servants paid under this item are members of the Outside Service and no increase is provided by statute for them. So this item cannot apply to them.


Albert Sévigny: Every day I am in receipt of letters from good employees, who complain-and I think they are right in complaining-because their salaries are too low. It is true, there is no statutory increase allowed to the Outside Service, but in many cases we have done the best we could to give increases of salaries when we thought it was fair to do so. And it is our intention to do the same for many of the Outside Service this year.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Will the minister make the increase general, or will it he a selective increase?


Albert Sévigny: If I have enough money it is my intention to give an increase to all the employees of the Outside Service. But if I have not enough money I shall have to make a choice of the best employees.


George William Kyte: This vote includes::-
Provisional allowance, not more than $150 each to officers In Manitoba and provinces west thereof, whose salaries do not exceed $2,500 per annum. (Weights and Measures!.
Why is not this made applicable to officers in the other provinces?


Albert Sévigny: Such an allowance is not confined to my department, but applies to the Post Office and Customs Departments also. It is considered that the cost of living is higher in the West than in the East. But, in my judgment, the cost of living at present is as high in the East as in the West.


George William Kyte: Whatever reason there may have been in former times for this discrimination, I am sure there is none at present. In the Maritime Provinces the cost of living has gone up twice as much as in any part of Canada. As the minister is making special provision for the officers in the Western provinces I think it only fair that similar provision should be made for thosfe in the East.


Albert Sévigny: I am glad to hear the
hon. gentleman talk that way, and I hope that when my Supplementary Estimates are before the committee he will be willing to give me enough money to give increases to all the employees of my department throughout the Dominion.


Mr. NESBITT:: Deserving and undeserving?


Albert Sévigny: They are all deserving;
otherwise we would not keep them.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: In considering the merits of a member of the Inside Service, the minister has the advice of his deputy minister and of the head' of the branch. But hew does he get information as to the merits of officers in the Outside Service? I am afraid that in the Inland Revenue Department we shall see what we have seen in other departments-a certain class of the public servants are found to be most deserving, and others, for some reason, not so deserving. Up to 1911 the money was^ distributed equally, but since then, and* now, only a certain class can get it. I urge upon the minister that when he gives increases he should try to get some positive information about the officer concerned, so that there may be no unfair discrimination -that the rain, as it were may fall on the just and the unjust. I hope especially that *those who are receiving small salaries will be among those given increases, and that in dealing with this matter the minister will beware of the leaven of politics.


Albert Sévigny: When I receive a request for an increase of salary, I place it before my deputy minister, and if I decide to give an increase it is because it is re-

commended by the officers of the department. I can assure the hon. gentleman, Mr. McKenzie, that many of the employees who were in the department before 1911 have received some increases, when we have enough money to give them. This has been true under Mr. Blondin and Mr. Patenaude, and it is true under my own administration of the department.


Peter H. McKenzie: I heard on very good authority that for the fifteen years that the Liberals were in power we had in some departments Tory heads who had a free hand, and who were giving preference to their Tory friends during those fifteen years. When the change came, matters became worse; we had not only a Tory deputy head bur a Tory head, so that it was a case of bringing in seven worse devils than there were before, and the class of civil servants to whom I have referred are getting it going and coming. If any deputy head or head of a department thinks he is doing these things under a bushel, I want the minister to know that we know about these things, and I hope that this manner of dealing with officials will not find place nor part in his department.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The minister has not told us the exact meaning of the two extra amounts he is asking for under this item. The minister is more extravagant in his department than any other minister. He is asking for an increase of $142,442.50 in excise, of $26,000 in weights and measures, and of $10,000 in adulteration of food. The weights and measures business of the country is surely not of such a pressing character in war time, when men have to be conscripted to win the war, that the minister should ask the people to be taxed this extra amount of $26,000. The same is true with regard to the adulteration of food item. Why should there be an increase of $36,000 in these two branches? The minister is asking for $10,000 for increases of salaries of officers, inspectors and assistant inspectors of weights and measures. He told us a few minutes ago that they were all statutory increases.


Albert Sévigny: I made a mistake. I thought that was the Inside Service. There are no statutory increases for the Outside Service.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Will the minister give us the names of those whose salaries are to be increased?


Albert Sévigny: Generally speaking, we desire to give an increase to every one of

our officials of the Outside Service, and I hope we shall have enough money for that.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Are you going to appoint any new officers?


Albert Sévigny: .That is not the intention of the department.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Have you appointed any new officers within the last six months?


Albert Sévigny: Not in the weights and measures branch. Perhaps we have appointed a few men, but the appointments have been to fill vacancies.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am speaking of additional appointments, not to fill vacancies.


Albert Sévigny: During the last six
months we have appointed, throughout the whole country, five or six men.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: To new positions.


Albert Sévigny: Yes.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Who are they?


Albert Sévigny: I will get the names for my hon. friend.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Why should there be an increase of $15,000 in rent, fuel, travelling expenses, etc. for weights and measures?


Albert Sévigny: We were given $65,000 last year by Parliament, but we were short by $15,000, and it is to cover that deficit that we are asking for $15,000 more this year.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am at a loss to understand why in a department such as this of weights and measures where everything runs along in a groove absolutely certain and definite, that does not involve any eruptions of any kind in the service, the minister should require such an increased expenditure as $15,000 that could not be foreseen. I am at a loss to understand why his predecessor spent so much more money than was voted. We have received no explanation from the minister. The minister may be paying the penalty for the sins of his predecessor who has passed on to some other department. I can understand that in a department where flexible conditions exist, where unusual and unexpected demands may be made, a minister may be called upon to meet expenditures which, I presume, would have to pass the gauntlet of an Order in Council, and in such a case he might come with the explanation that the present minister has given. Either the minister's prede-
JUNE 15, Ifd7
cessor must have been a spendthrift, or the minister must have been. If the minister is going to spend $15,000 more, he should tell us what he is going to do with the money.


Albert Sévigny: When the amount of $65,000 was submitted to the minister, we thought that such an amount would be sufficient to meet all the requirements, but I understand that the department, as everybody else, has suffered on account of the high cost of everything. This item is for rent, fuel, travelling expenses, postage, stationery, etc., for weights and measures, including amount for purchase of standards of the metric system, salaries and other expenses of inspection. Last year we spent $80,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Where did you
get the money?


Albert Sévigny: I am told that on the
6th of February of this year a vote was passed by this House, number 386, for rent, fuel, travelling expenses, postage, stationery, for weights and measures, including an amount for the purchase of standards of the metric system, salaries and other expenses, further amount required, $20,000. We required that amount to pay our officials, and we came before Parliament and were given the money.


Frank Oliver: As the hon. member for
Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) has already said, this is a department of service which has not been the subject of expansion for any special reason during the past several years. It is obvious that the predecessor of my hon. friend, for whose action he must answer to the House, simply went on and spent $15,000 that he had no authority to spend, that this House had not authorized him to spend.


Albert Sévigny: We did not spend it until it was voted in the Supplementary Estimates.


Frank Oliver: The service was incurred before any Supplementary Estimates were voted. There has been no change of conditions that warranted such an expansion of expenditure; it was simply $15,000 of extravagant expenditure on the part of my hon. friend's predecessor in office. Last year Parliament was asked for a certain vote on the representation that that amount would be sufficient to carry this service through the year, and the department incurred this additional expenditure of $15,000. It is for the minister to show the committee, not only where he'spentthis
money, but why he spent this money. It is quite true that the over expenditure made by the department was provided for by Parliament, as the minister has said, by the passing of the extra Supplementary Estimate this year. But the committee are now asked to assent to the Main Estimates for the coming year, and this is the time and place when the Government ought to be prepared to state to the country, through the committee why an increase of expenditure has been made. Such explanations are not generally asked for or made on the occasion of what are called the extra Supplementary Estimates. Why was that expenditure made? Was it a provident, economical and necessary expenditure, or a wasteful, extravagant and unnecessary expenditure? The country is entitled to that information.


Albert Sévigny: The greater expenditure was necessary on account of the increase in the service. The industry of the country, generally speaking, was never so prosperous as since the outbreak of the war, and owing to this great increase and development of industry in Canada, the weights and measures service has greatly increased. It is only on account of that increase that this additional amount has been required; there was no extravagant or useless expenditure.


Frank Oliver: The minister makes a
'broad, general statement that an increase in the cost of administration of the weights and measures naturally follows the expansion of industry. I am at one with the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) in the belief that it does not necessarily so follow. The provision for the inspection of weights and measures is made, and there would have to be a very large expansion of industry indeed to require a large further expenditure by the department in that connection.
That is, unless this minister acts on the principle that money is free just now, and that the Inland Revenue Department should spend money liberally, as other departments of the Government have done; and possibly the other departments have not been as severely criticised for it as they should have been. The lines of expenditure in the Inland Revenue Department are laid down very closely, and there is not the same occasion for expansion as in other departments. A general statement is not information. We should have a detailed statement as to what appointments it is necessary to make, whether they were made

and what they cost the country, because it appears to me that there has been a sufficient staff of weights and measures inspectors and officials of this department generally, as well as other departments of the government, appointed since 1911, to take care of any expansion of any industry which has taken place, or that we may hope to take place for a long time to come. In other words, the staff has been kept at full strength, and has been increased, although the business has admittedly gone down. That being the case, a general statement on the part of my hon. friend is not an explanation, and he should be prepared to give us the actual details as to how the increase took place.


Albert Sévigny: I will not be able tonight to give my hon. friend all the details of that increase, but we have ' had that increase because it was required. I will have prepared in my department a detailed statement of all the increases that were required, and I hope that will be satisfactory to my hon. friend.


Frank Oliver: This large increase )of
$15,000 expenditure for this service apparently took place in the fiscal year ending 30th March, 1917. Will the minister be good enough to prepare the detailed statement as to the increase, and why it was necessary?


Albert Sévigny: Yes.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The item will stand in order to get information.


George William Kyte: Has the hon. minister the information he promised in regard to prosecutions for infraction of the War Stamp Act?


Albert Sévigny: We prosecuted about 400 persons - for infraction of the Act all over the country. At first we were very lenient and our officers conducted a campaign of education, but since the war broke out we have instituted 400 prosecutions.


George William Kyte: Does the department prosecute all persons against whom complaints are made?


Albert Sévigny: Yes, through our officers.


George William Kyte: Will the hon. gentleman have a list prepared of the complaints received in regard to parties who have violated the provisions of the Act, and a list of prosecutions?


Albert Sévigny: Yes.


Frank Oliver: I presume this is called preventive or detective work. Under what

system is the work performed and paid for? Is it by salaried officials permanently appointed by the department, or by men temporarily appointed, who work on commission, receiving a portion of the fine?


Albert Sévigny: We have employees who receive an annual salary, and in each case the official is entitled to half the fine, in addition to their salaries.


Frank Oliver: In addition to salary and travelling expenses?


Albert Sévigny: Yes.


Frank Oliver: Are these permanent or temporary employees?


Albert Sévigny: Most of them are permanent.


Frank Oliver: About what is the average salary paid?


Albert Sévigny: $900 now. The officers say it is not enough, and desire an increase.


Frank Oliver: There was some complaint made in the House a little while ago by the member for West Kent (Mr. McCoig) in regard to the administration of this part of the Inland Revenue service. He complained of the character of the service rendered. I think that it is objectionable to pay for service of this character by giving a percentage of the fine. No doubt many unjustifiable cases occur under that system. Some of these cases were mentioned by the hon. gentleman from West Kent, which certainly reflected very seriously on the administration of the department. It is generally accepted that the principle of paying the informer a part of the fine is not a good one, and is not to the credit of those in authority who administer the law in that way. It would be very much better to employ more highly salaried officials, who would be men of higher standing and character, who would administer this part of the work of the department in a much more effective, and creditable manner.


Albert Sévigny: The experience of the
department is that the present system is the most effective.


Frank Oliver: How many such appointees are there in the service of the department?


Albert Sévigny: Over a hundred, all over the country.


Frank Oliver: I think the member for West Kent, in speaking of this matter, suggested that there were occasions, within his knowledge, in which the detective was the

instigator of the offence. What is the policy of the department in that connection? Does the department consider it legitimate for the detective to instigate the offence, or, in any degree, to become a party to it?


Albert Sévigny: We have never credited that statement, and I certainly -would not tolerate such conduct. If the hon. gentleman has complaints to make against the officials who are doing that work, I would be very glad to receive them.


Charles Murphy: The member for West
Kent made certain complaints.


Albert Sévigny: It would be better if he would give the names. When did he make the complaints?


Charles Murphy: Last week, I think; it
is in Hansard.
, Mr. OLIVER:	He was discussing the
'possible regulation of cold storage and he instanced certain cases of hardship that had occurred under the administration of the Inland Revenue Department. It is not the policy of the department, then, to encourage this method of enforcing the regulations. How far would the department go in the way of discouraging such methods? Would they be willing to dispense with the services of a detective who had been a party to such a transaction?
Mr. SEVIGNY. Yes.


Frank Oliver: That is definite.


Albert Sévigny: Yes.
Adulteration of food and the administration of tile Act respecting fertilizers, _ fraudulent marking and commercial feeding stufis, $50,000.


Frank Oliver: What is the work of the
department in this connection?


Albert Sévigny: Samples of food are collected 'by our officers throughout the country and sent to Ottawa, Halifax, Vancouver and Winnipeg for analysis. If they are adulterated, prosecutions aretaken against the persons offering such foods for sale.
. Mr. OLIVER:	There is an increase of
$10,000 in this vote. Is this a case of the expansion of industry?
. Mr. SEVIGNY:	Yes, the service is increasing very much. Last year we were voted $40,000, but we did not have enough money.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is evident that the minister's Estimates are not properly prepared, and for this somebody in the department is censurable. For instance, why should $1.25,000 have been asked for last year for excise when $67,000 was enough to cover the expenditure for the year? This year the same amount is required. Some man in the department is responsible for this. Either the minister is not properly instructed, or he has not given enough attention to the preparation of his Estimates. Or, perhaps, the officers of his department do not properly prepare him for asking the committee to pass his Estimates.


Albert Sévigny: In the case of the item of $125,000, in 1916 the amount asked for was $175,000, and last year it was reduced to $125,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: More ought to
come off.


Albert Sévigny: We shall probably have
to buy machines to emboss cheques; the matter is under consideration. We are required by the Banking Association to do that work, and it is practically decided that we shall have to buy the necessary machines.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am disposed to be
generous with my hon. friend, because I know that he has not been long in office. But apparently his predecessor has overspent the money that was voted by Parliament. My hon. friend tells us that he wants $10,000 more under this 10 p.m. item, and so on^and this in respect of a department the operations of which are limited. What is the explanation of this $10,000 increase?


Albert Sévigny: I shall be only too glad to give this information to the committee with the other information that I intend to bring down.


Frank Oliver: The main point is, why
was this over-expenditure made, and what, if any, justification was there for it?


Albert Sévigny: I, will have a statement
prepared in my department.


Frank Oliver: In the three divisions of my hon. friend's department there are increases over and above the vote of Parliament and beyond what the minister says has been the increased expenditure. As the matter stands it simply means that my hon. friend's predecessor in office did not pay any regard to the vote of Parliament, but simply spent as much money as he desired and then asked Parliament to pay the bill. I submit that that is not a reasonable or proper way to administer the affairs of the country, and if the minister could

show that his predecessor did not conduct the affairs of the department in that way it would be very much to his credit. But according to the explanation of the minister the situation is as I have described, and it looks as if the minister having conducted the affairs of his department in that manner for a certain period, stepped put and allowed the mantle to fall on the shoulders of my hon. friend.


Albert Sévigny: I think it would be more satisfactory for the committee to have a statement of the expenditure made on all these items. I have no hesitation in saying that my predecessor was very careful in the administration of his department, and it is my intention to be the same. Mistakes may have inadvertently been made in the preparation of the Estimates, and we are now asking Parliament for the necessary money. Instructions have been given to practise economy throughout the whole department, and it is certainly my intention to follow that practice particularly during the war.


Charles Murphy: The instructions cannot have been properly given because the conditions which hon. gentlemen have brought to the attention of the committee have evidently prevailed in the department for some time. At the beginning of the session supplementary Estimates were brought down to make up the deficiencies in the three branches of my hon. friend's department, Weights and Measures, Excise, and Adulteration of Food. Already this session $05,000 have been passed in that way, showing that these shortages in the Estimates at all events, have continued for some time.
I am pointing that out to my hon. friend that he may bear it in mind when he is preparing the statement he is to make to the committee.


Albert Sévigny: A mistake was made in the preparation of the Estimates last year, and as we do not wish to repeat the mistake this year. We are asking for an increased amount.


Charles Murphy: My hon. friend has not shown the committee that what he is asking for will be sufficient.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Without any facts before me I must say that it looks as if the officers of the department had not prepared the Estimates properly, and as if the department was badly administered. Does the minister know whether these officers know what Estimates mean? Perhaps they have the idea that they can spend as much 
money as they like, and then ask Parliament for money to liquidate the over-payment.


Albert Sévigny: After the explanation given by the Minister of Finance a few minutes ago, 1 think my hon. friend will appreciate that it is not an easy matter for the officers to spend as much as they like. I have been in the department only five months.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: We are not criticising the minister.


Albert Sévigny: I have some very well qualified officials, and am perfectly satisfied with their services.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: You should have been a little better posted.


Albert Sévigny: I admit that. I shall be ready to give the committee all the information they desire when the Estimates are up again.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: In Volume I of the Auditor General's Report for last year, in certain correspondence running from pages 537 to 543 between the Auditor General and the Inland Revenue Department, the Auditor General charges that quite a number of servants are being maintained by the department contrary to law. Perhaps when the minister's Estimates are up again he will explain why these assistants are kept on without having passed the proper examination. '


Albert Sévigny: I will make a note of it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I know the minister has the horse races to-morrow on his mind, and I would suggest that the committee rise.


George Eulas Foster: I was entirely innocent of horse racing until my hon. friend put the notion in my mind. I have no objection to the committee rising.
Progress reported.
On the motion of Sir George Foster, the House adjourned at 10.15 p.m.
Monday, June 18, 1917.