1917-09-13

[Stage Direction]
On the Government Notice of Motion:
Mr. Reid-In Committee of the Whole-Will *move, that the resolution of August 1 with respect to amending the Dry Dock Subsidies Act, 1910, he amended and1 that all the words after the words "sum of" in the eighth line he struck out and the words "one million dollars" he substituted in lieu thereof.
Hon. J. D. REID (Acting Minister of Public Works):: This is for the purpose of amending the resolution contained in No. 20 of the Orders of the Day. What I wish, with the consent of the House, to do, is to pass this resolution and then take it up in connection with Order No. 20 of the Orders of the Day.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Do I understand that the minister desires to go in Committee of the Whole on this resolution to-day?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: As it is not an Order of the Day, the minister cannot do so except by consent of the House.


John Dowsley Reid: When we come to the Orders of the Day, I want to take up Order No. 20 with reference to dry docks. This is an

amendment to that resolution, and if the House will consent, I would like to pass this resolution and then take it up when wo go into committee on No. 20 of the Orders of the Day.
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Reid, the House went into committee on the following proposed motion, Mr. W. H. Bennett in the Chair:
That the resolution of August 1 with respect to amending the Dry Dock Subsidies Act, 1910, be amended and that all the words after the words "sum of" in the eighth line be struck out and the words "one million dollars" be substituted in lieu thereof.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Explain.


John Dowsley Reid: I intend, when we reach the Orders of the Day, to move resolution No. 20 which is to amend the Dry Dock Act. The object of that resolution is to provide for increasing the width of dry docks from 110 to 125 feet. This is being done at the request of the Admiralty. In addition to that we want to increase the depth over the sill from 37 feet to 38 feet. We are also increasing the rate of interest from 4 to 4J per cent. There is another clause that we propose asking the committee to consider, namely, that, on a dry dock which is being constructed, we may issue bonds to the extent of 75 per cent of the amount invested after $1,000,000 have been expended. The resolution which is on the Order Paper in the name of the Hon. Mr. Rogers was discussed on August 13, and it was found it was not in accordance with the intention of the minister at that time, and it had to be amended. That is why this amendment is being moved.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: As I understand it, the substitution of the words "one million dollars" for "five hundred thousand dollars" in no way increases the liability of the country, but rather restricts it. $1,000,000 must be expended before progress estimates can be given. The original resolution stated that $500,000 must first be expended. Therefore, this is a greater safeguard to the public.


John Dowsley Reid: That is the position exactly.


Mr. CARVELL:: Does this change it in any way so that the Government is responsible for the bonds, or is it only responsible for the interest? This Act was passed a good many years ago, and my recollection is that it provides only for the payment of interest for a certain number of years. Is there any change in the lia-

bility resulting to the country, apart from the increase in the rate of interest from 4 to 4| per cent?


John Dowsley Reid: There is a change. A new clause is being added. Under the old Act the dry dock had to be completed before any bonds were guaranteed.


Mr. MURPHY:: That is not the point


William Pugsley: What the hon. member asks is whether there is any liability on the part of the Government to pay the principal. There is no change in. that.


John Dowsley Reid: No.


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: There is no guarantee of bonds. There is just a payment of interest.
Resolution reported, read the first and second time and concurred in.
Mr. REID thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 134 to amend the Dry Docks Subsidies Act, 1910.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.



THE BATTLE OF LENS.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Right Hon.   S@: In reply to a question put by the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton (Sir Sam Hughes) the other day as to the casualties amongst Canadians in the fighting around Lens, the casualties at the front in the Canadian Expeditionary Force so far reported for the period from the 16th to the 31st of August were 7,586. This covers the period of exceptionally severe fighting in and around Lens, where the Canadian forces were heavily engaged. The discharges in Canada during the same period for various causes were 689. This gives a total wastage of 8,275. The total recruits in combatant arms during the same period was approximately 800, making a net wastage of approximately 7,475.


Wilfrid Laurier: How are the
casualties distributed? How many men were killed, how many wounded, how many missing, and so forth?


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: I shall be glad to get that information.



CANADIAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Albert Edward Kemp: The hon. member for Prescott (Mr. Proulx) asked me in the House the other day whether the surplus of officers who have been returned to Canada would be liable for service under the Military Service Act. The information my hon. friend desires is given in the Military Service Act, 78 George V, Chapter 19, in sections 2 and section 13, subsections 1 and 2, and in the schedule to the Act, paragraph 5.



OVERSEAS EXPEDITIONARY FORCE.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Albert Edward Kemp: The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) the other day asked the following question:
I wish to ask the Minister of Militia whether it is a fact that men who have foeen promoted on the field in France and Flanders, and who, having been wounded, return to the base or to Canada, receive only the ,pay of the position which they occupied when they left Canada, while men who received their appointment in England or in Canada, upon being wounded, receive the pay of their present rank.
So far as the department is aware, men who have been promoted on the field in France and Flanders, and who have been wounded, and returned to the base, continue to receive the pay/ of the permanent grade held at the time they were wounded. Men who have received their appointment in England or in Canada, upon being sent overseas, and who have been wounded, would similarly receive the pay of the permanent grade they occupied in their overseas unit.
The above does not apply to men who are holding acting rank only. When men with acting rank are wounded, they receive the pay of their permanent rank.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I understand the minister to say that the men receive pay according to the rank which they held at the time of being wounded.


Albert Edward Kemp: The pay depends upon the conditions which I have just indicated.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I know of a case in New Brunswick, where a man who was promoted on the field to the rank of Major, and who was afterwards wounded, and returned to Canada, has been receiving the pay of a
Lieutenant all the time. I can give the minister his name privately.


Albert Edward Kemp: I shall be glad if my hon. friend would, as there may be some irregularity about this case.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: I understand that
there are some cases where an officer who was acting in a higher rank-for instance, a captain acting as a major-and who had been recommended for promotion which had not been given at the time of his death, has been overlooked. Will the minister look into that matter?


Albert Edward Kemp: Yes. In reply to a question by my hon. friend the other day on this subject I would say that officers who voluntarily revert in England to a lower rank, in order to go to the front, receive the pay of their lower rank, but thei* wives continue to receive separation allowance of the original rank which the officers held prior to reversion.



CERTIFICATES TO THOSE MEDICALLY UNFIT.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Albert Edward Kemp: The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) said the other day that he had seen it stated in the press that certificates were to be given to men who had offered to enlist but who had been refused on account of medical unfitness. I would say that, in accordance with Order in Council 2199, of the 10th August, 1917, a. badge and certificate known as Class " D " will be given to those who have offered themselves for active service in the Canadian Expeditionary Force, and have been rejected as, and who still are, medically unfit. As no list of those who offered to enlist and were refused on account of medical unfitness has been kept by this department, the Order in Council above mentioned requires such applicants to undergo a further medical examination and supply proof, by statutory declaration or otherwise, that they come within Class " D." I shall lay the Order in Council on the Table.



COLONEL JOHN ALLISTER CURRIE, M.P.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Right Hon.   S@: I ri'se to a question of privilege. My attention has just been drawn to some remarks made in the House yesterday concerning Colonel

John Currie. The gentleman addressing the House said:
'1 may tell him he was found up to his neck in a dugout when he should have been at the front leading his men."
This does not concern Colonel John Currie in any sense whatever. This story was told-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. Unless the hon. gentleman wishes to deny or qualify -some remark in respect to himself he is not in order in bringing this matter up on a question of privilege.
Sir SAM IiUGHE-S: I will deny some remarks concerning .myself. The next statement of the hon. gentleman- was:
"When he oame to this country looking for promotion the then Minister of Militia refused to give him promotion, because he was not entitled to it."
Neither of the two -statements I have read is correct. I may say -that I recommended Colonel Currie for promotion- to the rank -of Brigadier General. Owing to the fact that rumours had been passed around concerning him by his enemies, I had -previously investigated them and found them absolutely without foundation in fact. There was no intention to hit Colonel Currie when these rumours were first started, but gossip -soon gets going, and it was decided to hold up the recommendation until a full report was obtained. Subsequently I recommended his promotion to the rank of Brigadier General and he acted .as Brigadier -until recently. Later on, Colonel Currie complained in the House that he had not been decorated for his splendid -service at the battle of St. Julien. That statement of his ih-ad no connection whatever, as I understand it, with my action in recommending him for promotion. I w-a-s not present when he made these remarks in the House, but judging by the Hansard report, he seemed to think that General Alder-son -and I should have recommended him for -s-ome decoration on the field. I explained in the House -that I had nothing whatever to do with that, -and would not think of interfering. So the -statements made yesterday in the House concerning Colonel Currie and myself are -absolutely without foundation.



PRIVILEGE.


Mr. D. B. NEELY (Humboldt):: I wish to speak on a question of privilege. On

Saturday last in the city of Chatham I made a statement in regard to a more or less public man in this country, not a member of this House but who was once a member of this House. I find in the Toronto Daily Star of September 10, that this gentleman, Sir Clifford Sifton, as politely as possible gives my statement the lie, and directly contradicts what I said at the public meeting referred to. My statement in the city of Chatham on Saturday last was that on the 8th day of June last I met Sir Clifford Sifton opposite his office in the city of Ottawa, and that he -invited me to his office-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


David Bradley Neely: I am giving the statement so that I may explain the denial Sir Clifford Sifton has made in which he charges me with misrepresenting the facts.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member (Mr. Neely) purposes to give denial to some statements made outside the House. 1 doubt if that is a question of privilege. If the statements were made in the House he would be quite in order.


Wilfrid Laurier: The hon.
gentleman is calling attention to a statement in the newspapers. I think he has a right to do that.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If it called in question his action as a publi-c man, he would be in order.


Wilfrid Laurier: He says he made the statement -in a speech which was reported in the newspapers. Then he finds another newspaper denying the statement he made. Do you not think he is entitled to establish the facts as they are? All this appeared in tile public press. As a matter cf fact, some time ago I corrected a statement made in a similar way.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: As a matter of general principle I desire to give every opportunity to an hon. member who rises to a question of privilege to make his statement, but as the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) proceeded, it appeared that lie had reference to a difference between him and a gentleman who is not a member of this House. If the hon. member's action as a public man is called in question, he would he quite in order in explaining it.


David Bradley Neely: I was speaking as a public man, and I hiave been given the lie direct. That charge against my truthfulness has been published in the press throughout the

country from coast to coast. The statement I made in Chatham on Saturday last was to the effect that on the 8th day of June Sir Clifford Sifton, in an interview with me, pronounced himself as against putting conscription into force in Canada at the present time. In the Toronto Star of September 10 he, Sir Clifford Sifton, is quoted as making the following statement with reference to that interview:
I said that I regretted very much there was likely to he a split on the subject of conscription. in which different portions of the country would be arraigned against each other, but that it was quite clear to me that the Englishspeaking Liberals in the House ought not to follow Sir Wilfrid Laurier on this question. Dr. Neely asked me what I thought they ought to do. I said that they ought to organize themselves and repudiate the stand taken by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and at the same time announce their intention of supporting conscription and supporting the Government in its war policy.
That gives me the direct lie as to the statement I made. I made this statement outside of the House, as a public man, so that I could not claim the protection of this Parliament in making it.. In the statement I made I have the support of the-member for Norfolk (Mr. Charlton) the member for Quebec West (Mr. Power) .and the member for Richmond and Wolfe (Mr. Tobm). The hon. member for Quebec West stated over his own signature that at or about the same time Sir Clifford Sifton expressed to him exactly the same views as he expressed to me, and instead of the statement that he had advised me to organize those who proposed to vote for conscription on this side of the House I say emphatically that Sir Clifford Sifton told me to get the so-called eonscriptionist Liberals toogether and see if - there was no common ground on which they could support the stand of the leader of the Opposition because that was the proper' stand at the present time in this country.
As verification of what I say I have in my hand the signed statement of the hon. member for Quebec West which sets out that views similar to those expressed to me by Sir Clifford Sifton were expressed to him on the 7th day of June by the said Sir Clifford Sifton, .and that it was proposed to him that he should give an interview to the editor of the Manitoba Free Press who was to be in Ottawa in a few days. The hon. member for Quebec West, whose views on this question have never swerved from the beginning, .and who was against the application of conscription as everybody knows-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


David Bradley Neely: I am giving my evidence to establish that my statement is correct. The hon. member for Quebec West agreed to give this interview and went to his home at the week end. While there on June 9 he received the following telegram:
Ottawa, Ont., June 9, 1917. Hon. William Power, M.P.,
Quebec.
Find that no useful purpose will now be served by doing as suggested yesterday. Am leaving town tomorrow.
Clifford Sifton.
I make these statements because of the fact that 'this public man through a newspaper which he owns in the city of Winnipeg, the Manitoba Free Press


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. I think the hon. member is going too far. He has been given oipportunity to make a complete denial and to state his position, and I think he should he content.


David Bradley Neely: I was just going -to say that it was because of misrepresentation previous to this as to the attitude of the con-scriptiomst Liberals in this House-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order.


David Bradley Neely: Then, I will leave that out.
I would call your attention Mr. Speaker, and the attention of the House, to this very remarkable admission on the part of Sir Clifford Sifton in his denial.
It is quite true, however, that in common with many others in favour of conscription at different times, I have in discussing the question, reoognized the difficulty of enforcing it, and that it would have heen desirable to have got recruits by voluntary enlistment if possible. In this respect my opinion does not differ from that of any other intelligent person familiar with political conditions in Canada.
So out of the mouth of my detractor I prove my own truthfulness.



EXPLOSION AT WATERFORD, N.S.- RELIEF OF DEPENDENTS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
. M7. G. W. KYTE (Richmond):	In the
absence of the Prime Minister I desire to call the attention of the Minister of Labour to the following telegram which I have received :
Glace Bay, N.S., Sept. 10, 1917.
G. W. Kyte, M.P.,
Ottawa, Ont.
Would appreciate further effort from you secure Government contribution towards relief of dependents left by Waterford explosion. Telegraphed Sir Robert Borden to-day on this matter.
J. B. Maclachlan,
Secretary Amalgamated Mine Workers of Nova Scotia.
[Stage Direction]
I would ask the Minister of Labour if the matter of providing funds for the relief of the dependents of those who were killed in that explosion has been considered by the Government.
Hon. T. W. CROTHERS (Minister of Labour):: Some time ago the matter was
considered by the Government but the parties particularly interested replied that they did not desire any donation, inasmuch as the dependents of those men were fully protected by the company. Nothing has since been done by the Government.



EXPORT ON APPLES TO THE UNITED KINGDOM.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. A. K. M'ACLEAN (Halifax): I would ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce if he has any information with respect to the embargo against the importation of apples into the United Kingdom?
Right Hon.   S@: I received a cable from the Secretary of State for the colonies in which he regrets that it is impossible to raise the embargo on apples. He says the matter was given very thorough -and sympathetic consideration, but owing to financial and tonnage conditions it has been found impossible to give the permission that was asked for.



APPLICATION OF EX-PRIVATE JAMES SAUVE FOR PENSION.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. CHARLES MARCIL:: I wish to put a question to the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Edward Kemp). As a member of the committee appointed by this House (to investigate the treatment given to returned soldiers, my attention was called this morning to the case of ex-Private James Sauve, No. 144070, 3&tlh Overseas battalion-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: A minister cannot possibly give an answer to a question with respect to one private out of thousands. I would ask the hon. member to place his question on the Order Paper in the ordinary course and he will get an answer.


Charles Marcil: I would ask the Minister of Militia and Defence if it is in the ordinary course for the department to allow a soldier, honourably discharged in King-

siton on the 17th May, after good conduct and good service, to wait until this date in September before getting a pension of any kind.


Albert Edward Kemp: The question
which the hon. gentleman asked has reference to a matter which does not come under the Department of Militia and Defence, but I may say that a -soldier receives his full pay until his pension is granted.


Charles Marcil: The Minister of Militia and Defence, having declared that he bad nothing to do with pensions, would I be allowed to direct the attention of the right hon. gentleman who is now leading the House (Sir George Foster) to the case of a man discharged on the 17th May at Kingston and alloweql to go until the 13th of September without having -any -attention paid to his application fbr -a pension?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: Would it not be well for my hon. friend (Mr. Marcil) to write a letter giving the circumstances of the case and address it to the chairman of the Pensions Board? Ministers have a vast number of questions -and a great deal of responsibility in reference to them, but my hon. friend must not try to load too much on -the ministers. If he will get into direct communication with the 'Chairman of' the Pension Board and give the exact facts of the ca9e, ;he will get his answer much quicker than by asking a question on the Orders of the Day.,



NEW CANADIAN WAR LOAN.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. G. H. BOIVIN (Shefford):: I would like to ask the hon. the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) when he will be in a position to give an official -statement to the Hou-se concerning the new Canadian War Loan, which, it is rumoured in the pres-s, will be placed on the market in October.


William Thomas White: It is not my intention to make a statement to the House as to the forthcoming war loan. The terms and conditions of such a loan can only be determined shortly before the date of issue and it would not be possible for me, no matter how much I might desire to give the House the information, to make a statement at the present time. I may say, however, that the intention is that the loan shall be offered in November. Further than that I am unable to give any informaion.



EXPORT OF POTATOES.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: A week or so ago I asked the Government if they would not consider the advisability of removing the duty on potatoes, the effect of which would be that our potatoes would have the right to enter the United States free of duty. I was promised consideration of the matter and I would now ask the minister if he is able to give an answer.


William Thomas White: The matter referred to by my hon. friend (Mr. CaTvell) is one relating to the tariff. Announcements of that kind, are not discussed in advance for reasons which will be obvious to the House. I am unable to make any statement with respect to the matter except to say that any action the Government may take will be announced in due course. It is impossible for me to make a statement in reference to the matter at the present time.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If the Government could put wheat on the free list by Order in Council they could put potatoes on the free list in the same way. It would not need any tariff change.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee of Supply, Mr. W. H. Bennett in the Chair.
Customs-'Salaries and contingent expenses, further amount required, $350,000.
['I had not heard that there were any errors in the French version, but I will have it thoroughly looked into. *\nOn the motion of Mr. E. Lapointe, the debate was adjourned.\nOn motion orf Sir Robert Borden, the House adjourned at 9.50 p.m\nFriday, September 14, 1917.']
Mr. KYTE:: The minister promised to give the names of the officers in my constituency who would benefit by this increase.


John Dowsley Reid: The increases proposed are as follows: At Baddeck, D. J. Maorae receives $100; Mr. Macrae receives a salary of $750; John Larusic, of Aspey Bay, receives an increase of $50. At Ingonish, T. D. Curtis receives $100. At Iona, Edward MacNeill receives $100. At Little Narrows, D. B. McKay receives $50. At Munro's Point, Angus Carmichael receives $50. At New Campbell ton, W. R. McKinnon receives $100; J. A. Bain, $50; J. J. Bain, $50; Duncan Carey, $50; Alexander Harton, $50. At Neil's harbour, Edward Dowling receives $50, and at Ste. Anne's, Donald MeAulay receives $100, and Alexander McLeod, $60. At White Point, P. A. Mackintosh receives $50. At St. Peter's, C. M. Morrison receives
$100, and at Arichat, A. F. Boudrot, $100. At D'Eseousse, Felix Landry receives $50


Mr. SINCLAIR:: Would the minister give the same information for Guysborough and Antigonish?


John Dowsley Reid: The increases are as follows: At Canso, P. C. Cullen, collector, receives $100; E. M. Hurst receives $100. At Country Harbour, J. M. Milward receives $50; PI. M. Scott receives $100. At Isaac's Harbour, Hugh McMillan receives $50. At Port Hillford, J. McConnell receives $50. These have been submitted to me for my consideration by the officers of the department, and I have not had time to go over them.


John Howard Sinclair: Is there any increase in the office in Sherbrooke?


John Dowsley Reid: M. J. Keating receives $100 and David Murray $100.


Charles Marcil: On what principle are the increases given?


John Dowsley Reid: I have left it to the officers of the department. Men who 'axe not really dependent on the office for their living, who receive $300 or $350 a year, receive increases of $50. Those depending almost entirely on their salaries for a living get $100.


Mr. McKENZIE:: I asked for some information in reference to my constituency.


John Dowsley Reid: That information is as follows : At Sydney and outports, P. C. Campbell gets $100; J. L. Bray, $100. Theodore Chisholm has enlisted and his case will have to stand for consideration until his return. A. D. Gillis receives $100; J. W. Kennedy, $100; Edward Maepherson, $100; Roderick McDonald, $100; A. A. Mclsaac, $100; J. H. Scott, $100; A. W. Steacy, $100; James McPhee, $100; J. A. Richardson, $50; E. McGillivray receives $50, Anthony McDougall $100, and Joseph Orr $50. At Glace Bay there 'are three officers. A. P. O'Neill receives $100, and Daniel Keigan $100. Then we have N. F. McDonald, but he is overseas and nothing was done in his case. The understanding was that these men should get their salaries, in addition to tneir military pay, while overseas.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Will the minister give *me the names and increases of the officials at North Sydney and Sydney Mines?


John Dowsley Reid: T. L. Brennan, enlisted for
overseas, so that his salary remains as it is until he returns. Then the following offi-

cers received an increase of $100:	J. H.
Cammeron, John Cogan, David Edwards, F. E. Jackson, J. J. McDonald, H. W. McNeil, James McLeod, Angus Young, E. A. MaoNeil. Then there are some small increases: C. J. Je-ssome of Little Brae d'Or, $50; John Boutilier, $50; Robert Newton, $50; D. J. MoGillivray, $30; Roderick McDonald, $200; James Peck, $100.
Mr. MoKENZIE: What about the official at North Sydney?


John Dowsley Reid: Joseph McPherson; he is
receiving $1,600 and about $300 for extra time.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: His position is about the same a6 that of Mt. P. C. Campbell, and they ought to be getting about the same salary.


John Dowsley Reid: I have not gone over all these items. The salary of the official at Sydney is more than the salary of the man at North Sydney. The official at North Sydney gets about $400 out of the Inland- Revenue. He holds two positions there, Collector of Customs and Collector of Inland Revenue, so that his salary is really higher in proportion than the salary of the man at North Sydney. At all events this memorandum has been submitted to me and I have to give his case consideration.


John Howard Sinclair: The minister has only
given me the answer in regard to part of my county. I asked him in regard to An-tigon-ieh and Guysborough. He gave me the answer with regard to Guysborough, but not with reference to Antigonish.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not know what places
are in Antigonish.


John Howard Sinclair: I want the increases.


John Dowsley Reid: At Antigonish a man named W. C. Chisholm is receiving $100 increase. Then there axe increases to the officials in four small places, Bayfield, Cape George, Harbour au Bouohe and Malignant Cove, of $50 to the following officials: W. M. Strople, Alexander McDougall, Captain John Fras-er,
J.	D. Chisholm.


John Howard Sinclair: What was the increase *in. each case?


John Dowsley Reid: 


John Howard Sinclair: What about Harbour au Bouche?


John Dowsley Reid: They are all $50.


John Howard Sinclair: What about the official in the town of Antigonish?


John Dowsley Reid: There is just one man there, the collector, and he is getting $100 increase.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I should like to know the principle on which the increases are made. I would not offer any objection, if the increases were given to the men who are doing the work. In my constituency there are some officers who, I believe, are underpaid, and to whom a reasonable increase is a fair reward. I have other officers in my constituency who have never earned a dollar since they were appointed, who have never performed any services, -and who hold tihe (positions simply as- rewards for political services, I would be very much obliged indeed, without publicly stating those who-, in any opinion, are not earning anything, if the minister will give me the names of the officials in the port of Woodstock whose salaries have been increased. I will be able then to draw my own inference, and the people of the country will be able to arrive at their own conclusions.


John Dowsley Reid: I really do not know the
officers in the hon. gentleman's constituency. I am depending entirely on the official of the department for my information.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: For that reason, I am
not mentioning any names, but if the hon. minister will give u-s the names, we can easily make the application ourselves.


John Dowsley Reid: In Woodstock proper we
have three officers.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think there must be a couple of dozen, taking in the outports.


John Dowsley Reid: Does the hon. gentleman
refer to -the outports as well?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, I am not concerned about the officers at Woodstock, I want to state publicly that, so far as the officers in the port of Woodstock proper are concerned, they are earning their salaries.


John Dowsley Reid: These matters have been suggested to me. The collector at Woodstock, G. E. Balmain will receive $100 increase; Uriah Hanson, T. L. McCaffrey and G. A. Hooser will also receive $100 increase. Mr. Hoover's salary is $800. It is evidence that his whole time is taken up with the work. Then Robert Kelly, Aroostook Junction, receives an increase of $50. Mr. G. A. Giberson, Bath, receives no increase. Then there are no increases to the officials at Bloomfield, Centreville and Clair. The. subcollector at Debec, Mr. J. R. Kirkpatrick receives an increase of $100.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What salary does that give him?


John Dowsley Reid: His present salary is $850 and the increase will bring it to $950.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That official has done well during the last three years.


John Dowsley Reid: His whole living depends on the customs work, and the commissioner thought that on account of the high cost of living that $850 was a small salary and suggested $100 increase. Then at Grand Falls, Mr. H. W. Taylor receives an increase of $100. Mr. J. B. Porter, at Lower Andover receives an increase of $50. Mr. W. H. Lindsay, of Richmond Road, receives $50. The official at St. Hilaire receives no increase. Then Joseph Desjardins, of St. Leonards, receives $100 increase, and J. J. Walsh, of the same place, receives $50 increase, J. G. Sirois, of Edmundston receives an increase of $100.
Mr. McKENZIE * There are other places in my riding I should like information about. What has the minister done at Sydney mines, Grand Narrows and Iona?


John Dowsley Reid: I thought I read those out. At Sydney Mines, we propose giving James Peck an increase of $100.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Are there not two
officers at Sydney Mines?


John Dowsley Reid: I think there is only one.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The real officer at Sydney Mines is McDonald.


John Dowsley Reid: Roderick McDonald. We purpose giving him an increase of $200. His name is on the list.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What will that make his salary?


John Dowsley Reid: $1,500 a year.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I suppose that is little enough.


John Dowsley Reid: At Grand Narrows there is E. A. McNeil whose present salary is $250. We purpose giving him an increase of $100. At Iona, there is Edward MacNeil, whose present salary is $250. We purpose giving him an increase of $100.


Mr. ROSS:: What are the present salaries of the officers at Glencoe, Park Hill and Strathroy, and what increases are the officers there receiving?


John Dowsley Reid: At Glencoe, there is J. A. Jones, whose present salary is $800. We purpose giving him an increase of $100. At Park Hill, there is a D. J. Gray, whose present salary is $850. We purpose giving him an increase of $100. At Strathioy, there is W. H. Murray, whose present salary is $250. We purpose giving him an increase of- $100, making his salary $1,200.


James Hamilton Ross: Who was the former officer at Park Hill?


John Dowsley Reid: I have not the book here.
If my memory serves me aright, the Park Hill office was held by a man who was formerly a member of this House or of the local legislature, and he had the post office and the customs office together. Of late years they have been separated.


James Hamilton Ross: Just for one year.


John Dowsley Reid: This man died only a short time ago. Prior to his death, complaints were made, and it was requested that the two offices should be separated. The combination was not satisfactory to any one. The officer would be occupied part of the time as postmaster and part of the time as customs officer. When he was in the post office, the work of the customs office would be neglected. At his death, we appointed the present officer at a salary of $850. I could not say what the salary of the former officer was. But when the two offices were combined, the two salaries together were less than they would be if the positions were held by different men.


George William Kyte: Will the minister give me the present salaries of the sub-collectors at River Bourgeois, Petit de Grat Bridge and L'Ardoise?


John Dowsley Reid: W. S. Boyd is the present officer at River Bourgeois. His salary is 5250. We purpose giving him an increase of $50. At Petit de Grat there is James Le Blanc, whose salary is $250. We purpose giving him an increase of $50. At L'Ardoise here is W. S. Brymer, whose present salary is $250. We purpose giving him an increase of $50.


George William Kyte: All those sub-collectors are receiving the same increase?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Mr. PROULX:: Are the officers at Hawlces-bury receiving an increase?


John Dowsley Reid: I have not that here. There are only two officers at Hawkesbury.


Edmond Proulx: Dr. R. P. Pattel is the sub-collector.


John Dowsley Reid: He holds two positions there.


Edmond Proulx: No, .he is only the subcollector.


John Dowsley Reid: I have not that here.


Edmond Proulx: There is from the minister's town a Mr. Edmond, who is the assistant.


Mr. ROBB:: I did not hear the minister make a general statement. Does this increase apply to all customs officers throughout Canada?


John Dowsley Reid: In June and July last, we
had a small amount left over that we used to give increases, and there are men who got increases then that are probably not on the present list. But the commissioner .and hi.s officials have gone over every officer from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and they have been increasing the smaller salaries more on account of the high cost of living. For instance, if a man is receiving a salary of $800 or $900, we have increased it by $100 if his living depends entirely upon the position. The amount in the estimates would give an increase of only about $75 to every official, so that we could not take them all in. We are giving some of them $100 and some of them $50. We are making it go as far as we can, and we are giving the largest increase to those whose living depends entirely on the position.


James Alexander Robb: Has the minister given due regard to length of service? If a man has been in the service a long time, is he given preference over those who have come in recently?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, that is taken into consideration by the officials. So far as the customs service as a whole is concerned, the commissioner and his staff have been dealing very fairly with them. The system I am carrying out is just what my predecessors in the Customs Department have done in the past. The commissioner and his staff make out a list, and it is almost entirely followed'.


Charles Marcil: Will the minister give us a sample of what he has done in Quebec, for instance, in Bonaventure county, let us say, in Paspebiac?


John Dowsley Reid: They are suggesting that E. W. LeGallais get an increase of $100, Joseph Beaudin an increase of $50, H. D. L. McKenzie an increase of $100, and Thomas Enright an increase o-f $50.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: What 'about Magdalen Islands?


John Dowsley Reid: C. F. Painchaud and Camille Delaney get an increase of $100.

Mines and Geological .Survey-Compassionate allowance to the widow of the late C. W. Drys-dale, M.Sc., Ph.D., who was drowned while in the discharge of his duties on July 10. 1917. $5,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Was he an old officer?


Mr. MEIGHEN:: No, he entered the service in 1913. He was a university graduate of McGill, and took a post graduate course somewhere in the south. His salary at the time of his appointment was $1,600.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has he left many children?


Arthur Meighen: Three children, all under four years of age. He was an exceptionally capable officer. The references to his work out in the western mining camps are really remarkable. He achieved a great deal for the Government. A short time before his death he was offered a much more lucrative position with a western mining company on account of the services that they knew he had rendered in British Columbia, but feeling that it was his duty to complete the work he was engaged on for the Government, he declined,, and was promised an advance in rank on that account. At the time of his death he was receiving $2,30(1 a year. On the 10th of July last, in the performance of bis duties, while travelling by pack train from Cochrane to the Windermere area of British Columbia, he was drowned while trying to cross the Kootenay river. His widow is left with very little indeed, except for a small amount of insurance.


Mr. COCKSHUTT:: Now that the estimates of the Secretary of State are under discussion, I have a small matter to bring to his attention, as I understand it comes under his department. Some twelve or fourteen years ago it was thought well by the citizens of Brantford to erect a memorial , for the purpose of suitably commemorating the invention of the telephone, and perpetuating the memory of its inventor, Dr. Bell. The citizens got together and elected the following board of directors, which was afterwards incorporated by provincial charter in 1906 as the Bell Telephone Memorial Association: W. F. Cockshutt, M.P. (President) ; Lloyd Harris (vice-president); W.
N. Andrews; E. L. Goold; M. K. Halloran, Geo. Kippax; G. H. Muirhead; T. H. Preston, M.P.P.; F. D. Reville; A. J. Wilkes,
K.C.; C. H. Waterous; John Muir (treasurer); Geo. Hately (secretary). A prospectus was issued, and we waited on the late Government in the year 1906; I think it was. My right hon. friend, the leader of

the Opposition, was good enough to listen to our request, and grant us $10,000 towards the erection of a memorial. I presume it is so long ago that hon. gentlemen may have forgotten but we appreciate the gift all the same. I have here a record of the public bodies that contributed.
The Parliament of the Dominion of Canada gave $10,000, the legislature of the province of Ontario gave $2,000, the legislature of the province of Quebec gave $1,000, the city of Brantford gave $5,000, the county of Brant gave $500, the city of Toronto gave $500 and the city of Quebec gave $100. We have been upwards of ten years working on this memorial, and I am pleased to state to the House that it ie now complete and that His Excellency the Governor General will be in Brantford on October 24 next to unveil the monument. I desire to take this opportunity of inviting my right hon. friend the leader of the Government and my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition to be present with us on that occasion. I think it will be acknowledged by all that the invention of the telephone ie one of the greatest inventions of modern times. It is more in ordinary use as a commercial enterprise and for social intercourse than any other instrument. Dr. Bell is a man of the highest standing as a scientist. . He is now a resident of Washington, but spends the greater part of his summers in the Maritime Provinces at a place called Baddeck. Dr. Bell was a resident of Brantford during the early part of his- career. Hie fatheT lived there for about twenty years, and the 6on who was teaching at Boston used to pay frequent and long visits to Brantford. It was on one of these occasions the telephone was invented, in the year 1874. I think this is worthy of your attention, because the United States has made a persistent effort to claim that the telephone was invented in that country. They have set up a memorial in Boston to that effect. However, we have the statement of the inventor under his own hand that the invention originated and was developed in Brantford, Ontario, Canada, in the year 1874, and that the first long distance transmissions of speech over a telephone wire or telegraph wire were made in the neighbourhood of the city of Brantord, one from Mount Pleasant to Brantford, a distance of five miles, and the other from Paris to Brantford, a distance of seven miles.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will my hon. friend describe the memorial?


William Foster Cockshutt: I will give a description of the memorial in a minute or two. I
want to establish the fact that we are not making any claim which is not absolutely borne out by the facts. There are hundreds of persons living in Brantford at the present time who were present at the first experiments and who know that the invention originated in the city of Brantford. Therefore we have for nearly thirty years past called ourselves the Telephone City. The old homestead of the inventor is still there and has been acquired as part of the memorial. Originally half a mile of wire was strung around the house under the eaves, and the inventor telephoned to himself sitting in his own room. T^iat was the first experiment. After that the wires were run along a rail fence for about a mile, and then attached on telegraph poles, and taken into the city of Brantford. Then the two (long distance messages I have mentioned, one from ' Mount Pleasant to Brantford and the other from Paris to Brantford were sent. I think we are entitled to claim that Brantford is the telephone city par excellence of the North American continent, that the telephone was invented there, and that it is a matter of no small public interest to the Dominion that Canada should be recognized as the home of the invention of the telephone, which is one of the greatest of modern inventions. I have before me a recent report which was submitted to the directors on September 10, 1917. Perhaps I cannot do better than read a brief extract from it:
The monument has been completed, in accordance with the agreement made with the sculptor, Mr. W. S. Allward, dated September 28, 1909.
He has been engaged on this great' work for upwards of eight years.
The monument is composed of Stanstead granite with bronzes as follows. Two heroic figures representing humanity sending and receiving messages, at the left and right, and a large centre panel in relief, containing five figures, representing "Man" discovering his power to transmit sound through space, with a figure over him representing "Intelligence," and three floating figures representing three messengers, "Knowledge, Joy and Sorrow." Under this panel is inscribed in the granite: "To commemorate the invention of the telephone by Alexander Gfaham Bell in Brantford in 1874." In the rear of the monument is a granite fountain, and the whole is bounded by a circle of granite.
The association has raised almost $60,000, including the subscriptions I have read. Many distinguished men, although not contributing very largely, have sent us subscriptions, and have placed on record their appreciation of what we were doing. Inasmuch as they are mostly public men per-

haps you would permit me to read the following expressions of opinion which we have received from several who are well known in Canada:
Duke of Argyle: I fully sympathize with the desire of the citizens of Brantford to have a memorial to the eminent inventor of the telephone. I shall hope to see it when again in Brantford, for I look Sack with pleasure to my last visit.
Earl of Minto: Hope that great success will crown your efforts to do honour to Professor Bell and his wonderful invention.
Earl Grey:	The suggestion is a most excellent one, and will be glad to give it his hearty support.
Lord Strathcona : I fully enter into the spirit of the proposal for commemorating the invention of the telephone by Professor Graham Bell, and it would give me pleasure to have my name associated with it, and to aid in the matter to the best of my ability.
Sir W. Mortimer Clark:	Expresses cordial
approval of the scheme proposed.
Hon. J. P. Whitney:	Already in Brantford
you have appropriately commemorated in the Brant Memorial a historical fact in which Britons everywhere take great pride, viz.-the loyalty of the Six Nations to the British flag in the Revolutionary war. Your present enterprise is likewise of more than local interest, and we, as a people, have reason to congratulate ourselves that the first experiments with the telephone were made on Canadian soil near your thriving city.
Hon. Geo. W. Ross: I had the pleasure, perhaps I should say the honour, of speaking through the first long-distance telephone invented by Professor Bell, from his residence in the city of Brantford to his father's residence at Tutela Heights. I think it was in 1874. The telephone was regarded then as the production of a clever inventor calculated to interest the curious and novelty-loving people, hut no one dreamed of its possibilities for commercial purposes. I think you are doing no more than is eminently proper to place on record your appreciation of the invention and the inventor in his connection as a resident of your beautiful city.
Hon. James Wilson, Secretary of Agriculture, U.S.A.:	I am well .acquainted with Dr. Bell,
and am one of his admirers. I believe him to be one of the greatest scientists of the age, whose invention had done more to facilitate the spread of intelligence than that of any other man, living or dead. He is at this time absent from Washington, being at the University of Edinburgh, where he is to receive an honourary degree. .1 am pleased to see the Canadians taking this step towards honouring him. If there is anything I can do to facilitate the movement to honour him, I shall certainly he glad to do it.
Admiral Dewey: This project seems to me a very worthy one, and I gladly comply with your request that I permit the use of my name as one of the American patrons of the association.
John Joy Edson, Washington:	In Washington, where Mr. Bell has resided for many years, the highest possible value is placed on his services rendered to the world as the inventor of the telephone.
Mr. Bell is esteemed also in Washington as a scholar and a great scientist and benefactor 
in many ways. Moreover, he is beloved by all in Washington who are fortunate in having enjoyed his personal acquaintance, and who have been his guests.
And last but not least I wish to place on record the appreciation of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, now King George the Fifth:
Ottawa, 13th September, 1904.
Sir:-
The application of the Bell Telephone Memorial Association as contained in your letter of the 27th June last for the patronage of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales having been referred to the Governor General from the Colonial office, His Excellency was pleased to recommend it to the favourable consideration of His Royal Highness; and at the request of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, His Excellency now desires me to inform you that His Royal Highness is very glad to accede to the request of the association for his patronage.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
.Your obedient servant,
C. J. Jones,
For the Governor General's Secretary. W. F. Cockshutt, Esq., Chairman,
Bell Telephone Memorial Association, Brantford, Ont.
From this you will see that the present King, then the Prince of Wales, became one of the patrons and we have as distinguished a list of persons as has ever extended their patronage to any memorial in the Dominion of Canada. The list is as follows:	.
Patrons:
His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales; His Excellency the Earl of Minto, Viceroy of India; His Excellency the Earl Grey, Governor General of Canada; the Rt. Hon. the Earl of Stamford, New England Company; the Hon. Sir W. Mortimer Clark, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario; the Hon. J. P. Whitney, Premier of Ontario; the Hon. Geo. W. Ross, Senator; Sir Thomas G. Shaughnessy, President of the Canadian Pacific Railway; Hon. Jas. Wilson, Secretary of Agriculture, U.S.A., Washington, D.C.; Hon. W. Murray Crane, Senator tl.S.A., Washington, D.C.; John Joy Edson, Esq., Washington, D.C. ; Hon. George Dewey, the Admiral of the Navy, U.S.A., Washington, D.C.; O. P. Detehworth, Esq., Buffalo, N.Y.
These are the names of the persons who have associated themselves with us and I am now pleased to inform this House and the country that the monument has been completed. It is a work of art second to none in Canada. I want to extend most heartily an invitation to all the members of this House and to all the senators, if they will come, and especially to members of the Government and the leader of the Opposition under whose auspices this vote was given, to come to the city of Brantford on the 24th October next and help us to

celebrate this epoch in the history of the city of Brantford and also commemorating the fact that Canada is the home of the invention of the telephone by Dr. Bell in 1874. Although Dr. Bell is a Scotchman by birth, his early days were spent in Canada and his father for upwards of twenty years was a resident here. I am sure that Canada will do itself honour in joining with us in celebrating this great event.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: 
John Howard Sinclair: Before we leave the Department of the Secretary of State, may I be permitted to ask him if there has been *any relaxation of the rule about women crossing the Atlantic? Last May theTe was an embargo placed upon them sailing in passenger steamers and there have been a number of inquiries as to whether leave could be given to -women who wanted to go across to Britain. I understand there is a rule but I do not understand how it is applied or whether it is universal or whether there are any grounds upon which an applicant may get leave to go.


Arthur Meighen: The rule is very strict. I am not sure that I can precisely state it. There have to be very special reasons indeed to enable the authorities to permit a woman to cross the Atlantic. The British Government put in force a regulation to the effect that none can go except with the consent of the Canadian Government. I do not know if they stated to us just the reasons that would warrant us in giving consent but their great desire is that it be granted as rarely as possible and only in cases where real hardship would exist if it were refused. There has -been no relaxation of the rule. What it was at first, it is the same now. My right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) would be able to better state it than I because he has had more to do with the administration of it. But I might give an instance of the way the rule does -apply. The British Government appointed a Toronto University professor- Professor McLennan-on the board of scientific research over there, a board similar to the one we have established here. It is a more or less permanent appointment, at all -events, a war appointment, but under the rule which existed and which still exists, his wife was not given a passport to go. That is about as extreme a case as I know of. I thought it was quite an extraordinary thing. There has been no relaxation that I have heard of and I am satisfied there has been none at all.



Senate.
Travelling expenses of Senate members of the Parliamentary Committee appointed to consider the oare, etc., of returned soldiers, $142.95 ; to provide an amount for the Speaker of the Senate in lieu of residence and attendants from [DOT]January 18, 1917, to the close of the session, at the rate of $15 per diem, $3,345; to provide for the payment of the full sessional indemnity of a senator who died during the present session, $2,500.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: So tar as the first item is concerned, I presume that is all right. We know that the members were on the committee, and I have nothing te say. The second item seems fairly generous, but I shall not discuss it.


John Dowsley Reid: This item is, of course, to compensate for the quarters which the Speaker formerly had.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Then theTe is a question about the third item, for .a senator who died during the present session. I have been making inquiries about that, and I think that three senators have died during the session. As an act of justice, I should like to see the full sessional indemnity paid to the wife of the senator from New Brunswick, who died during -this session.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: 
Rodolphe Lemieux: Whatever garb he may wear the Speaker i-s always very genial, he is the highest type of -a gentleman.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The question would be
whether that bouquet was for our Speaker or the Speaker of the other House.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Oh, it is for our Speaker.
. Mr. CARVELL: If it is for our Speaker, I wish to second it. But I think /we were discussing the Speaker of the -Senate. I shall be very glad if the Government or our Speaker will furnish me with details for which I have asked respecting /the indemnities of deceased senators, because if the -full indemnity be not paid to the family to whom I referred, it would be a great injustice, as corn-pared to 'the treatment given to the families of deceased -members of both Houses of Parliament in the past.
I do not know that -we want to inject into this debate a question of policy, but I gathered from IHis (Honour's remarks that he would be in favour of having the Speaker's quarters retained in the New House. There has been some discussion in the press /and quite ia lot of agitation in favour of abolishing the residence of the Speaker in both the Senate and the House of Commons. Never having occupied that high and honourable position, and not expecting to, I do not know much about it and have not much feeling for it. But, as no doubt, the interior arrangements -in the new Parliament Buildings will be fairly well settled 'before Parliament meets- again, it might be well if the Government or the committee who have charge of the re-erection of these buildings would take into consideration this very important question whether there are to be residences- in the Parliament buildings for the Speakers. I am perhaps becoming old enough to support time-honoured customs unless they are shown to be based on error, and if there is room enough in the new buildings I am inclined to believe it would be as well to continue the -residences.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am older
than my hon. friend. I have had forty years parliamentary experience, and I hope

that Mr. Speaker, whether for himself or his successors, will see that the new buildings have apartments for the Speakers. It would be most inconvenient, in my judgment, for the incumbent of that high office not to have his residence in the premises. When the House sits until five o'cclock in the morning it is most inconvenient for the Speaker to go to his lodgings outside of the House. Moreover, it is more convenient for him to have his office in the building, his lodging there, his family there. In my experience I never found any inconvenience arising from the custom; on the contrary, I found great convenience from the Speaker having his lodgings under the roof of the Parliament Buildings. It is the practice in England, and I should be sorry to depart from it. I do not know the views of the present Speaker, but I hope he will agree with me.


Mr. SCHAFFNER:: I was going to suggest, as the matter is being discussed in the press and the country and also to some extent among the members, that it would be a good idea to get an expression of opinion upon this question from the present Speaker, and also from hon. gentlemen who who have been Speakers in the past.
It seems to me their opinion, as they know the conditions, would be better than the opinion of others. As I understood the remarks of the hon. leader of the Opposition, I think it would be a good thing to have the residence of the Speaker in the new House of Commons, unless there be some very serious objection. I rise to ask if the present Speaker would care to make any suggestion as to what he thought would be the proper arrangement.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am in thorough accord with the remarks of the right hon. leader of the Opposition and the hon. gentleman from Carleton, and I may say to the hon. gentleman from Souris that I am pleased to give my views upon this matter. [ should think, from the point of view of the Speaker, it would be a very great hardship if there were no Speaker's house. I am a young man, and, I think, of average physical vigour, but I have felt the strain of the constant attendance, hour by hour, during the present session, and I am sure an older man would feel it in a very marked degree. The Speaker must change his clothing at the dinner hour, and when he comes to the House prior to the opening of the sitting, and when the House closes at night. That may not seem a very serious matter, but 3661
when you realize that you have to do that four times a day, and drive to an outside residence in all conditions of weather, it becomes somewhat tiresome and troublesome during the long sessions. There is the further fact that hon. gentlemen can get pairs upon all occasions, and go home to their families or to social engagements, but the Speaker is debarred from that, and must be always present.
There is another aspect which, I think, is of even greater importance; it is this: there is an atmosphere about the office of Speaker which I would be sorry to see this Parliament lose. There is a dignity and importance attached to the office in Great Britain which we, of course, cannot hope to attain in Canada, but which we should emulate. I am not referring to the social feature, but to the added dignity that lends itself to the office of Speaker when he has an official residence. There is also the circumstance that hon. gentlemen of varying shades of political opinion have the opportunity to foregather in the Speaker's house from time to time, which tends towards more pleasant and friendly relationship between the members, and as members thus come to know each other better, it, in my opinion, elevates the love of public life. My own view is-and I have given the matter very careful thought-that it would be a mistake to try to adjust the space in the new building to suit the requirements of the Speaker's House. In the first place, the ceilings are too high. It is doubtful if the partitions could be properly arranged to afford suitable accommodation. My view is that it would be a wise thing to erect an individual house for the Speaker on the edge of the cliff, which could be, while a separate house, joined with the main Parliament building by an arch-way or arcade of Gothic design in consonance with the building itself. By such a construction you would have all the advantages of an individual house for the Speaker. You would have convenient access to the Chamber. From an architectural viewpoint, it would add materially to the appearance of the buildings on the hill, because it is just a question whether, as the building now stands, it is not too rectangular. The Speaker's residence would break off, and rather improve, the perspective, looking at the hill from a distance. I have discussed this feature with Mr. Pearson, who is, of course, a very competent architect, and who has splendid artistic taste, and he is in thorough accord with my suggestion. It would cost more

to do this than to arrange quarters in the new building, but, as against that, you would have the added space in the new building, and, after all we are erecting buildings which ought to be suitable to the business of the Dominion for centuries. Bearing that in mind, it seems to me, for all it would cost to build a separate house for the Speaker, that that would be the ideal thing to do, and I sincerely hope that my suggestion in that respect will meet with the approval of hon. members.
To appoint Mr. M. F. Johnston to the Second Division, subdivision A, at $2,000 per annum, as reporter on the Committee Section of the Reporting Branch of the House of Commons, from September 1, 1917, $1,106.67.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This is ia case which the Civil Service Commission are entirely responsible for, and I may say, with all respect to that body, if they had seen their duty as I think they ought to have seen it, this item would not of necessity have appeared in, the estimates at all. I might say in explanation that last session when the Senate re-organized its debates reporting staff, it was arranged that Mr. Johnston who had been one of the Senate reporters for 25 years, should be transferred to the Commons Committee reporting staff, to fill an existing vacancy. It was assumed that a certificate would be given by the Civil Service Commission. Mr. Shortt refused to issue a certificate but Mr. Laroehelle wrote approving the appointment of Mr. Johnston on his fitness and qualification. The letter from Mr. Laroehelle is attached.
Mr. Johnston was engaged for over two months this session reporting the committees of the Commons, and for nine weeks reporting the debates in the House, in both of which positions he gave satisfaction.
Recommendations as to Mr. Johnston's qualifications for the position on the committees staff were furnished by the editor of Hansard and the associate editor, and by the chief of the committee reporters, and Mr. Holland, late chief of the Senate report-ting staff.
In their recommendation, the editors of Hansard state that Mr. Johnston's appointment "would be in the interest of efficiency in the service."
Mr. Johnston has been for many years official reporter in the Ontario courts, and has had wide experience in such work. The appointment is to fill a vacancy; it does not add, to the establishment or the charge on the revenue. It was assumed that under section 21 of the Amended Civil Service Act the Civil Service Commission would grant the necessary certificate, but for reasons
[The Speaker.]
which I know not, they refused to do ,so. In a letter to the Clerk of this House, Mr. La Rochelle, the other member of the Civil Service Commission, writes :
Sir:-
In answer to your letter of the 2,5th instant, concerning the proposed appointment of Mr. Fiske Johnston to the Committee Reporting Branch of the House of Commons, I may say that I have carefully considered this matter, and that I believe this gentleman fully Qualified to fill such a position.
The Civil Service Commission has been furnished with statements and testimonials from the heads of the reporting staffs of the Senate and the House of Commons, establishing that Mr. Johnston possesses to a high degree the qualifications required to efficiently fill the position to which it is proposed to appoint him, and, furthermore, that for more than twenty years he has been actually discharging with the utmost satisfaction duties similar to those attaching to the position in question.
It is true that, as a general rule, the Civil Service Commission issues certificates of qualification for positions in the inside service only after actual tests of qualification, but, on the other hand, section 21 of the Amended Civil Service Act (1908) provides that in certain cases of a professional, technical or peculiar character, where it is satisfied that a person recommended for appointment is fully qualified, such examination may be dispensed with. And I am to state that in my opinion the present case is clearly one where an examination may be dispensed with and that the certificate required for the appointment of Mr. Johnston may very properly be granted by the Civil Service Commission.
You will understand, of course, that my opinion is not shared by my colleague and that as a result of our disagreement no certificate can legally issue under the law.
This is a case in which, if we did not take this action, a very grave injustice would be done to a very competent official of this House, and, nnder the circumstances, I am quite sure the committee will pass the item.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is a deadlock.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.
Mr, MARCIL: The Government provided some years 'ago for the appointment of a third member of the Civil Service Commission. If that appointment had been made this deadlock would have been -avoided.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I quite agree with the hon. member for Bonaventure, but that is a subject over which I have no control.


Rodolphe Lemieux: As we are speaking of the debates-and Mr. Johnston belongs to the Debates Branch-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The Committee Reporting staff.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I might, perhaps, here interject a few remarks about the French translation of Hansard. There has been a

marked improvement in the management of the French translation staff. The committee will remember that some years ago I and the hon. member for Bonaventure and a few others who took a deep interest in having a proper translation brought the matter before the House, and changes were made, but, unfortunately, the Speaker who then occupied the Chair did not seem anxious to meet our views. In fact, he followed his own inclination, and >as he had, I suppose, no great sympathy for the French translation, matters went from bad to worse. I am bound to say, however, that since the appointment of Mr. Leon Germ as head of the French staff, we have had excellent translation of Hansard. At the same time, we have had the French Hansard distributed to members practically at the same time as the English version, with, perhaps, a few hours or a day between. A little delay does not matter, however, provided we have a good translation. My hon. frfiend the Speaker will realize that Hansard is sent to public Libraries in Europe, to countries such as France, Belgium, Switzerland and even Italy. In Europe, the people who have to consult our debates will naturally read the French version, because they are more familiar with the French language than with the English. We, who profess to have some love for the French language and who .are interested in the culture of it, are rather jealous of that translation. Mr. Leon Germ is a well-known litterateur, and he has had a long experience in the departments before becoming head of the French translation staff. For many years he was the secretary of the Hon. Sir A. R. Angers when he was Minister of Agriculture, and as a technical translator he has possibly no superior in the country. He has, on one or two occasions, been the President of the French Section of the Royal Society, and he is one of the French Canadian writers best known outside of Canada. In fact he very often writes in reviews published in France. But there is always a fly in the ointment. My hon. friend the Speaker will realize that the head of a staff should be protected against the intrigues of his subordinates. The orders which he gives and the discipline which lie must exercise in his department should be sanctioned, and it should be the duty of both the Speaker and the Clerk of the House to see that that authority is maintained. It is so easy with translators, who generally have served in journalism, to take liberties with discipline, that it would be
a pity if that staff, which has been so well reorganized, should lose its strength. I do not make any charge or accusation against any one, but it has happened that one member of that staff, whom I will not name, has simply discarded the authority of Mr. Gerin.
I know Mr. Gerin well. I beg the Speaker of the House to see that his authority is respected, because the moment there is a flaw in the management of that office, it will go to pieces as it did a few years ago.. As it is organized to-day, it is as near perfection as possible. I want the protection of the Speaker and of the Clerk of the House, both eminent gentlemen and men who value discipline, to see that Mr. Gerin's authority is Tespected within his own department.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am very glad to hear the words of commendation from the hon. member for Rouville. I cannot speak from my own knowledge as to the value of the work of the translators, hut I know the opinion generally expressed is that this work, in the past has not been done as well as it ought to have been done, and while some improvement has been made, there is room for greater improvement still. Bo far as my ability permits, I shall be only too glad to render every effort to that end. On the point the hon. member has raised as to the authority of one in charge of a branch, my experience in the business world before I had any experience in politics has taught me that it is an axiom of successful business management that you must give your foreman complete charge in the sphere of his duties, and that you must back him up while he is in authority. If it comes to a point of conflict between your foreman and those who are under him, you must choose as between your foreman and those who are under him, and it simply means that either the foreman remains, or his usefulness is done and he must go. So far as Mr. Gerin is concerned, his services have'been eminently satisfactory. While I happen to be Speaker he will always receive from me full sympathy and support along the lines I have suggested.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Might I ask if anything has been done towards helping the elevator men in the building? My hon. friend has been very kind to the messengers, hut the elevator men are after us nearly every day. They give us a lift, and they think we ought to give them a lift in their salaries. Of course, we have no influence with the Government, but I thought I would bring

to my hon. friend's attention the fact that these men are appealing to us. Remember also that the high cost of living pinches the poor man more than the rich.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This matter has not been brought to my 'attention before. I think these men come under the Public Works Department.


Rodolphe Lemieux: But the Speaker is their spokesman.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I will make inquiries about the matter.


Rodolphe Lemieux: And about the messengers too.	1


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.
To appoint Miss M. J. Barton to Third Division, Subdivision A, at $1,000 per annunf as a clerk in the Law Branch, $1,000.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I object as much as any member of the House to promoting officials by Act of Parliament as against the Civil Service Commission, but there are certain cases where a grave injustice would be done if a special vote were not arranged for. I cited a case only a moment ago, and I have now before me the case of Miss Barton, v horn it is proposed to appoint to subdivision A at a salary of $1,000, as a clerk in the Law Branch. I cannot put the case better than by reading a memorandum prepared on the subject by Mr. Gisborne, the Parliamentary Counsel:
Miss Marietta Barton passed the Civil Service examination under the law in force before the amending- Act of 1908 and came first in the examination at which she passed. She was first employed bn the House of Commons staff in 1908, and since that time was employed during the sessions on the House of Commons staff, and during the recess in various departments. I was appointed Parliamentary Counsel in the autumn of 1913, and Miss Barton came to my staff as my secretary in July, 1914, and she has been continuously employed in that position ever since. She is not only able to do my shorthand and other clerical work, but is also able skilfully and intelligently to look after the large amount of legal drafting that 1 have to do, as well as other legal work in the office. Unfortunately, she is now past the age at which she can go up for examination under the new law, but, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, I would ask that her name be put in the Supplementary Estimates as a clerk in grade 3a, at a salary of $1,000. She has been receiving pay at the rate of $900 for some years past. I would point out that I have, since my appointment, dropped two clerkships from my branch, one at $2,000, which was then vacant, and one at $1,400 caused by the death in action of the late Mr. John L. Godwin, so that the appointment would not involve any enlargement of the organization of the branch.
I am particularly anxious to have this proposal carried out, as Miss Barton is now only

on the temporary staff and her loss would he a serious blow to the efficiency of my -office.
(Sgd.) Francis H. Gisborne.
I can bear testimony to the ability, efficiency and industry of the Parliamentary Counsel, and in view of his representations I felt it my duty to ask that this vote be included in the estimates.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The Speaker states that this lady has reached an age where she cannot appear before the Civil Service Commission for examination. Would a similar vote to this have to be taken every year for this appointment?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I understand that this makes her a permanent official, and that from now on she will be in the same position in all respects as if she had been placed in the same grade by the Civil Service Commission.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Then she is appointed to the position by Act of Parliament?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That is what it amounts to.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Once she is appointed by Act of Parliament, is her status any different from that of a clerk appointed by the Civil Service Commission?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: They are in precisely
the same position, I understand.
To provide a service of stenography and typewriting for the use of members-further amount required, $15,000.


William Pugsley: I would call the attention of His Honour and that of the committee to the fact that $25,000 was voted in the main estimates for this 'purpose, and now an amount of $15,000 is being asked for, which makes $40,000 altogether. How many employees come under this head, and what is the salary paid to each?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I regret I cannot give exact information at the moment, as some of my papers have become misplaced, but speaking from memory, I think there are, at the present time, 42 stenographers for the use of members. The salaries vary slightly, but in the main the stenographers get $75 a month during the session. If the hon. member desires exact information on this point, I shall be very happy to send it to him in the course of the ddy.


William Pugsley: The reason I ask is that I think it is worthy of consideration whether or not there should be a change in the system. I am speaking of my own individual case, and my remarks may not have any weight with other members. I occupy a

room with three other ex-ministers, and I do not find it at all convenient to have my work done by a member of the stenographic staff. I find it much more convenient to employ a private stenographer, whom I have to pay for the work I have done. I really think it would be very much better if an allowance, nothing like $1,000 per annum or $75 per month, hut something like $400 per annum, was made to the members, and let them, arrange for their own secretarial work. There is another objection. Many members have private correspondence to attend to, and for that reason it would be much more satisfactory to have tljeir own stenographers. I throw out this suggestion for the consideration of hon. members. I had the opportunity some time ago of speaking with His Honour on this subject, which I think is well worthy of consideration. The amount which is paid out, $40,000, is very large, and I really think that half of this amount allowed to the members would enable them to get their stenographic work done much more satisfactorily than under the present system. 1 do not wish to make any reflection upon the work which the stenographers have done. I think they are very competent and that their work'is satisfactory, but in my own case the system is not satisfactory. I do not know whether other hon. members agree with me or not.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I give only my own
views, of course, because, after all, the arrangement, whatever it is, has to be determined by the House of Commons. I may say that my views are entirely in accord with those expressed by the hon. member from St. John. When I was a private member of the House, before any arrangement was made, I always had my own stenographer here. I followed this practice until I was appointed Deputy Speaker. From almost every point of view, it would be more desirable if an allowance could be made so that each member might make his own arrangements. He would get better work done and would have the services of one stenographer who would become familiar with his methods. He would also have the advantage of his correspondence being kept in the strictest confidence.


Mr. EDWARDS:: In voting a sum of money for stenographers, this House is accepting the principle that it is right to pay for such service to carry on the political correspondence of the members. That seems to me to be reasonable, but there is no doubt in my mind that under the present arrangement the money is being used to pay stenographers to do a lot of private business for members. We might assume that each member would have about the same amount of political correspondence- that is not exactly true, but we may go on that assumption, and therefore we might make an allowance to each member to cover his political correspondence. Some of the members of this House carry on very extensive businesses, and I quite understand they might require more- stenographic services -than other members. I would be very strong'y disposed to endorse the suggestion made by the hon. member for St. John. As it is now, some members of the House are having more money paid out in their interests than others. We are all on the same basis so far as concerns the principle of paying for the carrying on of our necessary political correspondence. I think .it is reasonable that a certain, allowance should be made to each member, and let him supplement it if necessary, to get a stenographer who would attend to his business.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I entirely agree with the remarks of the hon. member for Frontenac. I believe I must plead guilty to being one of those who have employed a stenographer for private affairs to a much greater extent than for political affairs, because my political correspondence has always been very meagre, indeed, and it is practically nil at the present time. I have nothing but the highest praise for the manner in which the present system has worked out. The officials who. have charge of it are exceedingly courteous, and do everything they can to meet the convenience of the different members, at least thejr do in my case. The members of tlhe staff are also very courteous and attentive to their duties. I have had one stenographer who is a real artist, and whenever he is available I can almost take the responsibility of signing a letter without reading it over. Being a first-class stenographer, however, he is greatly in demand, and it often happens I cannot get him. I find when I dictate a letter containing some Legal expression, or some technical term, or sometthing out of the ordinary run of correspondence, to a young lady who has had no previous experience in that line, naturally she brings hack the work in a most unsatisfactory condition. I cannot find any fault with her, because she has not had the experience or training in legal matters. If this .amount of $40,000 were divided among the two

hundred odd members, it would allow about $200 each, which would be ample for a member who wished stenographic work done. If he had more work than that to have done, he should certainly pay for it himself. I believe there are many members of this House who would be perfectly willing to take this $200, and supplement it by whatever sum might be necessary, and provide their own stenographers, because in that way we would get much more satisfactory service than we are receiving at the present time. I wish to call the attention of the House to the last item, which may be' a personal matter to some extent, but perhaps we might jusit as well have it explained. Pertiaps the Speaker will tell us on what principle that item is made up. Of course, I understand there is one item of $2,500 for Hon. Dr. Beland with which every one will agree, but I would like to know on what principle the rest is made up.


John Dowsley Reid: The last item reads:
To provide payment of the full sessional indemnity of members of the House of Commons -days lost through absence caused by illness, public business, being engaged in necessary farming operations, or on account of death, during the present session, including an amount of $2,500 to Hon. H. S. BOland, a prisoner of war in Germany, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Chapter 10 of the Revised Statutes, an Act respecting the Senate and House of Commons or any amendments thereto-payment to be made as the Treasury Board may direct, $22,010.
It is stated in the Act that members are entitled to fifteen days' absence without deduction from their sessional indemnity. If they are absent more than fifteen days it is deducted from the indemnity. The item explains itself to the extent that it is to pay members of the House of Commons who 'have lost days through absence caused by illness. We have some members who have been ill. I might mention the bon. member for Dundas (Mr. Broder) and the hon. member from Essex North (Mr. Wilcox) and the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. Guilbault) as being some hon. members whose names occur to me at the moment. Then, ministers and others may be absent on account of public business. It is also to provide funds to pay for days lost through absence on account of members being engaged in necessary farming operations.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am a farmer, and I
was just wondering whether I would come under that.


John Dowsley Reid: About the month of May, the two Whips, stated there were a number of men engaged in farming, mostly in the
[Mr. Carvell.l
West, who wished to remain at home to put in their crops and look after their farming interests. It was understood that these men would be allowed an additional fifteen days. Tt was understood that those members who were actively engaged in farming would be allowed an additional fifteen days. That is the reason the item is worded in that way. Then, the other is on account of a death during the session. There is another matter that I might mention. We have had a long session, and it has been suggested by the Whips that fifteen days ought to be allowed in 'addition to the fifteen days that the statute allows.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That would be general?


John Dowsley Reid: That would be general. It is under the consideration of the Minister of Finance.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I would be much more in sympathy with the latter proposition than I would be with the proposition as it now stands in the supplementary estimates. I have not been entirely in sympathy with the idea that a member is a school boy and that he will receive pay, or fail to receive pay, according to his attendance. A man who is elected to Parliament must answer to his constituents, and if he does not attend the session and perform his duties, in all probability his constituents will settle with him when he goes back to them again. You allow a man fifteen days absence, and then, if he is absent beyond that, you deduct, I think, $15 a day. A deduction is generally made in my case, because I am away more than fifteen days during the session. Yet, I do not think I could be blamed very much if I said that probably I devoted ias much time to the public interest as any other member of the House of Commons. If I am absent more than 15 days, I simply have to lose the amount that is deducted. For a number of years the custom has grown up by which members are allowed a certain amount of leeway on account of illness. I have known cf men receiving some benefit from that provision in recent years that I thought was very shady indeed. 1 could hardly believe that it was a case of illness to the extent to which it has been taken advantage of.


Wilfrid Laurier: Parliamentary illness.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Parliamentary illness, as my leader says. Now, we come to the question of farming. I do not know why the man who is away on account of being a farmer should be placed in a different

position from The man who is away because he is a lawyer. If I have courts going on, I must attend them, in doing so I am attending to my private business, and when a farmer is away he is away attending to. his private business. I cannot see much reason in making this allowance, and I think he should be charged for the time he is away like the rest of us. I am heartily in agreement with the proposition that on account of the length of the session the Government might properly allow an extension of fifteen days. I have always felt that special extensions are unfair and discriminating.


John Dowsley Reid: On account of the great.
shortage of labour in the West this year these members had to go away, and that is why this allowance is made. But the estimate brought down to provide for an additional fifteen days' allowance will be a general one, and we will all be on the same footing.


Mr. NESBITT:: I have sympathy with the Government in the extension of fifteen days to those who have had to go West to attend to their farming work, although, as my hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Car-vell) says, there should not be any exceptions. Each man thinks his business is just as important as the other man's. But, this year, on account of the great shortage of labour, I think it is quite excusable. I am thoroughly in accord with the proposition to extend the time of all members on account of the length of the session. But, I am not in accord with the idea of paying members who shirk their duty, who do not pretend to be here during the session, who only come once in a while when a vote or something of that kind is on, and neglect their duties for the rest of the session.
Department of Public Archives-To provide for the salary of the chairman of Publication Committee, $5,000 ; to provide for one clerkship in Second Division, Subdivision A, $1,600- $6,600.


William Pugsley: Is that new?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


William Pugsley: An explanation .should be given of it.


Arthur Meighen: In the year 1907 the Government published the first series of volumes relating to the constitutional history of Canada. The second volume, along the same line of work, was published in 1912. On account of the demand for the work, which came to be used in universities and schools as a text-book, in 1914 the Government undertook to republish both books, the previous editions having proved insufficient. Leading jurists were among those who made strong requests for the republication. Having issued these volumes, the Government considered the question of issuing collections of documents covering other important fields of Canadian development, including the treatment of the industrial and agricultural growth of the country. That is the purpose of this vote. The purpose of this vote is ito provide for superintending the production of these works. '


William Pugsley: Is there a chairman?


Arthur Meighen: There is to be. There has been none selected as yet. The item was in when I came to the department. It is to provide for one chairman and one assistant, the chairman at $5,000 and the assistant at $1,600. They are to be known as the Publication Committee, and their duties are to collect and edit a series of publications following on from what has been done with the subject of the constitutional development of Canada, and commencing at the beginning with regard to the agricultural and industrial development. I am not sure that I am giving an explanation that is anything more than indicative to [DOT]the committee. The work, however, is not new. It is merely a matter of putting it on a systematic basis, and making some one competent responsible for its success.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Has the assistant been chosen yet?


Arthur Meighen: I have not even heard the suggestion of the name of an assistant. I have heard a name mentioned for the chairmanship, but I am not at liberty to mention it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I presume that the assistant would have to be chosen by the Civil Service Commission.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, yes.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What about the chairman? Would he be in the same position?


Arthur Meighen: No, I do not think so. It would be unreasonable, a technical position-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I thought possibly there might have been some decision as to this point. A couple of months ago a lady spoke to me about a position something like this, not asking me to assist her in obtaining a position, as she knew 1 had no influence with t-he Government, but rather complain-

ing bitterly that the Civil Service Commission had refused to consider her application for a position having to do with the Archives, and I assume it must have bean this position, on the ground that about 160 or 170 years ago an ancestor of hers, in his official capacity, had played a part that had not been very friendly to certain people who lived in what is Canada at the present time. I thought if that were true, it was drawing the line very fine indeed, to cast upon this party -a burden which she should not be called upon to bear.


Arthur Meighen: Visiting the sins of the father-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Not the father, the great, great, great, grandfather, because it yoes back about 160 years. I shall give the name to the minister in confidence. I was given to understand that the Chairman of me Civil Service Commission pointed out to the lady that, on account of what nad taken place in the case of one of her ancestors a century and a half ago, she might possibly not be persona grata.


Arthur Meighen: I 6hall make a note of this, and so far as it is in my power no lady will suffer because her great grandfather committed any crime whatever.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Oh no, it was not a crime; he was a very high public official at that time, and carried out probably a very unpleasant duty.


Mr. SINCLAIE:: I scarcely understand the necessity for this hoard. It would seem to me that the archivist would be the best judge of what should be published. If it is simply to deal with the question of what shall be published, I should like to know why we should have a distinct and separate board of officials for that purpose.


Arthur Meighen: The archivist is merely a collector. If Canada is to have her industrial and her agricultural as well as her constitutional records properly kept and edited, the archivist is not a man of standing to do that. I know that if hon. gentlemen heard the name of the man-


Charles Marcil: Is he a cabinet minister?


Arthur Meighen: No, I do not know of any cabinet minister who is anxious-


Charles Marcil: We were told that some were going out after the session to make room for new ones.


John Dowsley Reid: That is a false story.


Arthur Meighen: If I were competent I should like to undertake the work. I am sure hon. gentlemen opposite will agree that the party contemplated will be in a distinguished sense competent to do the work.


William Pugsley: It seems to me the Government ought to hesitate about adding this office to the archives branch, especially when that branch is at the present time costing more than $60,000 a year, as will be seen from the list of officials in the main estimates, and the vote for contingencies. Now it is proposed to create another office and to attach a salary of $5,000 a year, together with assistants. I do not think this is the time for such an undertaking. These publications might very well stand over for a while. I suggest tnat for the consideration of the minister.


Arthur Meighen: I have no doubt there is some extra expense in the archives owing to the extra efforts that have to be made now in connection with records for the war. Mr. Doughty went over to England and France a year and a half or two years ago and has spent most of that time over there in the pursuit of duties that peculiarly appertain to this office and that were quite necessary.


William Pugsley: He is an exceedingly
good man.


Arthur Meighen: He urged very strongly that this opportunity should not be lost as the work could never be overtaken in the future. That may account for some of the expense, if there is an increase. This work is of a permanent character and if it is worth doing it is worth doing well. Literature that is not good literature is not worth producing.


Charles Marcil: Are these publications issued in the two languages?


Arthur Meighen: Both languages.
At six o-'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess.
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
To defray the expenses of the Economic Development Commission, including an amount of $750 payable to Mr. E. H. Godfrey of the Census Branch, for services as editor of the commission, $3,750.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is that a new office?


John Dowsley Reid: No, that is the Economic
Development Commission. It is just being wound up.


Mr. OLIVER:: Has this item been under discussion at all? What has happened in connection with this commission?


John Dowsley Reid: So far as this commission is concerned there has not been very much done during the Last year. This commission is composed of Sir James Lougheed, chairman; Senator Ross; J. B. Roland, Montreal; W. R. Dobell, Quebec; Mr. Farrell, British Columbia. Sir Joseph Flavelle was on the commission for a while. Mr. Watters and a gentleman from Moo-sejaw, president, I think, of the Grain Growers, were on the commission?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will the hon. gentleman explain the objects of the commission?
Mr.' REID:	I have not followed it up.
The assistant secretary was receiving a salary of $100 or $125 per month, and they have had a little printing to do in winding up. Sir James Lougheed intends to have the commission wound up shortly after the close of the session. The commissioners are working gratuitously, but their expenses -are paid. They have reports ready, and these reports have been audited by Mr. Godfrey, who was paid $750 for that work. This amount is ihtended to pay the expenses of the commissioners and the -assistant secretary's salary.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am not objecting to
the amount, if the hon. gentleman will explain the object of the commission. Later on, perhaps, the minister can give us an explanation.


John Dowsley Reid: I will give an explanation
later.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 1 am glad that the Government have appointed Mr. Roland, a very well known paper manufacturer at St. Jerome, who stands very high in the industrial world. I wish to express regret that the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce has not seen fit to appoint a gentleman from Quebec to a position on the Scientific Research Commission. The minister said the other day that he did not know -any person from -Laval who was -competent to serve on the commission. I can assure him and the committee that there are several very eminent professors at Laval who could fill one of these positions. I hope that when there is a vacancy on the hoard a professor from Laval will be appointed.


Frank Oliver: When the minister obtains the further information, will he include in the memorandum -the date of the appointment of the commission, the date at which it is expected the organization will be terminated, and the amount of money that the commission has cost, or will have cost, between those two dates?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I forgot to state, in answer to the statement by the Minister of Trade and Commerce the other day, that some years ago, when the World's Congress of Geology was held at St. Petersburg, the or-ly scientist representing Canada was the late Monseigneur Laflamme of Laval University, who was a well-known authority in geology and other sciences. He has left seme successors to follow in his footsteps. Some years ago, when I was in Japan, visiting the University of Tokio, where there aie, as my hon. friend knows, very eminent scientists, I found that the name of Monseigneur Laflamme was the only Canadian name known to that distant country. I make this -statement to show that Laval c- uld be of service to the country through some of its well-known professors. I hope my hon. friend will revise the unjust and biased view taken by his colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
To provide for the expenses of the Conservation Commission, $4,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is that the commission headed by Sir Clifford Sifton?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I notice that Sir Clifford Sifton is very busy conserving other things than the national resources of the country. He is trying to conserve the good things for the Tory party. Perhaps, if his activities -are so much needed in that conservation process, his services might be passed over to the Tory party for good, and a less obnoxious gentleman might be appointed at the head of the Conservation Commission.


Frank Oliver: Does the work of this
commission include any construction or manufacture of any kind?


John Dowsley Reid: A report of their whole work during the year has been laid on the Table. I have not read the report this year, but it gives a full explanation of the work done.


Frank Oliver: I wondered if, included in- the work of this commission under its distinguished head, there was anything devoted to cabinet making.


John Dowsley Reid: No, nothing of that kind.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Does the Conservation Commission not make a report?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, the report has been laid on the table of the House; it is very extensive.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I know that we receive from the commission weekly sheets which are interesting, and the annual report is interesting also. I am anxious to know if there is a report made in regard to expenditure.


John Dowsley Reid: The expenditure is all given in the Auditor General's report.


Frank Oliver: This is a supplementary
estimate. About what will be the total expenses of the Conservation Commission for the year? What was the total expenditure for last year?


John Dowsley Reid: I have not that here.
Civil government-Department of Justice, including penitentiary branch, $5,475.


Rodolphe Lemieux: While we are on the item of penitentiaries, and as the session is coming to a close, will the minister give the committee the information concerning Thomas Kelly? The other day the Solicitor General stated that he would bring down the papers, but I have not seen them so far. I have read in the Toronto Telegram an item which deos not tally with tne information given by the minister to the House. I am not saying that I do not accept the statement made by the minister, but the item in the Toronto Telegram differs radically from his statement. The item was published the second day after the release of Kelly. Possibly the minister saw it in the press.


Mr. DOHERTY:: I did not see it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Toronto Telegram, in a despatch from Winnipeg, expressed surprise that Kelly had been released. It stated that, as a matter of fact, he had received special treatment since he had been detained in the penitentiary; that he did not, for one thing, receive the hair cut; that he did not wear the garb of a convict, and that he was immediately sent to the hospital ward. That means favourable treatment for any prisoner, unless, of course, he is, as the minister states, sick. Later on, after some pressure was brought to bear upon the department by way of petitions, letters, telegrams and doctors' certificates, he was sent to a hospital outside of the the penitentiary. This is the point I wish to emphasize. According to -the despatch-I am- referring to what the correspondant of the Toronto Telegram states-Kelly -apparently was not sent to -any ho-spital, but was sent

home, which, after all, is the best hospital. The first news -that he was released was that he was seen in his house by people passing -along the street. I cannot for one mo-ment believe that any favour w-as shown by the minister to -a prisoner found guilty of such a crime as Kelly had committed. I believe what the minister -says, namely, th-at Kelly was really -a very -sick person, and in danger of losing his liberty for good, that is to say, his life. For the -s-ake, however, of -the minister's reputation, in view of the statement -made by a paper which supports the Conservative -party, he might, perhaps, give an explanation in re-gard to the matter.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I -shall be very 'willing to do so. I am -surprised that -any statement that Kelly was treated differently from the manner in- which -any other prisoner in the -same condition -of health was treated, should have been published. There has already been laid upon the -table the correspondence with regard to the manner in which Kelly w-as treated during his detention in the penitentiary.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That w-as -some months ago.	.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes. We are on the question now -as to -hi-s treatment in the penitentiary. I -may summarize the matter very briefly. When Kelly arrived at the penitentiary the penitentiary surgeon, in the performance of what he conceived to be hi-s duty, com-munic-ated to the department the fact that in his opinion-the co-m-mittee, of course, will understand that I do -not purport -to- give his exact words-the prisoner was -suffering from nervous breakdown, which placed him on the verge of insanity. I do not -say th-at he used the word "insanity," but he did -say th-at the prisoner was in a most critical condition, and -asked that he might be permitted to call in -another doctor in consultation, Mr. Kelly, or hi-s family, being willing to p-ay the expense of that consultation. I do not think that was a very -material feature in the matter. Permission- was, of course, given when the surgeon asked for it. The doctor called in consultation was Dr. Oarseallon, of Winnipeg, a gentleman of -standing and reputation, I am informed, and -the head of an institution in which nervous diseases are treated. Dr. Carscall-on, -in consultation with the penitentiary surgeon, Dr. M-cGuire, who, I regret to say, ha-s since died, reported at that time in very strong

terms that he was exceedingly apprehensive that, if Kelly were not released, the consequence would be very grave; that he was in an extreme condition of nervous breakdown, and that he had, as Dr. Garscallon had ascertained, been some ten years ago treated for a similar attack which had been exceedingly grave. The doctor's conclusion was that Kelly ought then to be released. In this condition of affairs, as it was represented that there was apprehension that continual confinement would produce those serious results, I thought it proper that before action there should be at least be some opportunity to see whether those apprehensions would be fulfilled. I waited a little while. In the meantime the facts had been reported to us that Kelly was under the surgeon's care, and that he had not had his hair cut nor been put into the ordinary garb because of the opinion of the surgeon that in his then condition any such action would precipitate the consequences that he apprehended. The matter stood for some little time. I caused inquiry to be made from the surgeon as to whether Kelly's condition was yet such that he might alter the treatment. Not only did he report to me again that Kelly's condition was not such, but he persisted in his view that it was a matter of grave danger to retain the man in the penitentiary at all. Thereupon, because I realized the gravity of the offence of which this man had been found guilty and the great importance of not allowing it to be suggested that because of any position of his, financial or otherwise, there would be any action taken that the circumstances did not actually call for, I caused him to be examined by Dr. Lafleur of Montreal, whom the hon. gentleman no doubt knows to be one of the leading physicians not only in our province, but I think I may safely say, in the whole Dominion, Dr. Lafleur reported that Kelly had certain physical symptoms, that he was very much affected, but in his opinion there was not any nervous condition that might not be accounted for by the circumstances in which Kelly found himself. He didi not think that in the condition in which Kelly \waa there was reason to apprehend that further confinement would bring about serious results. As to Kelly's nervous condition, it was quite impossible for him to form any serious opinion. That was some time in April. In view of that report, and notwithstanding the report of the jail surgeon and of Dr. Garscallon, I felt I would not be justified in ordering Kelly's release. But I did have further
communication with the penitentiary surgeon as to the possibility of altering the system under which Kelly was dealt with. The penitentiary surgeon again reported to me that he would not take the responsibility of that being done. We must conduct these institutions, so far as the health of their inmates and the treatment they are to receive is concerned, in accordance with the advice of the surgeon, and what was done in Kelly's case would have been done in the case of any other prisoner in regard to whom the surgeon had made a similar report. Conditions remained the same until some time in June-I am speaking from memory, and do not recall the precise date-when we again made inquiry, with the same results so far as the penitentiary surgeon was concerned. The conditions remained the same until a date in the month- of August which I do not precisely recall. In the meantime we had the most pitiful representations from Kelly's friends in regard to his condition of health. Whether -they were well founded or not, I think that any gentleman who -heard the story as it was told to- me would at all events have had implicit confidence -in the sincerity of those who fold it. However that may he, in the month of August, on a date I cannot recall at the present moment, I received a message to the effect that Kelly was exceedingly ill, and that the warden had -sent for the members of his family to come and see him. The next day, I think, there was communicated to me the report of Dr. Miner, who had been called in by the family, and he described Kelly's conditions as most serious. He intimated that he was not prepared to define precisely what the trouble was, tout described Kelly as being in a most precarious condition. Under those circurn

 stances, I caused Kelly to be visited and examined by Dr. E. R. Poph-am, of Winnipeg, a gentleman who, I ascertained by inquiries from people absolutely disinterested in Kelly in every way, was an outstanding physician of eminent professional capacity and unquestioned integrity. 1 asked him to report to me on Kelly's condition, and to give me his opinion as to the consequences if Kelly was retained in confinement in the condition in which he was. He reported that Kelly was'suffering from an attack of gastritis, and he gave his temperature, which was very high. He said that he was rapidly losing strength, and that in the condition in which he was, tiiere was no reason to expect any improvement. I felt that there was no course open

to me but to act on that report, confirmatory as it was of the other reports that had been coming to me, which were based upon a condition which had supervened several months after the examination by Dr. Lafleur. Thereupon, I did advise His Excellency the Governor General that it was a proper case for the issue of a ticket-of-leave, for the purpose of having the patient transferred to a hospital where he would receive proper treatment. That was what I understood was considered the best course. I did learn subsequently that when the prisoner was liberated for that purpose he was taken to his own home instead of being taken to a hospital. Upon that I had Dr. Popham visit him again to ascertain whether he was in a better condition of health, and whether it would be possible to move him, if desirable, to a hospital. He reported that he was not in a better condition of health, but that it would be possible to remove him to a hospital. Under the circumstances 1 could not see that there was anything to be gained by ordering him transferred to a hospital. We should have no greater control over him there than in his own home. He was on ticket-of-leave, and the order that- he should be liberated for the purpose of being transferred to a hospital had been made, not because we supposed we would have greater control over him in a hospital, but because our impression was that that was what was desired. Upon the last report Kelly is still a very sick man, under the care of his doctor in his own home. What may be the proper course if he should recover will, of course, be a matter for consideration. For the present I regret not having brought down all the papers that bear upon Kelly's condition of health. As I have already said, the papers that bear upon the reasons for the treatment he received are already before the House, and I shall be glad to bring down the other communications with regard to his health to-morrow. I have no hesitation in saying that on the evidence before me I am convinced that I could not have acted otherwise than I have done.
Of course, it has no bearing on the release of Kelly, but it is only fair to him to state this fact. He was convicted of an offence for which the maximum sentence is three years. He was sentenced to two and a half years, and had served nine months of that sentence, but he had been in custody awaiting extradition, and in jail at Winnipeg, from the month of October, 1915, to the month of November, 1916, when he was taken to the penitentiary. He then
[Mr. Doherty. J
spent nine months in the penitentiary, so that altogether he has been in close custody in the jail and penitentiary for a period of twenty-one months for an offence for which the maximum sentence is three years. In all fairness to Kelly it is proper to point out that, while he w,as charged with different offences, yet, under the judgment both of the Court of Appeals in Manitoba and the unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada, he could properly be found guilty of but the one offence of obtaining money under false pretenses.
Of course, I do not want to say that was a matter that had a bearing on his release under the cireumstnaces. He was released solely in view of his physical condition. I think it is fair to point out these other circumstances because it is well for the public to know the extent to which this man had actually received punishment.


Rodolphe Lemieux: We are reviving an old case, but because I .had seen in the press, as I stated, representations to the effect that there had been favoritism in the Kelly matter I thought it was well to bring it up. However, I do not accept the reports in the press as against the statements made by the Minister of Justice. It is well that the public should know that my hon. friend found good and sufficient reason for the action he took, because although he states that Kelly had served twenty-one months,
* including the time he was awaiting trial and that spent in prison after sentence, one must not forget that the matter in which he was involved was a very serious one, and that if the public are led to believe that criminals who are found guilty of such offences as the one in question receive favourable treatment at the hands of public men for political considerations, they would lose confidence in the administration of justice. Personally, I must say that, having heard the explanation given by the minister and knowing the medical certificates which were sent to him, I do not hesitate to accept his statement in preference to the statements made in the press. The minister will not think I insist on getting the information for the pleasure of ventilating this matter before the public. It is well that the public should know that every man receives even-handed justice before his peers. While I am on this subject of ticket-of-leave, may I call the attention of the minister to another question-


Mr. MORPHY:: Will the hon. gentleman permit me to interrupt? Will the Minister of Justice tell me how many Kellys got out

of the penitentiary last year, and give us a little of the history of the other two?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I must confess I do not keep a special register for the Kellys. At the moment I did not recall there were other Kellys who got out during the course of last year. "Kelly" is a name which is not rare. Perhaps the hon. gentleman will give me some more definite information.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The reason I ask the question is because I saw that there was a man named Kelly convicted on a charge of manslaughter, and owing to some laxity in the penitentiary another Kelly, who should be released, was not released, but the man who was convicted of manslaughter was released, although he should have been kept there for a long term of years. The Kelly who should have been released was, of course, released afterwards. I wanted to know if there were any more Kellys, and what peculiar charm there is about the name of Kelly that gives them a ground floor advantage in the penitentiary.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The other Kellys were Reillys.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The other question to which I wished to refer is the dynamiting outrage in Montreal. According to the press reports, three of the culprits are ticket-of-leave men. Of course, a ticket-of-leave is never a certificate of virtue, but at the same time it is remarkable that three of those ticket-of-leave men should have been found acting in conjunction with the other dynamiters. Perhaps the minister is too lax in his methods, or perhaps his heart is too tender. I would not charge him with laxity, but, perhaps, he might be open to the suggestion of tender-heartedness. It is remarkable that Elie Lalumiere, although he may not have been a jailbird, was just nearing the jail. The minister will remember that this man's name wias very prominent in a famous case a few years ago, and that he was doing some very evil work in a certain election. However, I am referring only to the real jailbirds who were released under ticket-of-leave. Can the minister explain why there was a sudden exit from the penitentiary just at the proper time for these men to take part in this dynamiting outrage in Montreal?


Charles Joseph Doherty: With all respect, I must confess the question put by my hon. friend is a somewhat extraordinary one. In dealing with tickets-of-leave we endeavour to ascertain the past., we do not pretend to
prophesy for the future. My information is that only two of these men were ticket-of-leave men. '


Rodolphe Lemieux: There may be only two ticket-of-leave men, but certainly another had "done time." Of course, I do not claim the minister is responsible for him.


Charles Joseph Doherty: As regards the other
two


Rodolphe Lemieux: They are wards of the
minister.


Charles Joseph Doherty: -how they happened
to get out in time to do this I do not think I can say, except that they did it after they got out. Certainly I do not suppose the hon. gentleman desires to suggest that the idea of letting them out on ticket-of-leave was that they should engage in the commission of the crime.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Are they not shadowed after their release?


Charles Joseph Doherty: A ticket-of-leave man is under the obligation to report monthly. With regard to the suggestion of tenderheartedness, I shall be very happy to furnish my hon. friend with a report of our operations under the Ticket-of-Leave Act. I am glad to say there are a large number of men allowed out on ticket-of-leave, and more glad to say that a very small percentage of the men released on ticket-of-leave forfeit their privilege. Everybody knows that a ticket-of-leave man committing an offence within the duration of his ticket-of-leave forfeits the time he had to serve when he got the ticket of leave, and has to return .to the penitentiary. The last time I had occasion to look at the figures, I saw that only from four per cent to five per cent of all those who obtained tickets-of-leave fell back into crime.
There are cases where they do. But m the case of these two criminals, after they had oeen released, they proved mcst unworthy of the clemency that had been extended to them. As to that we were not in a position to judge by anticipation. I have not now in mind the particular circumstances leading up to the sentence which they were undergoing when they were released, but I am informed that the sentences were not extremely severe. Moreover, at the time the recommendation was made, it was in contemplation that these men, who were soldiers, should be returned to their calling. Subsequently, the military authorities for some reason did not wish to take them back.

iMr. LEMIEUX: I see that the name of an officer, either of the Justice Department or of the Dominion Police,' is mentioned in connection with this dynamite case. I Tead the evidence yesterday in the press, and this man seems to have been a frequent visitor with Lalumifere at the meetings which were held and offered to procure arms for the other culprits. Perhaps it is too soon to speak of the case until the whole of the evidence has been given, but if it be true that an officer of the Dominion Police, or of the Justice Department, was connected with the affair in that way, it seems that it is not conducive to public order. If any officer incites a person to commit a crime he acts beyond his duty.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am satisfied that no officer acting under the directions of Sir Percy Sherwood, Commissioner of Dominion Police, would have acted, with instructions, in such a way as to incite any one to commit a crime. If any such thing has taken place, I can assure my hon. friend that in due time it will be carefully looked into.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I read the evidence of Tremblay, one of the witnesses yesterday- is it true that he is also accused?-and he stated most positively that at a meeting this officer, Desjardins, was present and told the culprit that he could get arms and weapons from the armoury. That is in the press of yesterday.


Mr. BUREAU:: The Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) just now said that the hon. membeT for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) would not suppose that anybody would try to get convicts out because he had any interest in getting them out, and that any such thing would be scandalous. It must be within the memory of the Minister of Justice that a celebrated convict and highway^ robber, who had held up the Canadian Pacific train at Mission Junction, got out of the British Columbia penitentiary. All the officers of the Justice Department at that time who had anything to do with the penitentiary not only were accused of having information about the contemplated escape, but were actually charged with having connived at getting the convict out of the penitentiary so as to share in certain Australian bonds which were supposed to have been stolen,
. although the bonds never existed. The name of the man was Bill Miner.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not think I have any responsibility for that.


Jacques Bureau: I do not say the minister had but he was in the House and the Justice Department was under criticism at the time.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think I have heard
the name.


Jacques Bureau: il see an item here:
To increase the salary of Joseph Adolphe Renaud, K.C., legal officer, to $4,000, from April 1. 1917, $600.
I do not object to that, it is a well deserved increase and I do not think that any of the legal officers are overpaid in the Department of Justice. If the minister will allow me, I am going to take up another subject. The Quebec judges, in what [DOT]they call the rural districts, in. my estimation, are underpaid. I will take the district wihere I practice-Three Rivers. The judges are getting $5,000, while in Quebec and Montreal they are getting $7,000. The $7,000 paid to the Quebec and Montreal judges is not too much, 'but the $5,000 paid to the judges of Three Rivers is too little. I asked the attention of the Minister of Justice to this question once before, and one of the reasons that w.as given at that time why the judges in Montreal and Quebec were paid higher salaries was that the cost of living in Montreal and Quebec was higher. I do not think that reason stands good to-day. I call the attention of the minister to the extra wofk that devolves upon these judges in rural district and the amount of extra cost which is imposed upon them on account of their residence. In Montreal they have a very large law library which is at the disposal of the judges when they want to study a case. In the district where I live we have not such a library, for the reason that the fees that are paid by students who are called to the bar are generally paid in Montreal and Quebec. These students attend the universities of McGill and Laval in Montreal and Laval in Quebec, they are generally articled with Quebec or Montreal lawyers and most of them remain with the firms with which they have been .articled. In the Three Rivers district the judge has to subscribe for the law publications and he has to pay out of his own pocket for the text hooks he requires and which are not in our library and which we cannot afford to buy because we have not sufficient revenue. I maintain that more work is imposed upon- the judges in the rural districts than is imposed upon the judges in Montreal and Quebec. In Montreal you have the circuit court while in our district we have no such court. They sit as

a court of appeal that hears 'all municipal -appeals with regard to valuation rolls-, etc. They sit as a -court of appeal in all cases under the Fish and Game laws. In addition to that the Superior court judge acts -as ,an arbitrator. In o-ur district all expropriations under the provincial Railway Act, for transmission lines and for water-power development are heard before a judge of the Superior Court sitting .as an arbitrator. In view of the fact that our judges are overcrowded with work, would -it not be possible to put them on the same footing as the judges in Montreal and Quebec -and raise *their s-alaries fro-m $5,000 to $7,000? I think it is only -a matter of justice.
I am speaking for the district -in which I live with -the circumstances of which I am well acquainted. That district has developed far rnoTe rapidly than any other district in Quebec on account of the water powers located on the St. Maurice river and on account of the new industries which have been established there. At the time the two judges weTe -appointed, Shawinigan Falls was a town of probably
2.000	inhabitants. According to the last census, there are over 11,000 people there. At that time lands -along the St. Maurice river were considered valueless. To-day they are considered very valuable, and every- day more disputes arise. Furthermore, expropriations in connection with all these water-power developments create litigation. Grand'Mere, which had about
2.000	or 3,000 people, is now a town of about
10.000	or 12,000 people. Three Rivers at that time had about 12,000 inhabitants, and to-day it has over 22,000. Along the St. Maurice, Cap Madeleine, which had formerly 1,200 people, now has 4,000 or 5,000 owing to new industries established there. All these industries in these town create litigation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. These judges are put to greater expense than others, as they have no library accessible and have to purchase books for themselves. They should be put on the same footing as the others and receive $7,000 per year. I think that Three Rivers ought to be no longer counted as a rural district for judicial purposes.


Mr. DEVLIN:: The district of Ottawa is much more important from a legal point of view and in other senses than the district of Three Rivers. Litigation is of considerably more importance. Mr. Justice McDou-gall was unable to take any holiday this summer, as he was constantly engaged in investigations or otherwise. There is really
more work for the two judges in the district of Ottawa than for any two judges of the district of Quebec-perhaps I should not say than any two judges of the district of Montreal. This also applies to the second judge of the district of Ottawa, as his case is somewhat exceptional, and he is not labouring under the same conditions as Mr. -Justice McDougall. Whilst I instance Judge McDougall, I would like to make my words apply to all the judges of the Superior Court in Quebec who have to-day a great amount of work, as the Minister of Justice knows, and who have also the same degree of expense, in view of the increased cost of living, -as the judges o-f the larger cities.


William Cameron Edwards: It may savour of presumption in the opinion- of some members for any one not trained in the legal profession to dare express an opinion in regard to the -salaries of judges. Notwithstanding that, I am going to take the risk. In my opinion-, speaking generally, the judges in this country get more than they -are entitled to now. As to a judge not being -able to take holidays this year, he will be in a position to sympathize with all of us here, as we have not been able to take any this year. The judges have always had the -advantage of very eloquent and able advocates on both sides of this House when- their salaries were being fixed. We have always had a number of very able men of the legal profession in 9 p.m. Parliament, -and I hope always will have them; they are valuable men for the country. But I have always felt that they never lose sight, as lawyers, of the possibility that some day they might occupy positions on the Bench. The judges receive what must seem to the great majority of our people to be munificent salaries, and after -serving for a certain number of years, they may retire on a good fat pension. That is how it strikes the ordinary man. Men in other walks of life have to provide for their old age, but the judge can retire on a pension fixed with the idea of enabling him to maintain the dignity which he maintained when he was on the Bench. There are cases where men who have retired from the Bench after putting in their time have engaged in other work which was even more strenuous than that in which they were engaged when on the Bench. It is all right to say that we must provide for the men who occupy the Bench a salary which will make them independent and above suspicion. How far



has that gone in the opinion of members of this House? Session after session, we have had instances of Royal Commissions, where one judge has been appointed, perhaps in Manitoba, to act on a commission, *and in thfe eyes of one-half the members he is a white-winged angel-everything that is good and pure. Then another is appointed to inquire into his conduct and he becomes a very different kind of man. Time and again we have been told that we must provide salaries for the judges that will place them above suspicion, on a plane by themselves. But we have also heard these men who are supposed to be above suspicion and above partisanship severely criticised by members on one side or the other according to circumstances. I am not a member of the legal profession, but I believe I am voicing the opinion of a great proportion of the people of this country, I think the majority, when I say that the judges are being well enough paid. Talk about them having a lot of work! What right have they to draw a salary if they do not work? Is it the idea that these gentlemen shall be placed upon a pedestal and that the greatest effort of their lives shall be to draw their breath and their salaries?
They are no better than other people to work. They are getting better pay than most people who are trying to make a home for themselves and something to live upon in their old age. Judging by the convictions, and by. the way some of these men fill their positions on the bench, I think many of them should never have been appointed. Fancy a judge sending a boy of fourteen or fifteen years of age to the penitentiary for five or six years, for stealing two or three dollars in money and an old revolver. In my opinion, that judge ought to be sent to the asylum; he is not fit to occupy a place on the bench. The men who occupy positions as judges are, in the majority of cases, fine men, men of exceptional ability. Notwithstanding that, I do not believe that in all cases, nor in the majority of cases, a judge accepts the position purely and solely out of love for his country. I cannot get away from the idea that the judge was thinking somewhat of himself when he accepted the appointment. He looked at the salary, and considered the fact that, after a certain number of years, he might retire and have his old age provided for. There is no objection to that. It is perfectly legitimate to look at it in that way. As a class, considering the work they have to do, I think the judges are better 	.	,
paid to-day than any class of citizens in the Dominion.


Jacques Bureau: I am glad the hon. gentleman from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) stated that he did not belong to the legal profession, because, if he had said that he did, I would be inclined to think he was talking about something he knew nothing about. It does not follow that, because a judge sends a boy to penitentiary, he is acting unjustly. He may have been right in sending the boy there. I do not know about that. When the hon. gentleman says that judges have nothing to do but draw their breath and their salaries, he had better inquire into the work that they have to do. '


William Cameron Edwards: I did not say that.


Jacques Bureau: The hon. gentleman said the most of them had nothing to do but draw their breath and their salaries.


William Cameron Edwards: No.


Jacques Bureau: I have to accept the hon. gentleman's statement. Hansard will show which of us is right. But the breath and the salary were mentioned. I say that there are no harder worked men in any occupation in life than the judges who sit in the districts wherein I practise, and I am simply asking that they be freated/the same as other judges. The legal profession is not like the noble profession of my hon. friend, where you go and feel a patient's pulse, and then go home and sleep over it. The judge goes home with a ease. He has the fortune of a man, or possibly the life of a man on his mind, and he is working twenty-four 'hours a day, if he is awake during that twenty-four hours. My hon. friend should realize that. A judge has great responsibility. If a judge makes an error, or if he ruins a man, the litigant can go to the superior courts in appeal from the judgment. My hon. friend is looking at it in a different way. He buries his victim six feet under ground. That iis the end of it-heart failure. The hon. gentleman had no right to attack the judges as he has done. Our judiciary is the pride of this country, and no man in this country can deny my statement. I am not invoking a pension for a retired judge for personal reasons; my hon. friend may rest at ease in that respect. .If I ask that the salaries of the judges in Three Rivers he increased it is not for my benefit, .because if they offered me a judgeship on a golden platter I would not accept it. I think if I had'de-sired such a position I could have had it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Jacques Bureau: There is no "hear, hear" about it. I am speaking sincerely, and if I were hankering for a position as judge, I would have enough pride not to rise in this Chamber and expose myself to the criticism: " Oh, Bureau, you want to be a judge and that is the reason you want an increase for the judges." I ask this increase as a matter of justice, and no one knows better than the Minister of Justice that in the province of Quebec our judges are harder worked than the judges in any other province, because they have to sit as a Court of Appeal in numerous cases. The judges of the Superior Court have to sit as a Court of Appeal in all municipal appeals, valuation rolls, and in all school troubles. A judge has to act as an arbitrator in all expropriation oases, whether for railway purposes or for transmission lines, or taking the shores of the riv.er and flooding them in the development of water-power, which, in our district, is a very considerable cause of litigation. The St. Maurice is nothing but a cascade, and every day these cases are coming before the court. With the development of industries, many personal injury cases arise and come before our judges. They are more numerous by tenfold than they were five years ago, and yet the judge gets the 'same salary, while everybody is getting, an increase because they say it costs more to live, which is a fact. It does not please my hon. friend from Frontenac to see a judge sit on the bench and assume the responsibility of deciding on questions involving men's lives and fortunes, because the judges do not cry patriotism and loyalty; because they have their work at heart, and perform it-and not all lip-work, as is the case with some' men I know-he says they do not deserve to be adequately paid for their labour. I take exception to that, and I say that the hon. member had no right to say the things he has said to-night regarding the men whom I consider the hardest-worked. men in the district where I live.


Mr. ROCH LANCTOT (Laprairie-Napier-ville) (translation):: 
Mr. WILSON (Laval) (translation):: And young judges too.
Mr. -LAlNIOTOT (translation): And young judges too, -as my hon friend from Laval -aptly remarks.. Those judges, having be-co-me disabled, -claim pensions, I have taken the trouble, ,M-r. Chairman, of calculating the amount already paid and probably payable by this country to the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty). This gentleman, because he has occupied a -seat on, the judicial Bench in Montreal for fifteen years, will probably cost the country $400,000.	.
The -CHAIRMAN (Mr. Rainville) (translation) : I would point o-ut to -the hon. member that the Committee is n-ow invited to discuss -an item -concerning -some increases in the salaries of th-e employees of the Justice Department. I would ask him

to limit his remarks, as much as possible, to the special item of the estimates now *under discussion.


Roch Lanctôt: I do not exactly know, Mir. 'Chairman, which item the Committee is now discussing, tout what I do know, is that the imember-s who have preceded me did speak about the judges of the land, and I do not see why I should not also be permitted to speak upon that subject, on behalf of the electors whom I represent. I think I am entitled to make some comparisons, -and if -certain hon. members of this House -ask that the salaries of the judges be increased, I believe it is m:y duty to institute -comparisons, and that is why I -quote the example of the hon. Minister of Justice (M-r. Doherty), a thing which I have, indeed, already done in this House.
I therefore say that the judges who are now receiving a remuneration of -$5,000; it is snot only that -sum of $5,000 which is their salary, 'because they expe-ct to draw, moreover, a pension, fifteen or twenty-five years later. A jndige whos-e salary is $5,000, fifteen ' years if he becomes, fifteen years later, 'afflicted with some infirmity, -disabling him from the due execution of his office, he gets tons superannuation on a retiring allowance of the two-thirds of his salary-even if he is not disabled, as says - the hon. fn-ember for Portneuf (Mr. Del-isle)-tout, if he occupies -a seat twenty-five years on the judicial 'Ben-ch, he is entitled to retire on -full salary; so that, -should he live twenty-five years more, his -annual judicial -salary will not have been $5,000 -but, actually, $10,000. -Now, I want to tell this House that the judges are the only privileged ones. In ev-ery country in the world, nobody receives a pension or 'an (annuity, unless he has previously paid some money in order to get such 'a pension, the judges are the only ones who do not p-ay one cent and who draw -a pension after fifteen or twenty-fiVe years.
I am wondering wherefore thi-s discrimination. Is it because there has -always been in thi-s House -so many lawyers, on either side, to pass such measures almost unseen, in order to reciprocate later? In fact it is generally admitted that judges don't die quick enough, and' if they don't wish to withdraw from the Bench, their wishes 'are even -anticipated; some -are forced to retire before Parliament is dissolved. I even predict th-at, before this- Parliament ceases to exist in order to go before the -country, some judges now on th-e. Bench will be interviewed -and spoken to as follows : "Please, do resign, we have members whom it will [The Chairman (Mr. Rainville.)]
b-e impossible to re-elect in their counties, and we -would like to put them on the Bench.'' That is the policy of governments, Conservative or Liberal, -and th-at is why -such a system must necessarily disappear.
I h-ave already had the honour -to introduce into this House a Bill to the effect that no pension be granted to ia judge, unless he has occupied a seat on the judicial Bench for twenty-five years- or he be -an -invalid; but n-ot -an -invalid to ib-ec-ome -a member of this House, a senator or -a minister.
I say that, in -a future Parliament, such -a state of affairs -must 'be remedied-; that a Bill must be introduced to wipe out these bad law-s, and I hope w-e shall then have another Minister of Justice, who will listen to our ico-mplainte and will n-ot hesitate to introduce such -a Bill in -order to -put a stop to this money riot.
Is it -not -absurd! indeed, to -see a Minister of Justice drawing $5,000 -as a minister, $2,500 as ta member -and -a pension of -almost $5,000? Would that be tolerated in any -country? I do not believe -it; not even in China o-r Japan. It is- only here, in Canada, that -such -things can be seen.
I declare it -again, even to-night, that if God spares me, -and should I sit here in the next Parliament, I will once more introduce a Bill in order to take -away their pensions from those who do not -deserve them; I believe that, instead of taxing the poor pe-ople for war purposes, these pensions should be (suppressed, for the object of the A-ct was to superannuate only disabled judges or those having served for twenty-five years.
Why, Mr. Chairman, -p-ay -a pension to this gentleman? Would it not he better to p-ay that -amount to ia charitable fund, the Patriotic Fund, for instance, or else -employ it towards our war expenses? I declare it to he -an -abuse -of power, and I w-amt to register -as strongly as I -can my protest -against -such -a state of -affairs.
Hon. Mr. 'BTJKjEAU (translation): It is evident my hon. friend has not taken my observations in the same sense I had,stated them. He pretends to speak on behalf of his electors who -are almo-st -all of them farmers. It is also in the name of the farmers I am protesting, (since the judges of rural districts .are not treated as fairly -as those of the cities of Montreal and Quebec. I repeat it, my only objeot was to do justice to the agricultural das-s .and th-at, bygranting the judges of the rural districts a sufficient salary to -afford them the means -of having a library, a thing they absolutely

need for -the judicious exercise of their functions. I do not think imy demand either exaggerated or unfair since, in my opinion, at least, the judges of the rural districts deserve quite .as much as the judges of large cities, such .as Montreal or Quebec. If the objection made until now to my proposition, that of the high cost of living in the cities, was. formerly a juist one, it has certainly ceased to he to-day, for I have personally realized that it costs more to live in Three Rivers than in Montreal or Quebec. I therefore see no reason for my hon. friend from Laprairie-Napie-rville to be scandalized; my demand is based upon the principle that the position and remuneration of judges appointed to administer justice in country districts should be such .as to render full and .ample justice to the agricultural .class.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am pleased to see that Mr. J. A. Renaud, K.C., is being given equitable treatment. He has had a long career at the bar He was a lawyer of eminence in the district of Joliette, where he had a large practice. I know that in the Department of Justice he is doing splendidly.


Wilfrid Laurier: Is this vote
in regard to Mr. H. B. S. Lane a special vote, not in accordance with the Act?
' Mr. DOHERTY: The case of Mr. Lane is inserted by name because this is not an increase in the ordinary sense of the Civil Service Act. Mr. Lane has been in the department for thirty-eight years. He is the chief accountant in the penitentiaries branch. (He is at present receiving a salary of $2,600. The increase is to make it $2,800. T'he length of his service appears by what I have just said, and the efficiency of that service is borne testimony to in the highest terms by all of those who have been over him during this very long period of faithful service. Under those circumstances, it was thought justifiable to recommend that he should have this increase of $200 per annum.


Charles Avila Wilson: I am glad the Minister of Justice had given credit for length of service. I think I know Mr Lane, and I have no dou'bt what the minister said about tbe length and value of his services is quite correct. I would like to see the same increase granted to such an old employee as the present warden of the St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary. I do not know exactly how many years he has been in the service in that institution, hut I [DOT]would not be surprised if he had been there for thirty or thirty-five years. His salary is only $2,800. I understand he has some living accommodation. If Mr. Lane deserves an increase on account of length of service, this gentleman also deserves an increase.
I am delighted to see that some of the officers in the Department of Justice are getting an increase; I think they well deserve it. If the minister will permit me to refer to a conversation I had with him some time ago, I should like to remind him of the claims of the penitentiary guards for a higher isalary. I see that the officers of the penitentiaries with salaries of $1,000 or less are to get a bonus of $100. That is -a step in the right direction, but it is not much to the penitentiary guards at St. Vincent de Paul, for instance, who receive only $800 a year. An officer of that institution with a salary of $1,200 a year told me the other day that after exercising all possible economy, his living expenses for the month amounted to $8 or $10 more than hie salary. As the law stands, I know these men cannot be granted a statutory increase, but the law should have been amended. As the minister is granting a bonus, however, I would strongly Urge that it be increased from $100 to $200. I think every man employed in our penitentiaries should receive $1,000 at least. I have no political end to serve in making this suggestion; I make it simply because of the high cost of living, and the difficulty that the guards at the penitentiaries have in making both ends meet. They have to be on duty from six in the morning to six at night, and are forbidden, and their wives as well, to engage in any other occupation which would bring them in money. How can a man live on $800 when the necessaries of life are so dear? I had to pay $10 for a ton of coal for my country residence the other day. That may not be much to me, but it is a big item for a poor man, and other household expenses have increased accordingly. It costs the guards more to live at St. Vincent de Paul than in the city of Montreal, because, working from six in the morning till six at night, they cannot get in to market. I am delighted to see these two legal officers at Ottawa getting their increases, but ;it seems to me that it is always the higher-salaried officials who get an increase. It is the poorer paid men who should be looked after. Speaking of old employees, might I refer to the hospital overseer, who is well known to the Minister of Justice. This man, who has a very large family, is not receiving the salary a certified clerk in a drug store in Montreal would get, and he is getting no increase at all. I would urge

the minister to take this case into his consideration.
Taere is another matter. The minister may have found out from his inspectors that there is a great temptation on the part of the guards to engage in some trading amongst the convicts in liquor, tobacco, drugs and things of that sort, because, as f have said, they are forbidden to engage in any occupation outside of their own work, and the salaries they receive are so small. The other day some of the guards came up to me and made certain representations, and I advised them to quit the service. But they said that they had been in the service ten, twenty or thirty years, and must stick to it now, and regulate their mode of living according to their salaries. I remember when I came to this House in 1908 the guards were receiving only $500 a year, but I succeeded in getting that raised to $800. But I am not satisfied with that. I think $1,000 is not a bit too much for any of these employees, if you want to get good, reliable men. I am sure the Minister of Justice knows that he has had to dismiss several guards for trading with the convicts in order to make a little extra to support their families. Now there should be no necessity for that. The most dangerous element of our population is kept at these institutions, and the men to look after them should be above suspicion, and of first-class character. These men are doing work that is just as important to the welfare of the State as the work that is being done by the soldier at the front, and it is a dangerous occupation too. Not very long ago a deputy *warden in the West had his throat,cut by one of the convicts, and there is still fresli in the memory of many of us the mutiny at St. Vincent de Paul, in which Dr. Laviolette proved himself a hero. The lives of the guards are always in danger. I would again urge upon the minister to increase the bonus from $100 to $200, rather than increase the salaries of men who get $25 a day for making an investigation-
1 will not mention any names at the moment.
Administration of Justice, Exchequer Court of Canada-To provide for the publication of the Exchequer Court reports by contract, $2,000.


Jacques Bureau: Has the increase been caused by the general increase in the cost of printing, paper, binding, and so on, or is it on account of the greater number of cases reported?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is the introduction of a new system in the making of those

reports. It arises out of the following circumstances. The present Mr. Justice Au-dette, assistant judge of the Exchequer Court, was, previous to his appointment, registrar of the court, and at that time Mr. Morse was the reporter. When Mr. Justice Audette was appointed to his present position, Mr. Morse was appointed to the position of registrar, and it was then believed it would be possible for him to combine the official performance of the two duties of reporter and registrar. However, the work of the court has very considerably increased, and in recent months it has been found that it is not possible, consistently with the proper performance of Mr. Morse's duties as registrar, that he should attend to the reporting of the cases. Members of the profession will understand the importance of promptitude in the turning out of these reports. As a result of existing conditions, the reports are actually six months behind. In taking up the question of what would be the most economipal method of providing for a proper system of reporting, it was found that we could make this arrangement with the publisher, under which, for $2,000 a year, he would undertake the full work of the reporting.


Charles Avila Wilson: Would that be done by contract or is it an increase generally?


Charles Joseph Doherty: By contract. We make a contract with the publisher to see to the proper reporting. The undertaking on his part is that the numbers shall be out within thirty days after receipt of the manuscript. I may say this is being done now as an experiment. We are asking for the vote for this year to put it to the test whether this will prove a more satisfactory method of having it done, as we anticipate, rather than the method of appointing a salaried official as reporter.


Jacques Bureau: Is this amount to be paid to the reporter?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The publisher undertakes to see to the reporting.


Jacques Bureau: Do I understand that the publisher will take down the decisions, publish the reports, and keep the subscriptions he charges us for the reports, and in addition to that receive $2,000 from the Department of Justice?


Charles Joseph Doherty: In the past, the work was done at the Printing Bureau, and the cost was not very much less than $2,000. Now we get the reporting done as well as the work which was formerly done at the

Printing Bureau. These two things are combined. If we had proceeded on the old system, we would necessarily have to appoint a reporter, and that reporter would get a salary of at least $2,000, and we would remain with all the cost of bringing out the reports as in the past. The system we are now adopting commends itself to my judgment as being a better arrangement, but I am asking for this vote only for the purpose of putting it to the test.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I certainly will not oppose any expenditure in connection with the Exchequer Court. Never has a court rendered such distinguished service to the country as has the Exchequer Court during the last . year. I have only to refer to the famous Quebec merger case in order to prove my contention to the hilt. That case was referred to the Exchequer Court in virtue of a statute passed last year, and the Chief Justice saved at least $2,000,000, to the people of Canada by one stroke of the pen. In one case he saved an item of $500,000, and an item of $794,$69.58.	Although the counsel appointed by the Government to look after its interests had decided to accept the two items, they were rejected by the judge. Since this judgment of Sir Walter Cassels has been made public, the Government has taken the wise course of stopping this expenditure concerning the Quebec and Montmorency, the Lotbiniere and Megantic, and the Quebec and Saguenay railways. The Exchequer Court of Canada is a blessing, not in disguise, but a real blessing to the Canadian taxpayer. It has just saved Canada from one of the most disgraceful and scandalous deals that ever came before this Parliament, and for my part I would vote with both hands for any justifiable expenditure to maintain and develop the Exchequer Court.
Mr. C. A.f WILSON :	In the supplementary estimates, penitentiaries, there is a vote made up of two items-to provide for a certain bonus to penitentiary officers, and to pay a compassionate allowance to Mrs. Mary Jane Mackenzie. If I am in order, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice when these items will be taken up.


Charles Joseph Doherty: At the next opportunity we have of taking up my estimates. I understand i't is the desire to proceed with other business now.


Charles Avila Wilson: Will it be next
week?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I hope so.
Progress reported.



[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime Minister) moved the third reading of Bill No. 133, the War-Time Elections Act.
Jacques Bureau: I was under the impression that we were to get a reprint of the Bill, and have an opportunity of looking over the amendments made yesterday.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: It is on the
Table. '


Arthur Meighen: It was distributed this forenoon.


Jacques Bureau: I was told there were
some corrections to be made, and that we should not use the copy given us this morning.


Arthur Meighen: Without speaking to the Bill, I may say the reprint as it is, is correct. In the printing there was an item of four words left out on one page, and I think two or three words on another. The Bill is really- viery well printed.


Jacques Bureau: We have not had an opportunity of looking at -the Bill. Certain amendments were made yesterday, which were run through in a hurry, and we passed them on .the understanding that this Bill would be reprinted and that we would have a chance of looking over the amendments to see how they worked in with the various sections to which they were added, and that they were all right. The Solicitor General should give us fifteen minutes to look into this Bill and see what it is.


Wilfrid Laurier: I hope the Government will not insist upon us taking up this Bill to-night. We did not expect it.


Robert Laird Borden: I thought it was understood we should go on with the Bill for a little while this evening and adjourn the debate until to-morrow.


Wilfrid Laurier: Adjourn it now. There is nobody here to take it up.


Robert Laird Borden: Could we not go on for half an hour?


Wilfrid Laurier: No. I did not understand we were going to proceed with the Bill to-night. I think we should adjourn now.	[DOT]


Arthur Meighen: The Bill was reprinted this forenoon. We rushed it for all we were worth and we got 'the French copy reprinted, too. There were several amendments, most of which were purely clerical. But it is important that hon. members

should have a chance of thoroughly reading the Bill, and, consequently, at the suggestion of hon. gentlemen opposite, it was agreed that we would not go on with the Bill iat three o'clock, hut that we should wait until to-night. I thought the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) understood that we would take >a little time on the Bill to-night and then go on with it to-morrow.


Robert Laird Borden: If hon. gentlemen did not SO' understand it we do not want to press it to-night.


Wilfrid Laurier: Go on with it to-morrow.


Robert Laird Borden: 
Arthur Meighen: I had not heard that there were any errors in the French version, but I will have it thoroughly looked into. *
On the motion of Mr. E. Lapointe, the debate was adjourned.
On motion orf Sir Robert Borden, the House adjourned at 9.50 p.m
Friday, September 14, 1917.