1918-04-12

THE QUEBEC DISTURBANCES.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. A. B. COPP (Westmorland):: Before the Orders of the Day aTe called, I should 
like to direct the attention of the Prime Minister to a report in the Montreal Gazette of to-day purporting to give an account of the inquest held at Quebec yesterday in connection with the Quebec disturbances. The following appears in this report as the evidence of Armand Lavergne::
They then asked him, to g.o and address the crowd, and as he had previously received the offer to act as chief keeper of records of the M.S.A., in Ottawa, which he had1 refused, he thought Col. Machin was fully authorized' and accepted.
I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether Colonel Lavergne ever offered to act as chief keeper of records of the Military Ser- . vice Act in Ottawa?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: I have not heard of the matter to which my hon. friend refers; I should be very much surprised if any such statement was made. Inquiry will be made with regard to it.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: It is a world of surprises.



THE VICTORY LOAN.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. A. K. MACLEAN (Acting Minister of Finance):: Yesterday the leader of the Opposition made inquiry concerning a return asked for on 20th March last in reference to the expenses in connection with the last Victory Loan. As he evidently desires that this information be submitted prior to the introduction of the War Appropriation Bill, I ask the leave of'the House to make a statement wdiich I hope will give him the information he desires. The reason the return has not been brought down was that full statements of all expenses in connection with the loan are not available to the department; consequently it is not possible to give to the House the exact information required by the Order referred to. However, I hope to be able to give the House substantially the information asked for, so that the progress of the War Appropriation Bill may not be delayed.
All expenditure in the way of remuneration for services in connection with the loan may be divided into three classes: first, remuneration to co-operating bond dealers and brokers; second, commission to canvassers; third, remuneration to banks.
As to the first, remuneration to co-operating bond dealers and brokers, in this loan the principle of co-operation rather

than competition among . brokers was adopted in order to organize and cover the whole country as effectively as possible. For this work practically the whole organization of all bond dealers and brokers was employed. The arrangement made by the Minister of Finance in reference to the remuneration of these firms was that at the close of the loan, after consultation with the Dominion Executive Committee and the consideration of any views or recommendations put forward by them, the amount to be paid would be based on t'he value of the services rendered in connection with the campaign by the several bond dealers and brokers. Some adjustments may yet have to be made, bat on April 5th the total payment under this head was approximately $750,000. Additional payments may yet have to be made to brokers. On the other hand, only last *week $30,000 was refunded by three of the principal bond houses of Toronto, and a few days ago $2,000 was refunded by the chairman of the chief committee in Saskatchewan. Possibly further refunds may be made of allowances paid to several of the committees throughout the Dominion.
As to commissions to canvassers, I may say that local canvassers were employed to solicit subscriptions and were given certain territory or lists of prospective subscribers to cover. Local canvassers were not permitted to solicit subscriptions .from those who. had been placed upon the special subscriptions list, which composed all prospective subscribers who, under previous loans, had subscribed for bonds to the amount of $25,000 or over. That is, any persons receiving subscriptions from those who had subscribed for sums of $25,000 or over in previous loans were to receive no commission thereon. Arrangements for the canvassing for subscriptions from these were made by the Special Subscriptions Committee, and no commissions were paid upon the same.
The Dominion Executive Committee was authorized to pay commissions to local canvassers on the following basis:
(a)	In all places having a population of more than 10,000, local canvassers were to be paid a commission of i Of 1 per cent upon all subscriptions obtained by them.
(b)	In places having a population of less than 10,000 and in rural sections, canvassers. were to be paid one-half of one per cent on all subscriptions obtained in their respective sections, whether secured by the canvassers or placed by subscribers directly with the banks, excluding, of
course, subscriptions from the Special List referred to above.
As of April 5, total disbursements for commissions to canvassers were $1,140,813.75.
As to remuneration to banks, a remuneration to chartered banks of one-quarter of one per cent on' the total allotment was paid for receiving subscriptions, payments, delivering interim certificates and definite bonds, and cashing coupons during the term of the loan-that is, during the 5, 10 or 20-year loan periods, as the case might be. The total amount paid to the banks for this purpose was $984,395.64. The allotment of the loan reaching $398,000,000 consisted of 5, 10 and 20-year bonds bearing 5i per cent interest. The issue was made at par with the privilege of deferred payments. It is estimated that the total expenses will reach approximately li per cent of the amount allotted.	[DOT]
Putting the matter in concise form, the expenses of the loan up to date have been as follows:
Organization expenses	 $ 376,000
For Publicity Campaign,
(a)	Through the Dominion Publicity Committee	 163,000
(b)	Through Canadian Press Association (disbursements to date) 207,000
For remuneration to Brokers and
Bond Dealers	 750,000
Commissions to canvassers	 1,140,000
Remuneration to Banks	 984,395
Total	 $3,620,395
In addition to this, there are, of course, the departmental expenses for printing the interim receipts, for engraving the bonds, for the staff employed, numbering some 700 persons, in the Department of Finance, who have been specially engaged upon this work since last December. It is estimated that the total cost of the loan, when finally available, will approximate $5,000,000, or about one and one-quarter per cent of the whole loan, which I think may be regarded by everybody as a very satisfactory rate.
The price of the securities issued was, of course, par, but by acceleration of payments, a slight discount, equal to the rate of interest which the bonds bear, namely, 5J per cent, was allowed to subscribers. Perhaps I may make that clearer to the House by saying that if a subscriber paid his subscription in full on January 2, last, he would pay for his bonds at the rate of 99 -107; if he paid in full on February 1, last, he would pay at the rate of 99 -467; if he paid on March 1, he would pay at the rate of 99-722; if he paid on April 1, he would pay at the rate of 99-909, and if he deferred his payment in full until the 1st

of May, as *he might do, he would pay at the rate of 100 per cent. I trust this will give to my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and to the House, the information desired. I shall pass over to my right hon. friend the statement from which I have read, and if there is any other information which he desires and which I can possibly give to him, I shall he glad to do so. But I trust that, with the information I have given, he will inform the Prime Minister that he may proceed with the War Appropriation Bill.


Mr. DEVLIN:: What is the total amount of the discount?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The total discount, inclusive of all expenses, will amount, we estimate, to one and one-quarter per cent.


Mr. MURPHY:: The minister said that all the expenses were not available to the department. I suppose that does not mean that the department will not ultimately have a statement?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Just as soon as possible, I shall submit to the House a complete and detailed statement of the cost of the loan.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am perfectly ready and willing to go on with the Bill today, but before we go into committee, I should like to see the statement.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not purpose going on with the Bill to-day. I thought it was desirable that this information should ibe given at least a day in advance.


Mr. PEDLOW:: Do the items of $163,000 and $207,000 cover the entire cost of the publicity campaign? On what basis was that allotment negotiated? Was the price paid for that publicity at the ordinary commercial rate charged for the space used, or was it on a different basis from that usually negotiated in an ordinary commercial transaction?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am sorry I cannot give my hon. friend the informatioir. I am simply using the figures given to me by the officers of the Department of Finance. The total amount for advertising was $207,000. I do not know how the advertising rate was fixed. I shall give my hon. friend the information to-morrow.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Is the item of $163,000 not also for publicity?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: The two together would amount to $370,000, which is the amount, I take it, of the cost of the publicity campaign.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


Charles Murphy: Will the details the minister promises to give the House include the names of the firms and papers which received advertisements, and the amounts
paid?.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: If that is desired.


Charles Murphy: It is highly desirable to know the amount paid to each newspaper.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That will cover all the newspapers in Canada. *
Mr. MURHPY': We want the information.



YUKON ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Horn Arthur Meighen (Minister of the Interior) Bill No. 39, to amend the Yukon Act, was read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-"Section 115, abolition of Council and new Council provided for."
Charles Murphy: Is the Governor in Council, in regard to the selections to be made, to confine its choice to judicial officers, or are the selections to be made generally of persons presumed to be capable of performing the duties attaching to the council?


Mr. MEIGHEN:: I am not sure that I understand the hon. gentleman's question, but the Yukon Act provides that there shall be appointed a commissioner and also that there ishall be an administrator,~ whose duties shall be to substitute for the commissioner in the absence or illness of the latter. Without power being given under the Act to abolish those offices, they cannot be abolished. They are, however, already abolished under the War Measures Act, but it is the intention that this legislation shall confirm the action taken, and that it shall date back so as to ratify that action. There are, in the general administrative machinery of the Yukon, other offices which have been abolished as well, and notifications have gone to all the holders of those offices that their services shall cease on the 30th of April, but the Act doeis not provide for the creation of those offices, and consequently it does not need to be amended in so far as those "offices are concerned.


Charles Murphy: The Bill does not apply to the last class of officers?


Arthur Meighen: It may be said not to apply, because the action can be taken without an amendment to the Act.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
On section 1-"Section 116, Governor in Council may 'abolish offices and transfer duties."
Arthur Meighen: The explanation I have just made applies to this subclause, but does not apply to the previous clause. As to the previous clause, that provides for the abolishment of the Yukon Council, and. that action has not yet been taken. The amendment empowers the Governor in Council to take that action.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Auditor General may send an officer to audit accounts in Territory when he deems it necessary, instead of yearly, as heretofore:
Mr. FIELDING:: What is the substance of the clause repealed?


Arthur Meighen: The Act as it stood said that the Auditor General " shall send an officer," but he may not deem it necessary to do so.


William Stevens Fielding: This makes it optional?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir Robert Borden (Prime Alinister) the House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution :
Resolved, That it is expedient to provide that the provisions of clause two of iBill thirteen, An Act to amend the Salaries Act and the provisions for preserving the Independence of Parliament, shall be deemed to have come into operation on the twenty-third day of October, 1917, and to apply and extend to the Chairman of the Sub-Committee of Labour Problems and to the Vice-Chairman of the Reconstruction and Development Committee, and that they shall be deemed to have been named by the Governor in Council under the provisions of the said clause on the said date, and shall each receive a salary of seven thousand dollars ger annum.
Robert Laird Borden: This resolution is necessary in order to make an amendment to the Bill for the purpose of conforming with the Orders in Council upon which the Bill is based.	-


Wilfrid Laurier: We can have
the discussion on the Bill.
Resolution reported and concurred in.



REVENUES OF CANADIAN GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS.


[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. J. D. Reid (Minister of Railways), the House went into committee to consider the following resolution:
Resolved, That it is expedient to provide that the receipts and revenues of the Canadian Government railways and of any railway under the charge, management or direction of the Minister may be deposited in a Suspense Account, and the working expenses of the said railways may be defrayed therefrom, and in the event of a deficit occurring at any time, the amount of such deficit shall be payable out of any unappropriated moneys in the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada, and in the event of a surplus the amount thereof may be transferred to the said Fund; the Suspense Account and all payments therefrom being subject to the audit of the Auditor General of Canada.
Mr. J. D. REID:: I wish to move that the resolution be, amended to read as follows:
Resolved, That it is expedient to provide that the working expenses of the Canadian Government railways and of any railway under the charge, management or direction of the Minister of Railways and Canals shall be paid out of the receipts and revenues of the said railway, and in the event of a deficit occurring at any time during any fiscal year the amount of such deficit shall be payable out of any unappropriated moneys in the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada, the said deficit to be voted by Parliament at its first session following the close of suoh fiscal year.
This change is made at the suggestion of the Auditor General, and is for the purpose of giving Parliament control in case there is a deficit.


William Stevens Fielding: I think this resolution is open to one objection. When I first read the resolution I was favourably impressed with it as a businesslike arrangement, but on further consideration the impression I have is that it will withdraw a very important matter of public business from the consideration of Parliament, lit proposes to set apart a portion of the Government business and say that that shall not be managed as other Government business, but shall be treated as a separate account. It might be argued with some force by the minister that putting this annual appropriation in the estimates swells the total, and that it is, after all, a mere matter of book-keeping. The Government railways on the whole will probably pay their expenses, but in many years they have not, although we are all hoping for better things. It is only in the event of. a deficit occurring that

Parliament would be asked to vote the money, but in the event of there being do deficit the consideration of the railway situation would probably be withdrawn from the consideration of Parliament. I hope the minister will give the matter further consideration. Perhaps, the view I take of it is1 not correct, but it seems to me, where the appropriations for the railway will run into so many million dollars, that there ie no good reason why Parliament should not have the opportunity every year of considering the appropriations, and that would necessarily open the way for a general criticism and inquiry, which, after all, is one of the chief purposes for which Parliament is assembled. There may be another side to this question, but fOT the moment I ask the Acting Minister of Finance whether he is- not, as a mere matter of convenience-and it would be no doubt a convenience to the department-taking aw-ay from Parliament one of its most valuable and important duties.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The principle
which the hon. member (Mr. Fielding) enunciates would no doubt be a sound one if it bad reference to taxation. Beyond doubt Parliament should possess of itself the sole right of appropriating any moneys collected from the people of this country by means of taxation, but I submit that the revenues which are obtained by the Government railways of Canada from the people of Canada, for services rendered by that railway, are in a different position altogether from revenues received by wray of taxation. I think a fair test of the fairness of the proposal contained in the resolution is this: Does the continuance of the practice of voting a general amount in the estimates after all mean anything? Last year I think we were asked to vote a sum of about thirty-five millions under the heading "Operating Expenses of the Government Bailway Systems of Canada." That, of course, gives no particular information to Parliament. No questions, therefore, are ever asked under that item. The amount cannot be approximated by the Department of Railways with any accuracy whatever. I am told by the officers of the department that this year they cannot estimate within five to ten million dollars what would be the operating expenses of the Canadian Government Railway system during the present fiscal year. My objection to the inclusion of the amount in the annual estimates is that it swells our general estimates unduly/ and no good purpose is served by it.


Charles Murphy: What harm is done?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It leaves the impression abroad tbat our annual expenditure as shown to be in the estimates is greater than it actually is. I think it is only a fair proposal that the revenues of *a railway system should be used to pay operating expenses, without Parliament being asked to vote that amount. If the amount could be voted with any degree of accuracy, possibly some good might come ou't of it, but it has never in the past interested the House, and I say it is unfair to the railway system. It is unfair to the estimates to load them with this amount. The Canadian Government are to-day the owners of the Canadian Northern railway system. *


Mr. BUREAU:: And they do not operate it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Our operating expenses will not be voted, in this manner. They were not voted this way last year. We voted a certain amount to take care of the deficit. We shall ask Parliament to do the same thing this session. If the resolution is adopted by the House, I think the financial position of the Intercolonial will really be presented to Parliament, in a better form than heretofore. If there is a deficit Parliament will be asked to vote that deficit, and a very definite and clear cut discussion may then take place upon, the administration of the railroad, because Parliament is asked to vote a deficit which it has never been asked to do before. The principle is not a new one. The Intercolonial has what they call a store account. The minister is permitted to. provide a certain sum for the purchase of railway supplies and material, and while there is a limitation of 81,500,000 to that account, still the principle is exactly the same. The same principle applies to the King's Printer.


William Stevens Fielding: We increased
the store account to 16,000,000 last night.
Mr. .A. K. MACLEAN:	The principle
is just the same, and it applies to the King's Printer. The principle in the Bill is this:	that the Government railway system ,be permitted to pay, out of its own revenue, its operating expenses. I submit that is a fair proposal, and I hope it will be accepted by the committee.


Jacques Bureau: Suppose it is a surplus?


An hon. MEMBER:: Do not suppose
that


Jacques Bureau: We must suppose all kind of things now.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The book-keeping system is not interfered with. Every dollar and every cent that goes to the system are credited to the Receiver General. Every cent paid out -by the railway is paid by cheque at Moncton upon the Bank of Montreal, Ottawa, where the Government account is kept.


Mr. CAHILL:: I am glad to hear the
Minister of Finance state to-day that we have the Canadian Northern, because last night apparently we had lost it.


Jacques Bureau: It is 'a hide-and-seek
game.


Frank S. Cahill: The Minister of Railways yesterday proposed a new resolution to increase the amount that might be voted for stores to $6,000,000. He told us the increase was required on accouht of the Transcontinental and International roads but he did not mention the Canadian Northern, and I inferred from that that he figured the Government did not at the present lime own the Canadian Northern. I am further strengthened in that opinion by the fact that the Government solicitor in Toronto two or three days ago made the statement -before the commission that he could not get a report of the earnings of the Canadian Northern Railway company since last October. Now, if we own the road, surely we should be able to get a statement of its earnings.


John Dowsley Reid: I might say to the hon. gentleman that the statements were given to the solicitor immediately.


Frank S. Cahill: Why did he have to go to the Commission and as-k for the statement? He said he could not get it from the proper sources. I know he got the statement the next day. Of course, he would have to get it; that is quite natural, but he could not get it up to that time. The hon. Minister of Finance states he does not want to have his estimates loaded up with a deficit. I do not think there is any question, if the railways of this country are managed by the Government as they have been, that we may forget about surpluses. It will be a question of deficits, and we want honest bookkeeping in this country. If we are making a loss on the railway, let us know it and show where we stand, and not try to cover it up by adopting some other system. If we are making a loss, it is a loss to Canada, and increasing Canada's debt, and why not show it,
as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) suggests?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Do I understand my hon. friend to say he is in favour of the resolution?


Jacques Bureau: No, he is against it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The resolution proposes to accomplish just what my hon. friend says he would like to see.


Frank S. Cahill: In what way?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Inasmuch as the deficits-and he says we will always have a deficit-will be disclosed in the estimates because it must then be voted. Is my hon. friend supporting the resolution?


Jacques Bureau: No, he is against it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not understand that he is against it. I do not know wrhat he means.


Jacques Bureau: He wants Parliament to control public funds. .


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Parliament is not dispossessing itself of the control of anything. I understand him to say, in his judgment, the operation of railways in Canada fey the Government will always result in a deficit, and he would like to have these deficits put flearly before Parliament. Did I understand the hon. gentleman correctly? If I understood his statement rightly, this resolution, being enacted into the form of a Bill, will accomplish exactly what he wants. It has hardly been possible heretofore to know what was the actual result of the operation of the Canadian Government Railway system in Canada unless one took the trouble to go through the annual report. The Government has no desire to hide anything. I think that the Minister of Railways and Canals is perfectly justified in asking to be allowed to administer the Government Railway system in the same manner as other railways are administered.


Frank S. Cahill: Does not the resolution state that any unappropriated fund shall be drawn upon to the extent of the deficit?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Perhaps my hon. friend did not hear the amendment proposed, and perhaps I was wrong in pressing my question because he had the original resolution before him. The amended resolution will read:
That It is expedient to provide that the working expenses of the Canadian Government Railways and of any railway under the charge and management or direction of the Minister of Railways and Canals shall be-


William Stevens Fielding: What does my hon. friend mean by " andof any railway under the charge and management or direction of the Minister of Railways and Canals?" Has he anything in his mind? Does that mean the Canadian Northern?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No. I think it was intended to cover the Transcontinental railway.


William Stevens Fielding: That is part of the Canadian Government Railway system, is it not?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am not sure as to that.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not see why my statement should occasion any merriment on the part of any hon. gentlemen opposite. If any hon. gentlemen knows what it means they might stand up and inform the House.


Wilfrid Laurier: We will let the Government do that.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The words " Canadian Government railways " might be limited by statute to what is known as the Intercolonial railway and the Prince Edward Island railway. If they are limited to those railways then I am perfectly right in my statement and hon. gentlemen are wrong in their laughter.


Wilfrid Laurier: Are they so limited?


Jacques Bureau: The question is whether all the railways owned by the Canadian Government are Canadian Government railways or whether the words are limited by the statute to the railways mentioned by my hon. friend.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Possibly my hon. friend is right, but there need not be any discussion about the words "and of any railway under the charge and management or direction of the Minister of Railways and Canals," because that can be amended later. Let me read the amendment:
That it is' expedient to provide that the working expenses of the Canadian Government Railways and of any railway under the charge and management or direction of the Minister .of Railways and Canals shall .he paid out of the receipts and revenues of the said railways, and in the event of a deficit occurring at any time during any fiscal year, the amount of such deficit shall be -payable out of any unappropriated moneys in the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada, the said deficit to be voted by Parliament at its first session following the close of such fiscal year.


William Stevens Fielding: Touching the question of the interpretation of the expression "Canadian Government railways," the Acting Minister of Finance is perhaps unaware that his colleague, the "Minister of Railways and Canals, last night gave his own interpretation-and I am not objecting to it-that "Canadian Government railways" includes the Transcontinental and all other Government railways except the Canadian Northern. On the faith of that interpretation we allowed the hon. gentleman to increase his stores account from $1,500,000 to $6,000,000. I am merely asking whether the hon. gentleman has anything particularly in his mind. I appreciate the point made by the Acting Minister of Finance as to the distinction between revenue which represents taxation and revenue qf different kinds. But his argument will probably carry him a little farther than he appreciates when we come to apply it. If the principle of the resolution is sound, why not apply it to other departments as well? Suppose I were to suggest that we should apply it to the Department of Customs, my hon. friend would say at once:	"That is taxation."
So it is. But, suppose we should go to the Post Office Department. That is not taxation. The postage stamp represents payment for service just as much as the railway ticket represents payment for service. If my hon. friend's argument is good that this is a proper thing to do with regard to Government railways, the same argument might be advanced with regard to the Post Office Department. You might extend that in different directions. What it really means is that the appropriation for each railway system which has hitherto always been made by parliament is no longer to be made by Parliament and whatever opportunities the making of the appropriation offered for enquiry and discussion and criticism will not longer be available. The annual appropriation of the moneys needed for the operation of the Intercolonial railway has always presented an opportunity for widespread inquiry, criticism and discussion. The withdrawing of that appropriation from Parliament, I grant you, as a mere matter of book-keeping, may not make any difference, but at the same time I think there is no good reason why Parliament should give up the privilege of making the annual vote for a mere matter of book-keeping. I do not see that it is going to make one cent's worth of difference to the treasury of Canada one way or the other, but as a pure matter of parlia-

mentary procedure we should keep as far as possible to .the principle of parliamentary control.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: In reference to
the case suggested by the hon. member (Mr. Fielding) of the Post Office I would submit that it is hardly analogous. The Government Railway system is a well, defined and limited operation. It is administered from a single office at Moncton. I imagine that all the revenues of the road go there first and ultimately to Ottawa. All operating expenses are incurred at that point. In the case of the post office system, there must be twenty thousand or thirty thousand (branches throughout Canada extending from coast to coast.


William Stevens Fielding: There are railway stations all over Canada.
Mr. A. K. MA'OLEAN: I fail to see how in any respect the cases are analogous. The money is received by the post office but there are scores and scores of offices receiving that revenue. You could hardly pay the operating expenses of the post office in Vancouver .out of the revenues received, at, say, St. John, N.B. In the case of the railway system the revenues all go into the head office of the system at Moncton and from there all expenditures are authorized, all operating expenses are paid and there is established the Government Railway audit system. The Government Railway accounts are audited at Moncton.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Reverting to the question asked by my hon. friend from Pontiac (Mr. Cahill), will any of the working expenses of the Canadian Northern railway come under this resolution?


John Dowsley Reid: 
Wilfrid Laurier: What is the
objection-to that?


John Dowsley Reid: There is no objection at all, but it loads up the estimates with an amount that really should not be there. But there is no desire in any way, shape or form, so far as the Railway Department and the Finance Department are concerned, to change, the method of carrying on the expenditures in connection with the Canadian Government Railway system.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is simply a blind.


John Dowsley Reid: It is not a blind. I do not see how the right hon. gentleman can make such a statement. We may have to pay out probably a larger amount than we estimate at the present time, for this reason: You cannot tell at the present time how things are going to turn out, as regards the cost of labour, and so on, and it may probably involve adding a considerable amount more than was at first thought necessary in order to carry on the operations of the Government system.


Jacques Bureau: Supposing we do. The leader of the Opposition was right; it is a blind.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Will this mean an increase of the staff?


John Dowsley Reid: It does not involve increasing the staff in any respect. It is simply a matter of book-keeping and the money will be deposited and paid out in exactly the same manner as before.


Wilfrid Laurier: We do not
want to be accused of indulging in captious criticism, because, we desire to facilitate the despatch of business, but the Minister of Railways has told us that he does not want this money to appear in the esti-

mates.. If that is not a blind, what is it?
( By all means let us have the truth.


John Dowsley Reid: As far as having the
truth is 'concerned, I am trying to explain to the right lion, gentleman, as clearly as I cam, what is .proposed. Now, what is the present system? The revenues are deposited to the credit of the Receiver General, and the cheques are issued by the railway and passed) toy the Auditor General at Ottawa. That system will still continue in exactly the same manner.


Wilfrid Laurier: No.


John Dowsley Reid: There is no question
about it.


Wilfrid Laurier: Will there be the same method of treating the revenues of the railway?


John Dowsley Reid: Just the same as before.


Wilfrid Laurier: No; because
at the present time the' revenues of the road, like the revenue of the post office, are sent to Ottawa and put in the consolidated revenue fund, but what my hon. friend proposes is collect the revenues of the Government railways and send them to Moncton and expend them there.


John Dowsley Reid: If the right hon. gentleman has gathered that- meaning from anything that I have said, he has gathered an erroneous impression. The financial representative of the Department of Railways and Canals tells me that there will be no change of the kind at all; the money will be deposited in exactly the same manner as before, and the expenditures will toe made in the same way. If this resolution passes, and there should be any doubt 4 p.m. at all as to what is proposed, when the Bill founded upon the resolution is introduced, we can make the matter very plain.
Sir WILFRIEl LAURIER: The resolution as framed would not give that impression. At the present time the revenues of the road are collected from the different stations, sent to Ottawa, and deposited in the public treasury to the credit of the consolidated fund and all the payments are made out of that fund. If I understand this proposition aright, it is in contemplation to collect and expend the revenues at Moncton, and if there is any deficit Parliament will be asked to make it good out of the public treasury. It may be a mere matter of book-keeping, and it may be that the country will not lose anything, but what will happen Is, as was stated 
by my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) that Parliament will not continue to have the same control over the operations of the road as it has to-day.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Minister of
Railways should not ask Parliament to pass this resolution -unless there is some strong reason for it, and Parliament should not refuse to pass' it unless some substantial objection exists.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: If there is any
substantial objection to the resolution the Minister of Railways will very gladly withdraw. Let us see if there really is any objection to it; I must say that I have not heard one yet.


Jacques Bureau: The Acting Minister of
Finance has just said that the Minister of Railways should not bring forward the resolution unless there are strong reasons for its passage. I would like to hear what those reasons are.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The right hon.
leader of the Opposition has just stated that this proposition will prevent Parliament from discussing the expenditures of the Canadian Government railways. Is that a correct statement?


Jacques Bureau: It is in one way.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I submit that the argument is not founded upon fact, because there are numberless items presented to Parliament in the estimates every session which will afford the amplest opportunity for discussion of the management and administration of the system. Now, surely, that statement is correct. Surely I am. correct in saying that each member of the House, under the various items which appear in the railway estimates will have in the future, as he has had in the past, the amplest opportunity for a full and free discussion of the expenditures and the method of operation of the Canadian Government railways. Therefore, I say that there is nothing in that objection, and the opposition to the proposal, if founded upon that point, must fail. I agree with my hon. friend from Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) .that Parliament should know annually what is the operating deficit of the Government Railway system, and I hope therefore that he will support the resolution. That is one of the advantages of this resolution, that it will bring before Parliament the exact financial results of the railway system during the previous fiscal year.


William Stevens Fielding: Do we not get that now?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes, we do, but as a matter of fact, under the proposed system it will come up in a very concrete way. It is much better that Parliament be asked to vote under one item the sum of $5,000,000, if that sum should exactly represent the deficit in the operation of the Canadian Government system. The net result of the operations are there before you, stated in a single line, in a few figures, and the minister asking Parliament to vote that amount must explain the result. Under the present system we are asked to vote, say, $35,000,000, $40,000,000, or $50,000,000 to cover operating expenses. The amount is not estimated with accuracy; it affords no information or intelligence; nobody ever discusses the item and as a matter of business it should not be there. I cannot conceive any stronger reasons than that why the resolution should pass. The .system proposed by the resolution will present to Parliament the net result of the financial operations of the road during the year. As the member (Hon. Mr. Fielding) well says, by taking the Auditor General's Report and the report of the Minister of Railways you can ascertain the total revenues of the railway system and the total costs of operation, and by simple mathematical computation you can ascertain the actual operating results. But as a matter of fact, during the years I have been in Parliament, I have heard but little discussion of the actual financial operation of the road; our time is occupied more in the discussion of the estimates presented by the Department of Railways. But this will put before Parliament more pointedly and in more concrete fashion than ever before the exact financial operations of the railway system, and I submit that that will be an important advantage.
Mr. iMcMASTER: Would it not be possible, while maintaining the system which has hitherto prevailed of bringing down estimates to have also a concrete statement as to deficit?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: We have that
now, and it occasions very little discussion in Parliament.
Mr. McMiASTER: I think the acting Minister of Finance is with me when I say that that is quite possible even if you maintain the present system of setting aside a certain sum of money yearly for the operation of Government railroads. It seems to me that attempts are being made to gather into the executive of the Government a great many functions which properly belong to Parliament. Order in Council after Order in Council is brought down with regard to other matters, and my impression is that this is evidence of a general attempt t'o assign to the executive the powers of Parliament. It has happened in the House of Commons of Great Britain, where protests have been made against it; and now the people of Canada are beginning to feel that parliamentary government is running into a certain danger through the adoption of this course by the ministry.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: Can either of the ministers in charge of this proposal inform us what the practice of any constitutionally governed country, such as Australia, has been, in a matter of this kind? Australia has a much larger experience in Government-owned railways than we have.


John Dowsley Reid: I am sorry that I cannot tell the hon. gentleman.
Mr .MICHAEL CLARK: Perhaps the acting Minister of Finance can furnish the information.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, I am not in a position to inform my hon. friend.


Michael Clark: I am surprised, because the Government is very strong on precedent.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: 

and at the end of the year he will, after the money has been spent, demand from ns the extra amount required. That is not good business.


Mr. JOSEPH READ:: I cannot for the life of me see what the object of this resolution is, unless it be to ruin the credit of Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Louder.


Joseph Read: If the Government have to make an estimate of how much the deficit is going to be, they surely will have to make an estimate of how much they will need to run the road. I should like to know from the minister whether the accounts of the Prince Edward Island railway are kept separate from those of the Intercolonial. As a matter of fact, the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island railways are now connected by a car ferry, and the Prince Edward Island railway is looked upon as a feeder of the Intercolonial. I understand that, from the way in which the freight rates are arranged, they can make the Prince Edward Island railway appear to owe $300,000 of a deficit every year, when, as a matter of fact, it is the biggest asset we have. I would like to know if the accounts of the Intercolonial railway and the Prince Edward Island railway are kept separately or not.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am sorry if I
cannot answer the hon. gentleman; I could not hear him.


Charles Murphy: The hon. member asked if the accounts of the Prince Edward Island railway and the Intercolonial railway were kept separately or not.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The accounts of the Prince Edward Island railway are kept separate from those of the Intercolonial Tailway system, but the Prince Edward Island railway is a part of the Canadian Government railways. The hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Pedlow) says that the Post Office Department and the Canadian Government railways are somewhat analogous. There is a distinction, between the railway system and the post office system.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: No.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: In the first place, the operating expenses of the post office system are secured from taxation, and they are voted by Parliament annually. It is true there does come back a great deal of revenue from the public by an indirect system of taxation, namely, the stamp tax,
[Mr. Pedlow. 1
which is provided by statute. But the revenues of the Government railways represent money paid by the public for services rendered by the railway.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: A postage stamp and a
railway ticket are practically the same thing.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The one is taxation imposed by Parliament.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: Absolutely no.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The other is a
receipt for money paid by the public to the railway for services rendered by the railway, which is run by the railway manager. In Canada there are as many post office managers as there are post offices, but there is only one manager of the Canadian Government railways.


Jacques Bureau: Are there not many railway station agents?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: But the Canadian Government railways are under the control of the railway manages*. The revenues of all the post offices in Canada are sent to Ottawa. I cannot see what else could be done with them. The revenues of the Canadian Government railways go- to the Receiver General ultimately, but they go through the offices of the manager at Moncton, where also all expenses are authorized. Such a system is not of necessity applicable to the post offices, as the post offices are scattered by hundreds and thousands throughout the length and .breadth of this country, and the expenditures must be authorized at Ottawa. There1 is, of course, some similarity between the Post Office and the Railway .Department. I would not presume to take the position that there is not, but for all practical purposes, there is no similarity whatever. All this resolution purposes doing is to put the Intercolonial Railway system into the same position as other railways. It is very easy to suggest sinister motives on the part of members of Government in proposing this resolution. Any hon. member can do that. Any man outside of Parliament can do it. Men who will never be in Parliament might do it, but that does not prove that there is any foundation for the imputation of improper motives.


Isaac Ellis Pedlow: I decidedly object to
the statement just made by the acting Minister of Finance. It is not my intention, nor do I think it is the intention of any hon. member on this side of the House, to impute sinister motives to any minister

of the Crown, but we consider we are quite within our rights in criticising the actions and business methods proposed by ministers of the Crown. I criticised the action taken in this resolution, and I consider the methods proposed in this resolution are not business-like. That is the reason why I am offering this criticism. It would be much better, in the interest of the Canadian Government railways if the Minister of Railways would figure out as closely as possible the amount he thinks he would require to cover the deficits for the year, and if he would submit that proposition to the House and let us vote upon it.


Jacques Bureau: The acting Minister of Finance, a few moments ago laid down a very sound principle. I agree with the principle, if he will only carry it out. He said that, in bringing this resolution down, the Government must have very good reason for doing so. I agree with him in that, and when those reasons are explained to the House, if the Opposition do not want to accept the resolution, they must have very grave objections to offer to it. The acting Minister of Finance proceeded, not to give us the reasons why the resolution was brought down, but to discuss the objections which had been taken. I am satisfied that this1 resolution has not been brought down without a study having first been made of the situation, and without a discussion having taken place between the officers of the department, the Minister of Railways, and the acting Minister of Finance of the reasons which have determined their action in bringing down this resolution. It was framed, I suppose, after mature consideration, so that the Minister of Railways- would have permission from the Government to open a suspense account in which would be charged all the revenues of the Intercolonial and credited all the expenditures. If this suspense account resulted in a surplus, the surplus was to be paid over to the Receiver General; if it resulted in a deficit, the Government would then ask Parliament to vote an appropriation to cover that deficit. The resolution says:
The Suspense Account-
That includes- all the revenues of the Intercolonial or of the Transcontinental, or in short, of the Canadian Government railways.
-and all payments therefrom being subject to the audit of the Auditor General of Canada.
44J


John Dowsley Reid: The resolution has been changed. Did the hon. member hear the amendment?	[DOT]


Jacques Bureau: Yes. That was the result of the mature deliberation of the Minister of Railways and the acting Minister of Finance.


Charles Murphy: The change?


Jacques Bureau: No, this resolution. It was put on the Order Paper so that members could study it, and, if they saw fit, criticise it. As I said last night in regard to another matter, the Auditor General is an officer of this country; he is not an officer of the Government. He stands between the Government and the public. We have not had any reasons except one from the acting Minister of Finance. He says: Why burden the estimates with $35,000,000, when we can, by a subterfuge, or in other words, by withdrawing from the control of Parliament, an amount of $35,000,000, or even $45,000,000, by keeping accounts separately


Charles Murphy: Make the estimates look that much less.


Jacques Bureau: Make the estimates look that much less to the people. My right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition says: You want to use a blind. The acting Minister of Finance seems to become indignant at that. The intention, however, apparently seems to be to reduce the estimates by $35,000,000. I object to this resolution because we ought to know what we are going to spend on our Government railways, just as -well as on any other department. I am not going to discuss the question of the similarity or dissimilarity between the Post Office and the Canadian Government railways. Any revenue, whether it is procured from the Canadian Government railways or from the post offices, is turned into the Government Treasury, whether it is collected through the intermediary of station masters or postmasters. Be that as it may, my reason for objecting is this: If there is a deficit the acting Minister of Finance says the Government will come to Parliament and ask them to vote the money, and that will bring the question more forcibly before Parliament, and there will be a full discussion of the railway matters of this country. Since I have been in this House, it has always been the custom for my hon. friend the Minister Of Railways-he was then Minister of -Customs, but generally undertook the work, as Hon. Mr. Cochrane's health wa6 never good

about that time-to make a full statement to the House of the operation of the Government railways when the railway estimates were up, so we have always had a full discussion of the railway situation. The statement made by my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) is absolutely true; there is undoubtedly a tendency in this Parliament to withdraw from the House of Commons control of the expenditure of public moneys, and a tendency also to withdraw from the representatives of the people in this House control of matters upon which it is their exclusive right to legislate. Furthermore.
* there is not only a tendency, but it is the actual fact that the Government are passing Orders in Council amending the Constitution of this country and creating conditions which do not exist even in England.
Let us suppose that after the war this country will become as prosperous as she was before, and that we have a surplus. Under the Bill based on this resolution we shall have a separate account for the Intercolonial, and this account will be under the control of the Minister of Railways and the Superintendent of Railways. The principal office of the railway will be in Moncton. and this surplus will be entirely outside of the control of the House of Commons; we shall not have anything to say about the matter; it will be entirely in the hands of the Minister of Railways and the Minister of Finance. The only thing we will be able to say is that in 1918 we assented to a Bill giving absolute control of railway finance to the Minister of Railways. I repeat that if there is a surplus we shall have absolutely no control over its expenditure. The minister may say that it will be paid into the consolidated revenue fund, but I repeat, the House of Commons will have absolutely no control over it. If the Minister of Railways and the acting Minister of Finance have any other reason than that they are adopting this subterfuge in order that the people will not see their extravagance in the estimates, let them give it to the House. My hon. friend says that he does not know what the probable expenditure is going to be. Surely he knows that the revenue for the current year is always based on the past year's expenditure. If you will look at the estimates you will find that in every department the expenditure of 1918-19 is based on the expenditure of 1917-18, taking into account any change there may 'be in conditions, and I have never heard, during the eighteen years I have been in this House, that the Intercolonial or any other Government railway had to complain of being refused money foT

operating expenses. Under the circumstances, I think the Minister of Railways should ascertain what the probable expenditure for the coming year will be and then submit it to the House, and then next year he can ask' for a vote again, and we shall have an opportunity for criticism. I do not see why we should not show in the estb mates the amount of money we propose to expend on the operation of the Government railways, and I shall not support this resolution unless my hon. friend the Minister of Railways, or the acting Minister of Finance, gives some better or more substantial reason for presenting it to-day. The question was asked: Will it make any difference in the book-keeping? The answer was, No. Well, then, if it is going to make no change in the book-keeping, and if the staff is not going to be increased, I do not see any reason why we should adopt the resolution or pass any legislation based upon it.


Michael Clark: 
John Dowsley Reid: So far as the amendment is concerned, the impression is that, in regard to the operation, of the railroad, it is changing a procedure, in so far as the payments for carrying on of the road is concerned. But it does not change it one particle. The Railway Department, as I understand it, is operated in this way; that all receipts in connection with that department are deposited to the credit of the hon. Receiver General at all points along the line. They go direct to the credit of the Receiver General.


Jacques Bureau: I thought the acting Minister of Finance said they went to Moncton.


John Dowsley Reid: 
Jacques Bureau: Who is right?


John Dowsley Reid: I think my information is right. The official of the "department is sitting beside me, and he tells me all the money collected goes direct to the credit of the Receiver General. Then about once a month the Auditor General gives credit for the amount that has been voted by Parliament, and on that credit cheques are issued by the Railway Department from time to time, until that credit has been exhausted. Then another credit is obtained from the Auditor General, and so on, during the fiscal year. That is as I understand the way the operation is carried on at the present time. If this Bill were to go through the same procedure would follow. The Auditor General would be asked to give a credit from month to month in the same way. That was the intention when this resolution was framed toy the officials of the department. So

far as the Department of Railways and Canals is concerned, we do not want any change whatever. .We want the revenues as collected to be deposited to the credit of the Receiver General, and to get from the Auditor General exactly the same credit. The only intention of this change was to place an amount in the estimates, as has been done from year to year, estimating the amount. We do not know whether it is a correct amount or not. The officials of the department get as near as they can to the amount, and of course the amount goes through the House without any criticism whatever, for the reason that the safety of it is that the Auditor General audits everything that is paid out in connection with that item. When this matter was explained to me by the officials and recommended, it was stated there would be no change whatever in any way, shape or form. The only reason I have to offer for the change in the system is that it is the custom of all the railways in Canada. Every large railway has a system of that kind. The Canadian Pacific, the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Northern have similar systems. All moneys are paid into the head office and the head office, in so far as the Government railways are concerned, is the Receiver General, and this resolution would place the Canadian Government railways in the same position as other railways. One of the main reasons for introducing it is in order to avoid loading up the estimates with very large amounts. On account of your railway system increasing, you will load up the estimates with an amount that does not appear to be fair, when the working expenses on the other side are not shown at the particular time, which, if shown, would reduce the amount of total estimates that are being submitted to Parliament. At this particular time, when the war is on, when we must go to foreign countries and borrow very large amounts, in so far as the public is concerned, and those from whom we borrow, you are loading up the expenditure with a very large amount, while the revenues on the other side do not show the proper amount, for the reason that there is no estimate made of them. As far as the public is concerned, whai happens is that your expenditures appear as a very large amount while the receipts on the other side do not show in their true proportions for the reason that there is no estimate made of them. I have no desire to submit to the House any resolution or plan for changing the system under which the railways have been operated in the past.

My hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clarke) suggests that we should find out what is done in connection with Government rail-w'ays in other countries. I will be pleased to go into the matter further and let the resolution stand in the meantime. I will make further inquiry and if it is thought better to bring in an estimate, I have not the slightest objection. But I want to impress on the House that this resolution does not change in any way the manner in which the revenues of the railways have been disposed of in the past. They have been deposited directly to the credit of the Receiver General and under this proposal the revenues would be deposited and the expenditures would be made in exactly the same way. Therefore I move that the committee rise and report progress. I will look into the matter again and I will find out what system has been adopted' in other countries. After I get that information it is possible that the House may feel that the system proposed has advantages as compared with that which is at present in force.
Progress reported.



CIVIL SERVICE ACT AMENDMENT.


[Stage Direction]
SERVICE UNDER THE CIVIL SERVICE [DOT]ACT.
On the motion of Hon. A. K. MACLEAN, acting Minister of Finance, the House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, That it is expedient to consolidate, revise and amend the Civil Service Act of Canada; and to provide that the salary of the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission shall be six thousand dollars per annum; and to make provision for the readjustment of grades and salaries in the various classes of the Inside Service, and for the preparation by the Commission of schedules of the positions, duties, and salaries of the Outside Service or of any portion or branch thereof; and to make appointments to the public service upon competitive examination and otherwise eliminate political patronage in the control and management of the said service.
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I hope it may be satisfactory to the committee to discuss this matter after the. introduction of the Bill. Primarily, the purpose of introducing this resolution is to amend the Civil Service Act in order to provide that in so far as possible all regulations and statutory requirements that are to-day applicable to the Inside Service shall apply to the Outside Service. Appointments to what is called the Outside Service shall hereafter be made by the Civil Service Commission and upon the basis of competitive examination.

An Order in Council was passed on the 13th day of February last upon this subject, and I assume that hon. gentlemen know the general tenor of that Order in Council. It appeared quite fully in the press of the country at the time, but, perhaps, it might be quite proper that I should just in a few words give the purport of it. That Order in Council provided that where knowledge of a professional or technical character was required on the part of any person about to be appointed to the public service the appointment should be made by the deputy head and the Civil Service Commission instead of by the Governor General in Council on the recommendation of the deputy head as heretofore. The Order in Council also provided that the Civil Service Commission should, in so far as possible, make appointments to the Outside Service by competitive examination. It required all officers, clerks, and employees in the Outside Service to be appointed in the same manner as persons were appointed to the Inside Service, viz., after competitive examination. The Order in Council also provided that temporary employment in the Outside Service should be authorized from time to time as the Commission deemed necessary and the Commission were also authorized to determine the purpose for which the employment was authorized, and that it should be mentioned in the certificate of qualification to be issued by the Commission.
It also provided that promotions in the Civil Service should be made for merit upon the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission and of the deputy head of the department. It also provided that no trans-. fer should be made from the Outside Service to the Inside Service under the provisions of Section 50 of the Civil Service Act unless the person concerned obtained from the Civil Service Commission a certificate. The Order in Council also provided that in all competitive examinations held under the Civil Service Act, persons who had been on active service overseas in the military or naval forces of His Majesty, or of any allies of His Majesty, and who had left such service with an honourable record, or who had been honourably discharged, and obtained sufficient marks to pass the required examination should, irrespective of the marks they obtained, be placed in the order of merit on the list of successful candidates above all other candidates. In a general way this is the purport of the Order in Council, which was more in the nature of a direction to the Civi' Service Commission than otherwise. It was extremely doubtful if, under the War Measures Act, or any other statute, the Governor in Council could validly establish the regulations contained in the Order in Council.


Jacques Bureau: Was there not a report made by the law officers of one of the departments that the Governor in Council had no power to enact any such regulations?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I really do not know if there was any such report by one of the law officers of the Crown or not. At any rate, the Government were of the opinion that thexe was hardly sufficient authority, under the Civil Service Act or under the War Measures Act, to establish as law the provisions of the Order in Council, and therefore it was issued more, as I say, in the nature of a direction to the Civil Service Commission.	.


Wilfrid Laurier: Will you kindly read the Order in Council?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is quite a lengthy document.
Mr. JOS. READ: Were the railway employees brought in?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No. The employees of the Canadian Government railways were exempt from the operations of the Order in Council, as weTe also the crews of His Majesty's Canadian ships. The reason the latter were exempted must be obvious to every hon. gentleman. I can hardly apprehend how that class of public servant could be placed under the Civil Service Commission.
Mr. JOS. READ: What about the railway
employees?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The railway employes were exempt from the provisions of the Order in Council for the reason that up to the time of its passage, the Government had found it impossible to work out any system of appointment to the railway service upon the basis of competitive examination. The Civil Service Commission were directed by the Government to give special study to that phase of the matter, but so far they have not reported to the Governor in Council." I am sure hon. gentlemen will agree with me when I say that difficulties of considerable magnitude confront the Government in applying this principle to the employees of the Government railways. However, we trust that very shortly some system can be evolved by which appointment to the Government Railways systems can be so regulated. So far as promotions
6C6

on those railways are concerned at present, I think they can hardly be 5 p.m. said to be a matter of patronage or politics; they are largely controlled by the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Employees, at least that is my impression.


Jacques Bureau: Only an impression.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am speaking
subject to correction'.


Jacques Bureau: It is well to qualify the statement.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I have never had very much experience in the matter.


Joseph Read: What about new
appointments?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: At the present
time, and since the .passage of the Order in Council, the management of the Canadian Government railways has been given absolute freedom to appoint such persons as he may see fit and to disregard any representations which may be made by any persons to him.


Jacques Bureau: By any member of Parliament?


Arthur Bliss Copp: Has he been ordered to disregard representations?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not know whether he has been ordered, he has authority to do so.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I tell my hon. friend that
is not carried out.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That may be, but I am afraid my hon friend is trying to push the Government into the Kingdom of Heaven ahead of time.
Mr. McMAiSTER: The Government made an attempt to enter the Kingdom of Heaven at the time of the election by declaring that patronage was to be eliminated absolutely.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I say that that
has been done by the Government so far as is possible.


Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE:: Not in the
case of the railways.
Air. A, K. MACLEAN: I admit that possibly my statement does not apply so strongly to the railway system.


Ernest Lapointe: It does not apply at all.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: However, I will say with confidence that the result of the passage of this Order in Council has been
[air. A. K. Maclean]
very beneficial to the public and the public service. I live in a constituency containing a population of probably one hundred and fifty thousand. Within that constituency is the city of Halifax, one of the termini of the Government railway system, and there are at that point a great number of employees of that system. Since the 20th of January I am sure I have not received three letters from anybody in my constituency, whether employed on Government railways or not, concerning the matter of appointments or promotions on that system. I may say further, that since that time I have not had twenty letters in reference to the matter of patronage from my constituency, or indeed from the whole province of Nova Scotia. I think hon. gentlemen will agree with me that the general effect-


Air. LEAIIEUX:: The hon. gentleman is
a lucky man.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: A very lucky man. I
attribute it entirely to the passage of this Order in Council, and I trust that the experience of hon. gentlemen opposite has been just as pleasant as my own in that regard.


Jacques Bureau: It is more pleasant, we never get any such letters on this side of the House.


Air.  A. K. AIACLEAN@: You are very fortunate.


Charles Murphy: The hon. gentleman has been reading from an Order in Council passed in February last, as I understand it. Was there not a subsequent interpreting, or modifying, Order in Council passed, and if so will the hon. gentleman bring it down before we enter upon a discussion of the Bill?
Mr. A. K. AllAOLEAN: Yes, I shall lay on the Table copies of all Orders in Council connected with this matter before we proceed with the second reading of the Bill.


Charles Murphy: Can the hon. gentleman now state what was the effect of the modifying or interpreting Order in Council?


Jacques Bureau: Let a copy of the Order in Council in question be produced and placed on Hansard.


Hon. N. W. ROWELL:: I can speak
as to the second Order in Council. Its object was to make clear that all boards or commissions appointed by the Government came under the provisions of the first Order, so that any appointments to the

staffs of such boards or commissions will have to be made in the manner provided by that Order in Council.
Mr. LEM1IEUX:	Was the second Order
in Council retroactive?


Newton Wesley Rowell: It could not be retroactive.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It could hardly
be retroactive.


Newton Wesley Rowell: It will apply to future
appointments in the service.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Hundreds of young
men and young girls have been appointed ito the staffs of the various boards and commissions.


Jacques Bureau: Do I understand the
President of the Council to state that the second Order in Council is a confirmation of the appointments made under the first Order in Council?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No. The second Order
in Council-il am sorry I have not got a copy of it here-was to make clear that the -provisions of the Order in Council in question applied to appointments to the staffs of boards or commissions. It was suggested that the first Order in Council might only cover other departments of the Government, whereas it was the intention of the Government that they should apply to the boards or commissions that were appointed. The second Order in Council was intended to make that point clear.


Arthur Bliss Copp: It w-as an interpretation
of the firs-t.'' *


Mr. CURRIE:: Has that Order in Council been brought down, and if not, will it be laid on the Table before this legislation is proceedeed with. All Orders in Council .should be laid on the Table before the legislation to which they relate is proceeded .with.
Mr. A. K. M1AOLEAN:	All Orders in
Council have already been laid on the Table several days ago, when my hon. friends opposite complained about the great number of them, and they include the Order -in Council in question.


Mr. McMASTER:: There are so many that some of them may be lost.
Mr. A. K. MA-OLEAN: This Order in Council was laid on the Table early in the session.


Mr. PROULX:: Will postmasters come under this Act?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


Edmond Proulx: Was the Ottawa postmaster appointed under this Order in Council?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: His appointment preceded the passage of this Order in Council.


Ernest Lapointe: Chronology.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: If this Order in
Council has been strictly adhered to, the -country and the House have reason to be grateful. The mere instance that prior to the passage of the Order in Council some few persons may have been appointed because of party alliances is not, I submit, a matter that is fairly open to substantial criticism. I assure the committee that this Order in Council has been strictly adhered to.


Andrew Ross McMaster: In the month of
October last emphatic declarations were made by the President of the Council and,
I think, by one of the other ministers who used to function in the West, that patronage was altogether eliminated. Were the appointments of the postmaster at Ottawa and the collector of customs at Montreal made prior or subsequent to these declarations?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: My information is that these appointments were made prior to the passage of this Order in Council. It is easy, of course, for hon. gentlemen who are not supporting the present Government to doubt the bona tides of this Order in- Council, but the great public oqtside of Parliament will be interested in whether or not it is lived up to. If it can be, it is -a good thing, and greatly in Canada's interest. This reform could only be possible under present political conditions. Had my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) been returned to power, I -have no doubt that he could not have inaugurated such a reform in the public service. Moreover, had the present Prime Minister been returned to power at the head of a Conservative government, it would have been impossible for him to institute such a reform as this. The main purpose of the proposed Bill is to give statutory effect to the Order in Council, and having decided to do this it was necessary to change here and there many of the sections of the Civil Service Act. Particularly was it necessary to vest in the Civil Service -Commission certain -powers conferred upon the Governor in Council in that Act; and that necessitated -many verbal changes. It was A

considered desirable, therefore, to consolidate the Civil Service Act entirely and to introduce a new Bill. Some thirteen or fourteen amendments have been, made to the Act. There will be other changes, but if the 'Committee will be satisfied with these explanations of the Order in Council, ample time will be given after the Bill is printed and distributed to enable members to become acquainted with its provisions. [DOT]


Charles Murphy: The hon. gentleman referred to an inquiry or investigation that the Civil Service Commission was making. Will the report of that inquiry be available before we proceed to a discussion of the Bill?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That had reference to the matter of appointments to the railway service. The Civil Service Commission have not yet had an opportunity of commencing their investigation; the passage of this Order in Council has entailed upon them an immense amount of work. They will probably be able to begin very shortly, but I cannot promise that a report on this matter will be available as my ho.n. friend suggests.


Mr. MORPHY:: Before proceeding to a discussion of the Bill would the hon. gentleman be good enough to bring down a statement showing how many members of the Outside Service- have been transferred to the Inside Service since October 1, 1917, and how many persons have been appointed under section 21 of the present Civil Service Act since that time?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes, I will produce that information.	.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not wish to unduly criticise the acting Minister of Finance;
I think, from what I heard of him and from him when he sat on this side of the House, that he is acting in good faith and means well. He says that if the right hon. present leader of the Opposition had been returned to power he might not have been able to carry out such a reform as this. Well, one thing I appreciate in public life is sincerity and frankness. When the right hon. gentleman was Prime Minister-in the elections of 1908-he promised one great reform, a reform of the Inside Civil Service. Shortly afterwards, he passed a law which is on the statute book to-day, the Civil Service Act. The resolution was introduced by Hon. Mr. Fisher, then Minister of Agriculture, and in it there was laid down for the first time in Canada the principle of competitive examination, a principle which has been accepted in England
['Mr. A. K. Maclean.]
and which has made the English Civil Service the best in the world. Moreover, that principle was lived up to by the Liberal Administration which went out of office in 1911. I am not so sure that my hon. friend will find comfort in the record of his associates -as 'regards the operation of the Civil Service Act. It was put to a very severe test by those who came into office in 1911. So much so, indeed, that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), speaking of the system of patronage said:
It almost always causes the dry rot and disintegration that break up 'Government after Government and party after party. .	. .If
[DOT]there is any canker of public corruption, in 99 cases out of 100 you can trace it to the baneful effect of political party patronage.
My hon. friend used those strong words after he had seen his own colleagues in the late Government administering the Civil Service Act. He had seen what Mr. Rogers, the late Minister of Public Works, had done in his own department, namely, appointing in defiance of the Civil Service Commission, a gentleman as chief architect of the Public Works Department, giving him a salary of $7,000, after the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission had refused to recommend him as chief architect, and also had refused to yield to the ultimatum that had been served upon him to recommend such a high salary for that official. I am glad that the Minister of Public Works of to-day has given a permanent leave of absence to that official. My hon. friend may, therefore, just as well have more faith in his old friends than in his new associates as regards the milennium which he is seeking to bring about by this legislation. Does he not know that in 1904, in 1908, and in 1911 promises of Civil Service reform were made by members of the Conservative party, and that Sir Robert Borden pledged himself that there would be Civil Service reform not only in the Inside Service, but in the Outside Service? In the month of December last the Government issued a new manifesto, in which a solemn pledge was taken before the electors of Canada that this Government would- put an end for the future to patronage in the public service. At that time, however, and during several weeks afterwards, hundreds of young men and young girls were being taken into the various Government boards and departments, always under the shallow pretext of winning the war. In the city of Ottawa, although we had another solemn pledge embalmed in -an Order in Council, passed in 1915, that preference would always be given returned soldiers, we found that the best

positions in the Civil -Service were given, not to returned soldiers, but to party managers and ward politicians. Take the case of the postmastership at Ottawa. In the first place, I do not know why Mr. Gouin, the postmaster, was relieved of his duties. Hie was still .hale and hearty, a splendid official, giving entire satisfaction to the pulblie. Nevertheless, he was superannuated, and to the dismay of the .people, Mr. Acres, who wars the secretary of the 'Conservative association in Ottawa, was given the position, in defiance of the protest of the Civil Sendee Federation. The Civil Service 'Federation, iwhioh, I believe, has been consulted concerning this Rill, protested most vehemently to the Prime Minister when it became known that Mk. Acres would fee appointed, ibeoau.se (there were able officials of (twenty and twenity-five years' standing in the Ottawa post office whose Services were ignored. And for what purpose? To give a fat office t-o the secretary of the Ottawa Conservative association. I do not know Mr. Acres. I hope he will prove a good official. 1 know he is a respected citizen of the city of Ottawa. But why did the Government pass over the heads of old employees in the Ottawa post office, after the .pledge had (been given toy the Prime Minister and by some of his colleagues at the beginning of 'the election (campaign, that there would be no more patronage in the public service.
Let ius take the case of the Montreal customs oollectorshiip. I know Mr. Weldon, who will prove an excellent collector of customs. Ait the last session of Parliament, when we were discussing the estimates, the present Minister of Railways (Mr. J. D. Reid) made a distinct promise that this office would go to a returned soldier. Yet, a few months after that solemn pledge was given, alderman Weldon was given the position. T do not object to Mr. Weldon personally. I know he will be an excellent collector of customs, I know he has served in South Africa. The fact remains, however, that a pledge was given that a returned soldier would .get the Montreal colleotorship of customs. There again 'the principle of promotion, the prin-iciple of competition, was not (followed. Quite a host of other appointments from the ranks of the friends of the patty have been made. An appointment was given ,to Mr. Nichols, half brother of the present Minister of Finance. Mr. Bratoazon a former member of this House was appointed Superintendent of Works on the Ottawa
river. I forget the others, bub quite an array of Conservative politicians received fat appointments immediately before or immediately after the election, although at that time the Government was preaching throughout the land that there would toe no more patronage at Ottawa. In the case of an appointment made at Wingham, Ontario, the principle that postmasters should be appointed only by the Civil Service Commission was again made light of, and a member of the local, legislature, I forget his name, was appointed postmaster. The Acting Minister of Finance should not be surprised if we are a little dubious as to the sincerity of the Government in regard to this proposed reform. Until we have strong evidence of its sincerity, we are-"Doubting- Thomases." We shall, at all events, await with interest the explanation of the Government in regard to the appointment of Mr. Acres at Ottawa. I am anxious to hear what the Acting Minister of Finance has to say about that.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: A few moments
age I stated that I did not think the great advance proposed by the terms of the Order in Council in the Civil Service of this country could have been accomplished 'by the leader of the Opposition, if he were in power as leader of the Liberal party, nor by the present Prime Minister if he were in office as head of the Conservative party. I did not intend to' detract in the slightest from the credit due to the ministry led by my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition for passing the Civil Service Act of 1908. On the contrary, I think that ministry is entitled to every possible credit for passing that Act. 'It was a great reform. I repeat I do not in the slightest degree wish to minimize the efforts made by the ministry of that day. because I was in Parliament myself and supported the Bill.
The Inside Service is very small 'as compared with the Outside 'Service in Canada, and the reform contemplated by the Bill which I am about to introduce was only possible by reason of the political conditions which now exist. When my hon. friend referred to the late ministry I think he meant the ministry of which he was a member himself, because the late ministry was the ministry led by the present Prime Minister and was supported by what was known' as the Conservative party. My hon. friend is inclined to doubt whether the Act to be framed on the lines indicated by me a few moments ago will be faithfully administered and strictly adhered to. It is very natural for my hon.



TOO COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
friends opposite to have doubts ae to the ability of a ministry to enforce the promised reform in respect to the Civil Service, and I do not blame them in the slightest degree for expressing this doubt. It might well have been expressed by hon. gentlemen on this side of the House and by the citizens of Canada. It is such a tremendous reform to undertake that any attempt in that direction by the Government deserves the sympathy and support of every hon. gentleman in this House, no matter on which side of the Speaker he sits, because that reform can only be accomplished by having the intelligent support of the people of this country. To apply the provisions of the Civil Service Act to the Outside Service was what all parties and all governments in the past have baulked at and refused to do. But the present ministry are attempting to carry out faithfully (and strictly the declaration which. was made to the country by the right hon. the Prime Minister some time prior to the last election.
I do not think it is fair to judge of the bona tides of the Government in this matter by appointments which were made prior to the passage of the Order in Council. As regards appointments at Ottawa and Montreal, my hon, friend the member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) says 'that in each case the men appointed were excellent in every respect. I take -it that he means that both Mr. Acres and Mr. Weldon will make capable and efficient public servants. If that be so, I doubt if the public are very much interested as to which party both or either of these gentleman supported.
Rodolphe Lemieux: Except that the principle of promotion was ignored.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: At that time the principle of promotion in the Outside Service had not been fully worked out, and no Order in Council had been promulgated. My hon. friend must remember that the elections took place only on the 17th December.


Jacques Bureau: We remember.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: And polling overseas was not concluded until the 18th day of January this year. Some time early in February the Order in Council was promulgated. I do not think -my hon. friend from Maisonneuve will impress any body in this country very strongly when he urges as a criticism of the Bill which is to be introduced, or of the proposed policy of the Government, the fact that it has happened that one or two former Conservatives were

appointed to office before the passage of this Order in Council. I have no doubt that before this Order in Council was passed, some persons wTere appointed to office, who w'ere Liberals.
Mr, LEMIEUX: There was a stampede.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not know what my hon. friend means by a stampede. They may have been pressure exerted on behalf of Conservatives and also on 'behalf of Liberals. But that is a matter wffiich can be of very little concern to members of Parliament now, or to the public, who naturally -should be interested in the question whether the proposed reform is- in the interests of the country and in the interests of wise, sound, and efficient administration of public affairs. What the public aie interested to know is whether in future there w'iil be a strict adherence to the proposals as set forth in the Order in Council, which we propose shall hereafter have statutory effect by the Bill we are about to introduce.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend says that my criticism is not justified in view of the great reform that the sinners are about to effect. I am a doubting Thomas because I have observed the performance not only of the late Government but of the present one. Let me read the pledge given just prior to the election -by the Prime Minister, the leader of the Union Government.



THE ROYAL ASSENT.

[Stage Direction]
SITTING SUSPENDED FOR ROYAL ASSENT TO BILLS.	v
A message was delivered by Colonel Ernest J. Chambers, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Deputy of His Royal Highness the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the House went up to the Senate.
And having returned,
The Speaker informed the House that Hie Honour the Deputy of His Royal Highness the Governor General had been pleased to give in His Majesty'e name the Royal Assent to the following Bills.
An Act to provide for the Time in Canada being in advance of ihe accepted- standard time during the summer months.
An Act to amend the Supreme Court Act.

An Act to authorize re-arrangement and transfer of duties in the public service.
An Act respecting the Department of Immigration and Colonization.
An Act to amend Montreal Harbour Advances Act, 1914.
An Act to amend the Dominion Forest Reserves and Parks Act.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in Committee of the Whole of the resolution providing for the revision and amendment of the Civil 'Service Act, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Rodolphe Lemieux: I was saying that the
reason why we have our doubts as to the sincerity of the Government in the operation of the new Act is that the Prime Minister made a very solemn pledge in the following words on the eve of the election:
Civil Service reform with a view to extending the principle of the present Civil Service Act to the Outside Service and ithus to abolish patronage and to make appointment to the Public Service upon the sole standard of merit. The Civil Service Commission has already been directed to make a report to the Prime Minister as to the necessary steps for that purpose. Such arrangements will be subject to the existing regulations, which will give preference to the appointment of returned soldiers who are duly qualified.
And in the Order in Council passed 19th February, 1918, the Prime Minister adds the following:
The Prime Minister observes that immediately after the announcement of this policy directions were given to each department of the Government that patronage lists in every such department should be thereafter abolished.
So that immediately after the pledge was given the Prime Minister states that directions were given to each department to abolish patronage, and in spite of that'' hundreds of new civil servants were appointed to the various boards, commissions, and departments, and in the Outside Service here at Ottawa, Montreal, and even,
I am told, in Winnipeg. Therefore, it is not surprising if we have ou* doubts as to the sincerity of the Government. When those appointments were made very strong protests came from the Civil Service Federation. The following statement was made:
The Executive begs to record its deep regret in the public interest that patronage appointments have been made since Deoember 17th, especially those made 'recently in Montreal and Ottawa.
(Signed), WALTER TODD, President.
And from Winnipeg came, the following telegram, dated February 17, to Sir Robert Borden:
Desire to express keen disappointment regarding recent appointments to Montreal and Vancouver customs and consequent failure of Government to fulfil' promise to eliminate patronage and recognize merit.
Another from Winnipeg:
This association most emphatically protests appointment of Acres, Postmaster, Ottawa, in direct violation of Government pledges to people and service and demands in interests of public morality and Service, that his appointment be rescinded and made for merit only.
I am told that the Prime Minister, and my hon. friend, to whom a copy of these telegrams was sent, did not even answer. What faith can we have in the promise of the Government that patronage will be abolished even after this Act? We can have none. We had similar promises made by the late Administration before the election of 1911, and what happened? My hon. friend knows only too well that twelve thousand Liberals were dismissed and 23,000 Conservatives -were appointed. I am afraid, as a result of the examples we have had since the election, that the Government will find some means to go back to the same old methods in spite of the istern and unbending Liberals who have been introduced to give new life to the old Administration.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend (Mr. Leinieux) may rest assured that his fears will not find any justification in the actions of the Government under the proposed Civil Service Bill. If my hon. friend is anxious that the Government should be aided to implement its pledge to abolish patronage, I am sure he will facilitate the passage of this resolution and the Bill to be founded upon it. My hon. friend read from the declaration of policy which my right hon. friend Sit Robert Borden made prior to the election. That was a pledge of policy to be pursued, .and a statement of fact of what had already been done. It was a pledge that it was the intention of the Government to extend the Civil Service Act to the Outside 'Service, and the statement of fact was that the Civil Service Commission had already been instructed to made an investigation looking towards the legislation necessary for that purpose. That is my recollection of the statement as read by my hon. friend.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Order in Council that I have quoted contains the pledge of the Prime Minister, and he- adds the following words:
"The Prime Minister observes that immediately after the announcement of this policy directions were given to each department ot

the Government that patronage lists in every such department should be thereafter abolished.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The declaration of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister contained a statement of fact Its well as a statement of policy. It contained the statement of fact which my hon. friend has read: .that patronage lists in the departments should be abolished. My hon. friend knows very well that patronage lists are not lists of appointees all over the country. The patronage lists as commonly known in the departments are lists upon which purchases of supplies are made. Appointments to the public service and the patronage lists existing in the departments are altogether different matters. The statement made by the Prime Minister is absolutely true: that he had sent notice to the departments instructing them that the patronage lists should be abolished and that purchases should be made in the public interest irrespective of these lists. That (policy was further implemented by the Government, just as soon as the Government could deal with the matter by transferring the purchasing for all the departments of Government to the war purchasing commission. Therefore, that, feature of the policy of the Government, and the statement of the Prime Minister when he enunciated that policy, have been carried out to the letter.
Coming back to the question of appointments to the Outside Service, the Prime Minister, as my hon. friend has read intimated that the Civil Service Commission would be asked to make a report as to the steps to be taken to bring the Outside Service under the Civil Service Act. So soon as the election was over, and when there was an opportunity to take the matter into consideration, my hon. friend will see from a perusal of the Order in Council that in the absence of the Prime Minister on vacation, I asked my hon. friend the acting Minister of Finance (Mr. A. K. Maclean) to take the matter up and he immediately started in with the Civil Service Commission to investigate the matter, and to see what provision should be made to give effect to the policy of the Government, My hon. friend will recollect the unfortunate and terrible disaster that happened at Halifax. The conditions following that disaster absorbed a great deal of the time of the acting Minister of Finance. Under these circumstances, it was not possible for him to make the same progress in dealing with the matter as he would have been able to do had he not been obliged to go to Halifax. It so happened,

therefore, that the matter was not ripe for consideration and action when the Prime Minister returned. Upon his return, the Prime Minister took the matter up with the acting Minister of Finance and the Civil Service Commission, and an Order in Council was formulated as soon as the necessary provisions could be worked out between the members of he Government and the Civil Service Commission.
My hon. friend will bear in mind that certain appointments could only be legally made by Order in Council. Under the law as it stood, appointments to the Inside Service were made under the Civil Service Act upon the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission, but no similar provision existed for making appointments to the Outside Service. Until new Orders in Council were passed, until the Civil Service Commission was authorized to deal with appointments to the Outside Service it necessarily followed that the old method of appointment continued. The pledge of the Prime Minister that he would have this matter investigated has been carried out, the Order in Council has been passed, and now the legislation is submitted to the House.
With reference to the number of persons involved in this change, I am sorry that I have not the exact figures here. I did not know that this matter was coming up at this time, but my recollection is that there are in the Inside Service about 5,000 persons and in the Outside Service about 35,000. You cannot make a change affecting such a large number of officials without the necessary careful consideration and preparation by the Civil Service Commission. You cannot at one stroke transfer to a commission which has been dealing with 5,000 employees in the Inside Service the burden of dealing with 35,000 employees throughout the whole Dominion. You must give consideration and serious thought to the details necessary to work out such a radical change. I think it must be conceded by all that this is the most radical proposal in the way of Civil Service reform that has ever been made on this continent at least, and I think I am safe in saying that it is the most radical that has ever been made at one stroke in any country.


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Acres' appointment was not so imperative.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I do not say that any appointment was imperative. Appointments were made under Order in Council because that was the necessary and legal course until a new policy was legally put into effect. Mr. Acres was appointed under the law that was then in force. My hon. friend, the acting Minister of Finance, is correct in saying that

what the country is interested in is the fact that this reform is to go into effect. If all the comment that has been made in reference to two or three appointments, which, it is said, were political appointments, is justified, what is the country going to be saved from when this legislation goes into effect and when 35,000 appointments from one end of Canada to the other will no longer be political appointments as they have been in the past, but will he non-political appointments under the provisions of the Civil Service Act? That indicates the character and extent of the reform.
One word more and I am through. My .hon. friend referred to one appointment of which I have particular knowledge and, therefore, I wish to mention it. He referred to the appointment of Mr. Nichols ais a relative of t'he Minister of Finance and as a Conservative appointment pressed in before the election. iMtr. Nichols was not appointed ibecause, but in spite of the fact that, he was a relative of a member of the .Government, and he was appointed after consultation with gentlemen of the press, because he was represented as the best newspaper man whom we could find who would be available to become director of public information and carry on that work for the Government. He was appointed solely because he was believed to be the best man for the position, and in spite of his relationship. And I can say this further: As (far as the Minister of Finance was concerned he did not know that the appointment was under consideration, or in fact anything about it, until the proposal was submitted to Council. I know that because the appointment came under my personal charge, and it was made on my own recommendation.


Jacques Bureau: If you get your neighbour to make an appointment, it is no better justification than if you put the appointment through yourself.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I have already given
my hon. friend my word that the Minister of Finance knew absolutely nothing about it, and that the appointment was made on my recommendation.


Jacques Bureau: That does not improve
matters at all.
Mr. iROWELL: I do not know what my hon. friend means when he says " if a man gets has neighbour to do it."


Jacques Bureau: I will tell you what it
means. It means that the Minister of Trade and Commerce |may appoint the Prime Minister's brother, to a Government 'position, and in return the Prime Minister may appoint to an office some relative of the Minister df Trade and Commerce. That explanation does not justify the appointment.
Mr. 'E. LAPOINTE: It is the return of a courtesy. Here we have an exemplification of the advantages of Union Government,


Newton Wesley Rowell: The courtesy has not
yet been returned.


Jacques Bureau: It may he expected.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I repeat that the appointment of this gentleman was made after consultation with gentlemen of the press who represented him as- the best newspaper man available for this important and responsible post. It was not made because he was a Conservative, a Liberal would under like circumstances have 'been taken just as quickly. >M^ hon. friend (iMr. Bureau) may feign surprise, but the statement is nevertheless true.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 43, to incorporate the Canadian Niagara Bridge Company.-Mr. Stewart.
Bill No. 44, respecting the Kettle Valley Railway Company.-Mr. Greene.
Bill No. 45, respecting the Nipissing Central Railway Company.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 46, respecting United Grain Growers, Limited, formerly the Grain Growers' Grain Company, Limited.-Mr. Buchanan.
Bill No. 47, to confirm an agreement made between Vancouver, Victoria and Eastern Railway and Navigation Company and the Northern Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Crowe.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in Committee of the resolution providing for the revision and amendment of the Civil Service Act'-Hon. A. K. Maclean-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Newton Wesley Rowell: I now have the second
Order in Council, dated February 28, 1918, that was referred to this afternoon. It is as follows:
Whereas doubt has arisen as to whether the Order in Council of the 13th day of February,

1918, (P.C. No. 358) respecting appointments bo, promotions in, and other matters relating to the Civil Service, applies to officers, clerks and employees other than those employed in the several departments, and it toeing desirable to remove any such doubts;
Therefore His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the President of the Privy Council, is pleased to declare and it is hereby declared, that the provisions of the said' Order in Council do extend to all officers, clerks and employees in the public service, whether employed in any department or under or in connection with any Commission or Board appointed or created by or the members of which are appointed by or in pursuance of any Order in Council, and any power heretofore given to any such Commission or Board or the members thereof or any of them to appoint or promote any officer, clerk or employee is hereby rescinded, except in so far as such power may be exercised subject to and in conformity with the provisions of the said Order in Council of the 13th day of February, 1918.
The purpose of this Order in Council- -was to make it clear that all commissions came undier the provisions of the previous Order in Council.	[DOT]


Joseph Read: Does that include railway employees?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, they were expressly excepted pending investigation by the Civil Service Commission of- the conditions under which they -might be brought under the Civil Service Commission.


Jacques Bureau: When we rose at six o'clock, the President of the Council was making statements which rather excited my curiosity. He stated-if I am in error, he will correct me, because I do not wish to misrepresent him-that Mr. Nichols' appointment was made in spite of the Minister of Finance "(Sir Thomas White).


Newton Wesley Rowell: I said, not because of, but in spite of, his being a relative.


Jacques Bureau: My error appears to be a grammatical one; I think that I understood my hon. friend rightly. The appointment was made as a result of a conference between the President of the Council (Mr. Rowell) and certain newspapers or newspaper proprietors. The position is a rather important one. A bureau of information was being created to deal with matters connected with the war, and it was necessary that a man of superior ability and integrity, who enjoyed the confidence of the people, should be obtained for the position. We have known Mr. Nichols as the editor of a Montreal newspaper, and as such he must be fairly known to all other newspaper editors. The member for Russell (Mr. 
Murphy) was talking the other night about the relations between the President of the Council -and certain newspapers. It would seem that my hon. friend himself, therefore, knows something about newspapers.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I did not catch my hon. friend's last remark.


Jacques Bureau: I understood the member for Russell to intimate that the President of the Council was himself connected with newspapers.


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, -that is incorrect.


Jacques Bureau: I am glad to accept the correction. But it was important that my hon. friend communicate with other newspaper men if he desired to obtain a man who had the necessary qualifications as a publicity agent. As a matter of curiosity and of information, may I ask the President of the Council whether he consulted editors of such Toronto newspapers as the Star, Mail and Empire, News, World and Telegram; or of such Montreal newspapers as the Star and the Gazette; or of the Winnipeg Tribune or Winnipeg Free Press? Of course, down home, we do not get the coast newspapers.


Mr. SHEARD:: The Orange Sentinel.


Jacques Bureau: The proprietor of that paper, being in the House, could be consulted now, if not then. That, however, would depend on the judgment of the President of the Council. I suppose some of these gentlemen were consulted, having regard to the fact that the appointment was being pressed so strongly upon the Government in spite of his relation to the minister, because there must have been some grave reason for the appointment being made in spite of the relationship.


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall the resolution
carry?


Jacques Bureau: No. I want to know what editors or members connected wnn any of those newspapers were consulted.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend asks me if any editors or members connected with some of the papers named were consulted. I can say, yes, but I d-o not think that when a minister of the -Crown consults parties with reference to matters relating to appointments in the public service, it is wise to disclose confidences, where there are confidential communications.


Air. RICHARDSON:: I just came in when the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) was speaking. Was the hon. mem-

ber criticising the appointee as being incompetent?


Jacques Bureau: No. I suppose my hon. friend was not in the House this afternoon.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I was, most of the time.


Jacques Bureau: Well, when the question arose, somebody in the House stated that the appointment of Mr. Nichols was rather shady, because he was a brother-in-law or a half-brother, I do not know which, of the Minister of Pinance. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) explained that in spite of that relationship-they had to fight against this very thing that is so obnoxious to them-they appointed' him on account of his super-qualities. But not only were those super-qualities in the judgment of the President of the Council, they were impressed upon him by editors of the leading newspapers of this province. I am inquiring from the minister who those editors are. I see the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Richardson) does not nod assent. I suppose he was not consulted.


Robert Lorne Richardson: That was not what I had in mind at all when I rose to speak. I am not prepared to discuss the question as to whether the apppointment was necessary or not, but I should like to say that I have known Mr. Nichols intimately for twenty years, and I desire to pay testimony to his rare ability. He was an excellent newspaper man; he is a man of splendid parts, most aggressive and thoroughly reliable. From my long and intimate acquaintance with him, I would say that if one were to search Canada, one probably could' not find more than half a dozen as bright men as Mr. Nichols. If he has the misfortune to be half-brother to the Minister of Finance-


Jacques Bureau: That was not a misfortune in this case.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Mr. Nichols and I were members of the same board for three or four years. We met weekly and it was the universal testimony of newspaper men in the West that Mr. Nichols was a man of exceptional ability. It would be very difficult to find a man more fitted for most occupations, except possibly the preaching of the Gospel, than Mr. Nichols.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Rodolphe Lemieux: While I agree with the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Richardson) that Mr. Nichols is a journalist of . standing, I do not accept the reasoning of the President of the Council when he says that he cannot state under what recommendations Mr. Nichols was preferred to others. I am told by reliable parties, who belong to the press, that many others could have been selected for the post to which Mr. Nichols was appointed. More than that,
I am told that the position itself was not required at all.


Robert Lorne Richardson: That may be.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is not the
question.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would like to put a question to the President of the Council. Mr. Nichols is an excellent journalist. He was at one time in Montreal publishing the Daily Mail and the Evening News. I may say. by the way, that he killed both papers. The President of the Council is, perhaps, not familiar with conditions in Montreal.
I know that while he was leader of the Liberal party in Ontario he had to read many newspapers published in his own province. I may tell him that for months and months Mr. Nichols and his two organs in Montreal, the Daily Mail and the Evening News, never ceased to attack most bitterly a gentleman who was in the late Government. I refer to the ex-Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Sam Hughes), a dear friend of mine, as hon. members all know. I have heard the ex-Minister of Militia complaining in this House to the Minister of Finance in regard to those attacks. He referred to them in many of his speeches. He said that there was a conspiracy in the Government against him and that Mr. Nichols was the instrument to carry out that conspiracy. Let us come to the point at issue. My hon. friend cannot with a wave of the hand dismiss the case so easily, because with all its glorious promises of Civil 'Service reform, the new Government has appointed Mr. McLean, Comptroller of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police, Mr. Boyce a member of the Board of Railway Commissioners, and Mr. Bra-bazon as Inspector of the Ottawa Dam Works.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Superintendent of the Works on the Ottawa River. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that Mr. Nichols is the very acme of the ideal journalist.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I did not say he was the ideal journalist, but he is a good man.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Let me say he is just ,as good a journalist as my good friend from Springfield.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Then he is all right.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will the President of the Privy Council justify Mr. Nichols' appointment to a post that is not required at all on the mere ground that he is a gc,od journalist? Will my hon. friend tell us, first, the salary of Mr. Nichols; second, where his office is in Ottawa, and third, the nature of the work connected with his office? I understand, for instance, the necessity for the creation of a propaganda office in England. Whilst I d'o not accept the appointment which has been made and which has been so severely criticised by both political parties in England, that of Lord Northcliffe, Lord Beaverbrook and Lord Rothermere; still, in England they are not far from the Continent, and it is necessary to carry out the propaganda there. All the European governments have been carrying out propaganda on the Continent. I can understand that. But why here in Canada have an office for propaganda? What propaganda and what work has Mr. Nichols performed? Can my hon. friend show me anything that Mr. Nichols has accomplished since his appointment at the high salary of $5,000 a year? What is ths nature of that propaganda? I am not accusing; I am asking. Is it a political propaganda? Does it consist in the publication of those appeals which were made during the recent election and which were spread in the press from one end of the country to the other? If that is the nature of his work, I blame the Government very seriously for the appointment of Mr. Nichols, because that propaganda was not in the public interest; on the contrary, it was to promote a political interest and nothing else, and certainly it was far from promoting national unity. But what his duties are I do not know, and I should be glad to hear from my hon. friend who (brought up this subject this afternoon. We are told'-and I draw the attention of the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. A. K. Maclean) to this-that we are displaying parochialism when we rise and criticise these matters. The other day I resented his telling me, when I was discussing the famous Order in Council about the borrowing powers of the provinces that I was giving vent to parochial views. This is not parochialism. Surely the duty of my hon. friend as Acting Minister of Finance is to check the expenditure of this country. If there was one thing which I admired this
[Mr. Richardson. 1
afternoon in the speech of another old friend now in exile on the other side of the House, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark), it was his quotation from Mr. Gladstone that a Finance Minister should never be ashamed of cheese paring. The hon. member for Red Deer said that this Government was elected with a specific mandate to win the war. If we are to win the war we must take the necessary means, and surely we must check the expenditure. I say that spending $5,000 here and $2,000 there and $6,000 elsewhere is lavish expenditure, and I do not consider myself parochial in bringing this matter before the House. I am sincere in what I say.


Robert Lorne Richardson: When I was,defending the appointment, I was speaking of Mr., Nichols as a journalist. I do not know if he was required or not.


Rodolphe Lemieux: As one of the leaders- of journalism in Canada, imy hon. friend (Mr. Richardson) would perhaps give me the benefit of his views. Does he believe that Mr. Nichols or -any other gentleman is needed for propaganda literature in Canada at the present time? All the Germans and all the Austrians are interned, and it seems to me that propaganda of that nature can have veTy little influence on public opinion in this country; and. certainly if the literature he is turning out is what was published during the last election, far from helping the cause it has just the contrary effect.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Mr. Nichols, of course, has had nothing to do with political propaganda in any shape or form. His work is solely in connection with the war and the matters already set out in the return brought down. Might I suggest that it would be a more convenient time to give detailed information when niv estimates are up, when I shall be very glad to go fully into this matter.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He is in my hon.
friend's department?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is his salary?


Newton Wesley Rowell: It is $5,000.


William Stevens Fielding: The resolution before
you, Mr. Chairman, is one that has my warmest -sympathy and support, and if I make an observation or two concerning it, it -is only that I may obtain some information as to the machinery whereby my hon. -friend expects to carry it out. I notice *the salary Ito be voted for the chairman

of that 'board is $6,000. My recollection is 'that the salary in the past hag been $5,000. Am I not right?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Six thousand, 1
think.


Mr. FI  ELDING@: My recollection is that the chairman has heretofore been paid $5,000, and it ie now proposed to increase his .salary to $6,000, 'but I am not complaining about that, I taie it for granted that the Government have good reason for increasing the salary, and I just wanted to be sure whether my memory was correct as to the figure. One of my difficulties is in understanding how this excellent programme is to 'be carried out, and I am not sure that any difficulty is any greater than the Government's, 'because I fancy they have their own troubles in the matter. I think we are getting away from the purpose for which the Civil Service Commission was created. It was never intended to be a patronage distributing body, but a body with distinct purposes, a bor'y to hold examinations and to take means of guaranteeing the qualifications of applicants for the Public Service. That, I think, is a correct statement of its original purpose. But now the Government seem to be obliged-I am not saying they could do otherwise-to make this commission a patronage distributing body. Now to say to A, B and C, who are members of Parliament, that they shall have no right to nominate anybody, but that D, E and F, who are called the Civil Service Board, shall nominate and appoint the men, does not seem to me to be abolishing patronage; it is simply transferring it from a number of gentlemen who, whatever their faults may Ibe, have some knowledge of local conditions, and turning it over to gentlemen who have no knowledge of local conditions. It seems to me that is the effect of it. I happen to have a copy, of the latest Order in Council that has been issued, and here is how it proposes to deal with the post office:
When the appointment of a rural postmaster is desired the Commission shall, through the responsible official of the Post Office Department

I do not quite know who that is; there are a great many responsible officials in the Post Office Department.
-institute inquiries in the locality in which the appointment is to be made, with a view to securing a suitable person, suitably located, for such position and, having made a selection and having satisfied' themselves that such person possesses sufficient education to enable him to efficiently discharge the duties of the
45i
position and that he is duly qualified as to health, character and habits, the certificate required for his appointment shall be issued.
Where is the Civil Service Commission going to get information regarding all the virtues of this man who is to fi'i the office of postmaster away out at Blankville in Cape Breton county? I do not know what the experience of others bae been, tout I have had some of the worries of my life in getting a capable man to accept the position of postmaster, and how these excellent gentlemen in the city of Ottawa are going to get a postmaster for Blankville better thani any one of us I fail to comprehend.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Will the hon. gentleman suggest what method he thinks should 'be followed?


William Stevens Fielding: I confess my difficulty.
I merely say the Government is not making it any better, that is all; I am not complaining. I said a moment ago I was very much afraid that my friepds in the Cabinet are no wiser than I am. I know their object is good, and I think they are trying to find a way of accomplishing it.
I cannot understand how this Civil Service iCommission located in Ottawa is going to be able to obtain any better information about a man who is qualified to be a postmaster down in my constituency than I can obtain myself. You may say I would make a partisan recommendation, and perhaps I would. You know these commissioners of the Civil Service are only human. They will get information from somebody, and he may be a partisan, and perhaps not as fair-minded a person as I hope I am myself. I only want to state that the machinery toy which the Cabinet is endeavouring to accomplish their purpose seems to me to be full of trouble. I do not think it is going to work well. I do not blame the Cabinet for trying to do it; it may be the best way. With reference to the nomination for this fifty-dollar postmastership, if you are going to say a member of Parliament is not to be trusted to make the nomination-and he ' knows something about it at all events- and you are going to turn it over to three gentlemen in Ottawa who may know nothing about it, it seems to me it will not work out. I want to help my hon. friends to work it out. I am not complaining. I call attention to some of the difficulties they have in their way. I am not doing it in a fault-finding way. I would be glad to make it better if I could.


Robert Lorne Richardson: It seems to me the criticism of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens (Mr. Fielding) is unfair and

destructive. When a man rises to criticise the action of somebody else it his duty to propose an alternative. I do not think it is fair to suggest that two or three gentlemen in Ottawa are going to select the postmasters at $50 a year for Burrard Inlet or some place in Cape Breton. I think the resolution is clear on that point. It says the responsible officer-meaning, of course, the inspector in the district where the vacancy occurs-shall be the man who will make the inquiry. You will not always get just ifche exact and proper man to fill this position, of course. But what has been the experience in the past 40 or 50 years? All sorts of partisan appointments have been made. When the Government changed charges were made against postmasters for partisanship, and postmasters have been dismissed. It seems to me it is the absolute duty of every hon. gentleman to support this idea. The idea is to get rid of partisanship and patronage in appointments. If the hon. gentleman knows any better method than that suggested by the Government, it is his duty to propose it. He must lay some constructive scheme before this House before he will induce me, at least, to accept his criticism, and to oppose the scheme which the Government proposes. It must surely be the conviction of every hon. member in this House, as well as the conviction of every thoughtful man in this country, that if there has been one curse 'in connection with public administration it has been the patronage system. If the Government is making, as I believe it is, an honest effort to strike a deadly blow at patronage, then, instead of being criticized, the Government should be encouraged in every possible way. It is a Union Government, a government composed of both parties. I cannot say that they had -the unanimous support of every section of Canada at the last election, but they were not so fax from it. This Government, therefore, is in <a position that no other government in Canada has ever occupied to accomplish such reforms as the one now proposed. If hon. members are disposed to carp, criticize and attempt to destroy the efforts of the Government, they are going to paralyze the arm of the Government. It is amazing to me that any thoughtful Canadian who has watched the working of the patronage system in this Dominion for the last thirty, forty or fifty years, should not hold up both hands in support of any effort, if this effort is being honestly made, to strike a death blow at the patronage system.


William Stevens Fielding: I have stated that I am in favour of the resolution. The effort 
of my hon. friend in picturing - me as trying to destroy the efforts of the Government is unnecessary, and his statement is groundless. I am trying to get some information. I may not get it from the members of the Government; they may be in as much difficulty as I am. I am trying to suggest to the members the difficult position in which this Bill is placing the Civil Service Commission. When the Civil Service Commission is asked to conduct an examination, or to judge as between A, B. C and D, and award the recommendation to the man who wins the prize, that is the purpose of the Civil Service Commission, but I cannot see how the thing is to work out, or how this commission is going to get information as to petty appointments all over the country. My hon. friend says the inspector for the district will select the man. He is only a human being like ourselves. My point, with respect to that class of small appointments is that the Government is not going to make things any better. I can tell my hon. friend a better rule than the one he has laid down, and that is that if anybody proposes a change he must advocate the change and show reason for it; he cannot propose a negative. He might say: "Well, let well enough alone." I do not say, "Let well enough alone," I adfnit the trouble; I know the tremenduous harm that is done by patronage. But patronage may be honestly and fairly administrated, or it may be	abused.	The	idea	that every
appointment that has been made under the patronage system is a bad one, is a delusion. Three out of four men appointed to office have served the country well. There have been abuses in the patronage system, and there may be abuses under this system. The only point I am asking is that it seems to me the imposition of these duties on the Civil Service Commission, is inconsistent with their original purpose, and I am trying to find cut whether the system will work out well. I hope it will.


Mr. EDWARDS:: 
Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I believe that the hon.
member for Shelburne and Queens (Mr. Fielding) has put his finger on what is going to be the great difficulty in the working out of this Act. Advice must be sought, and it is natural that the member for the constituency should be in the best position to give advice. I also agree with the hon. member from Frontenae (Mr. Edwards). At the same time, if I understand the idea of the resolution, it is to absolutely remove patronage from the hands of members of Parliament. I think the hon. members for Ottawa city will Ibe willing factors in that movement. It is strange that we get in our mail, practically every day, from the Civil Service Commission, notices that certain positions are vacant, the idea of the notices being that we should send in a recommendation for the filling of these positions. Whether these recommendations will be acted upon is another matter. If I had a suggestion to make-and I do this for the benefit of the hon. member from Springfield (Mr. Richardson)-it would he that in all matters where appointments are to be made in rural districts, the advice of the municipal councils be sought and that the Civil Service Comiifiission act upon the recommendation of those councils. I knew of no less partisan 'bodies than the municipal councils.


Joseph Read: Mr. Chairman, I
am very much in favour of this resolution. I believie it involves one of the most important steps that the Union Government have taken-if they will only do' it, honestly, t candidly and without hypocrisy. I heard my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) say to-day that the Union Government was elected especially to win the war. In so far as that is its purpose I am prepared to tell him that every mian in this House, so far as I know, is behind the Government; we all want to win the war. But, at the same time, while we are behind this Government, and while we are anxious to win the war, we want to be in a position to carry on the public affairs with honesty, economy and integrity. The Order in Council that this resolution is 'based upon calls for the appointment of public servants through competitive examination and other-
['Mr. Bdwarcls. ]
wise eliminating party patronage. In the name of common sense, why does not this Government include in the elimination, patronage in the railway system of Canada? Canada is entering upon a great railway nationalization policy, and unless this elimination of patronage is made applicable to the railway system, the railways will own Canada and not Canada the railways; the railways will own the Government and the Government will not own the railways. I speak with some authority on this subject, as I have lived right alongside the railroad, which runs past the corner of my house, and I come :from a province that was sold into the Dominion of Canada absolutely through its railway; and I say that this patronage has been the curse of the whole Governmental system in the Dominion of Canada. Now, my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) who, I understand, stands for " Free Trade as it is in England,"-though he should stand for " Free Trade as it should be in Canada,"- can give us better advice from the English standpoint on this question of Civil Service reform, because there is no country in the world that has solved that question so completely, so splendidly, so efficaciously, and so thoroughly, as Great Britain. I know my hon. friend from Red Deer can give us a pointer in that regard. I have had the opportunity of knowing the Old Country *almost as well as our own, having visited Britain nearly every year for thirty years, and having to do with civil servants there -Customs House officers and all that class of men-directly and indirectly; and I want to say that over there they do not have any of this trouble in regard to patronage that we have had in Canada. Patronage in this country is one of the worst things that exist to-day in civil government. It is bad because it lends itself to a system of corruption. It is one of the most corrupt methods of canvassing for votes, going and promising half a dozen men an office. In that respect difficulties have been created for members of Parliament, and I am sure that every man in this House will hold up both hands to get dear of patronage, except one or two. You 'have heard of the prisoner of Chillon. The prisoner of Chillon was imprisoned for so long that when he was liberated he went back to the prison, he could not live with the manacles off him. And, unfortunately, there are some men like that.
I am going to vote for this resolution, and I want other hon. members to do the same. 1 do not use the term "hon. members" now

in the sense that Mark Antony used the word "honourable" when he said, "so are they all, all honourable men,''when he was speaking about Brutus with the blood still dripping from the dagger. But I mean honourable men in the parliamentary sense of the term. Now, to show you the earnestness of some members of Parliament.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Some members of the Government.


Joseph Read: Yes, some members
of the Government

on this question of
patronage. I wrote one of the hon. members of the Government under date of January 9th on this subject, and asked him that now that the Union Government


Charles Murphy: That was after the election.


Joseph Read: That was after the election. I wrote one of the hon. members of the Government to the effect that now the Union Government had been returned to power I presumed that patronage was going to be eliminated. With regard to the question of Union Government I want to say that, so far as I was concerned personally, I was, and am now, in favour of a Union Government that would have commended itself to me, but I wanted it to
9 p.m. be a Union Government that stood for unity. HoweveT, be that as it may, I wrote and pointed out that there was a certain section in my constituency where the probability was that some men would be required in the public service, and asked if - it was the intention of the Government to eliminate partisan pat-[DOT]ronage in the appointment of these people. I desired to do away with the irritation that had been rampant all over the country with regard to patronage, especially during election time. But the young gentleman I was running against, who happens to be my own nephew, when the word came down that the sheriff of the county was going to be appointed as the returning officer, sent him ,a list of fifty enumerators, and every one of them was a dyed-in-the-wool Tory. And yet he was calling himself a Unionist, a fifty-fifty man. That was irritating people very much and I wanted to do .away with the irritation, and to tell you the truth, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to see Union Government a success. If the Union Government are not a success we should turn them out, and hon. gentlemen on the other side will help us to do that, I am satisfied. Now here is the letter:
Dear Sir,-
Yours of the 9th instant duly received. As far as any patronage in connection with -the Railway Department is concerned, there is not the slightest doubt but that both Liberals and Conservatives who supported the Union Government will receive every consideration.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Name, name.


Joseph Read: The writer of that letter was a member of the Government.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Name, name.


Joseph Read: No, I will not give the name, because:
While the lamp holds out to burn,
The vilest sinner may return,
I have a letter from another member of the Government and his reply was to this _ effect: So far as I am personally concerned,
I mean what I promised the people publicly and privately, and that was to eliminate partisan patronage.
I mention these matters because I want these gentlemen to get together and reform themselves. If we are going to have stable government they must get together on principle where honesty and integrity are the paramount issues, and where hypocrisy is absolutely eliminated. Hypocrisy in public life is nearly as bad as it is in religious life, and we know all about that.
I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that I am going to support the motion, and I hope that when the Bill comes down my hon. friends in the Government will see to it that the railway system is brought within its scope. If they do not they are going to make the biggest mistake they ever made in their lives, both in their own interest and the interest of the public. If there is any public service in this country that requires the elimination of patronage more than another, yes, five times more than any other-and I speak with authority because 'I know from experience-it is the railway service. That service as a Governmgnt service it is going to spread from the Atlantic to the Pacific with its branch lines and its ramifications. Talk about the Inside Service and the Outside Service, why, there will not be any comparison between them. I tell you that when this great railway system goes through the country, unless we adopt the principle of putting it under commission-not only the appointment to it, but the whole great railway system-putting it under a non-partisan commission, the members of which would have all the authority, all the sanctity and all the judicial capacity of a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, there is going to be trouble.

The Civil Service Commissioner whose salary is named in this resolution should he a man of the very highest integrity. He should be above any government; like the Auditor General, he should be in a position to tell the Government to go to Hades if it does not do what was right.


Michael Clark: At the beginning of a new Parliament one gets many surprises. I must say that the greatest surprise I have received yet in this Parliament was in finding any disposition on the part of the member for Shelburne and Queens (Mr. Fielding), or the member for Fron-tenac (Mr. Edwards) to hang on to some belief in the old doctrine that " to the victors belong the spoils." The member for Wright (Mr. Devlin) put his finger on the essence of what the Government is trying to obtain in the destruction of patronage. It is, as I conceive it, to separate the member of Parliament from the appointments in his constituency. What would happen if we could accomplish that? In the first place, the people of the country who are civil servants would know that they held their positions upon their merits, and would give their service accordingly. In the second place, the whole of the people would, at election time, vote upon public questions as they conceived those questions would work out for the public good, and not for their own private emolument. That is what would be the effect upon the people; what would be the effect upon members of Parliament? Knowing that the people were going to vote upon the merits of public questions, candidates for Parliament would inform themselves upon public questions and would stand upon their intellectual and political merits for election, not upon their ability to go in for what my friend opposite has called corruption. That is the gist of the whole matter as it appears to me. Can any member of this House who considers the question from that point of view fail to see that if we cayy out this principle it will immensely elevate the public life of the country? That is what I mean by the abolition of patronage in this particular aspect. As to who should make the appointments in small country post offices, in my part of the world it has been a very great difficulty to get men to take office at all. In many cases, when asked for a recommendation, I have simply -written a letter to the department, saying: Ask the inspector to go there -and get the best man he can, whatever his political colour may be. 'The member for Fron'tenac e-ays that he knows the people in his district better than certain other

-men can know them. That is just the trouble with a great many of us; we have known the districts, and known -the men. We all know-let us get rid of cant in this matter-that men have been appointed by members of all political -complexions with the expectation that political services would be rendered -for the appointments. Now, that should go. Men should be appointed to serve the public because of their merits, they should be promoted because of their merits, and they should foe free to act for the public good at election time just as members should be -allowed to stand for the -public good and for the public good only, -and to stand for public questions on their merits. I repeat that if that can be brought about-, it -will immensely elevate the public life of the country and make for the good of Canada.
I want to say this on behalf of the Government:	No sane man expects them to
produce in one moment a perfect scheme for this change, -in all the manifold * complexities of this great country and its public services. But in making an honest endeavour to 'begin to do it, they deserve the sympathy of every right-thinking person in the country. They certainly have my sympathy; they will h-ave all the help that I can give them; and if they go on courageously in the -way they are beginning, they -will have the encouragement of all the best-thinking people in large portions, at any rate, of this Dominion. So far as the next election goes, if anybody is looking so far -ahead, he will stand much better under this system than if be bad hung on to the old method of giving enough jobs to get enough votes to be returned to Parliament.


William Stevens Fielding: If I gave my hon.
friend the impression that I proclaimed the doctrine that "to the victor belongs the spoils," or that I was anxious to cling to the system of the distribution of patronage, then I can only say that I failed to -speak iwith that clearness which I always endeavour to attain, though I may not always succeed. I have no desire to do either one. I have never proclaimed the doctrine that " to the victor belongs the spoils," in the sense in which the words are commonly used-though there is a sense in which the words might be legitimately applied. Nor do I desire to cling to patronage. I have had some experience of it, and it lias not been exactly in the line that my Mon. friend suggests. His idea is that when one is instrumental in getting one of his friends a public office, he expects to be re-

warded with political support. Well, that is nut my experience. On the contrary, when I have had opportunity of recommending a man for any public office and the question of political support has come up, I have always told him: My friend, your party services have had something to do with your getting the office, but from this time forward your are the servant of the community, and I do not want you to meddle in politics. That has been my experience in the administration of patronage. The only point of my observations was to call attention to the difficult position in which the Civil Service Commission was being placed. I frankly said in reply to the member for Springfield (Mr. Richardson) that I could not at the moment suggest anything better. But I was pointing out that while the Civil Service Commission would be an excellent body to hold examinations, to test qualifications, to decide as between A, B, C, and D for any particular office-that is the duty they were originally intended to discharge, and they -are well qualified to discharge it

yet where there canjbe no examination and no test, nothing more than an inquiry somewhere, the Civil Service Commission were in no better position to get information of that character than anybody else.


William Cameron Edwards: I also, Mr. Chairman, want to repudiate the suggestion that I am one wrapped up in the theory, that "to the victors belong the spoils." I am sure that every member of this House would gladly wash his hands of appointments even to a $50 or a $150 job. It is not that we want that work, for political or any other reasons. But I say again that I do not see how it will be possible for the Civil Service Commission, sitting in Ottawa, to ascertain the proper persons to appoint to these positions without applying to those who might be reasonably expected to know who were qualified for them. I repudiate the reflection which I maintain is to a certain extent thrown upon members of Parliament generally by the wording of this resolution and by some of those who are supporting it. In effect, you ,are saying that no man who has been chosen as a representative of the people to sit in this House can be trusted to make an honest recommendation or to select an efficient man to fill a vacancy in the Civil Service. I have had the privilege of sitting as a member of this House since 1908, and I have honestly endeavoured, whenever it has fallen to my lot to recommend a man for a position, to recommend
a man who, I believed, would ,perform the duties of that office efficiently and well, and in doing so I was not thinking about the next election. I believe, when I say that, I am speaking, not for myself alone, but for scores of members in this House. It is not fair to say, because it has fallen to our lot as members of Parliament to recommend men to fill vacancies in the Civil Service, that in our recommendations we were thinking about the votes we were going to get. That is putting members ..of Parliament on a very low plane.


Mr. TWEEDIE:: If the Government succeed in placing the Outside Service under the control of the Civil Service Commission, they will have done something to justify their return to power. I wish to endorse very heartily the statements made by the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Richardson). If Civil Service reform is to be a success in this country, it will not depend so much upon the Government or upon the Civil Service as upon the individual private members representing the various constituencies throughout the Dominion. The hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) made some reference to the Inside Civil Service in the city of Ottawa. Complaints have been heard with regard to the Inside Civil Service, but I believe the blame rests upon the shoulders of the private members. We all know how every hon. member has in the past used his influence, and notwithstanding what the hon. member for Frontenac says to the contrary, hon. members have in the past used their endeavours to secure for their political friends positions in the Government service, whether at Ottawa or in any other part of the country. The question is: Are we going to be willing to sacrifice what might be termed a political vested right and uphold the work of the Civil Service Commission, or are we going to endeavour to retain in some slight degree control of these appointments throughout the Dominion of Canada? If we undertake to retain control over the minor offices or the major offices, Civil Service reform in this country will be a failure. The hon. member for Shelburne and Queens (M.r. Fielding) seems to anticipate there will be difficulty in connection with appointments to minor positions. I do not see how there need be any difficulty. As the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Richardson) and the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) have pointed out, we have inspectors travelling throughout the Dominion in connection with the post office, customs, inland revenue, and those

inspectors are the men who should be responsible to the Civil Service Commission in regard to seeing that appointees to minor positions are fully qualified. When you get down to the lowest class, such as the men who draw $100 or $150 a year, it may be for the position of a janitor or a porter, my contention has always been that the man who has charge of the post office, or the land office, or the customs office, in which a janitor is required, should have vested in him authority to hire a man to carry on that work. If the man who is at the head of that office has not the intelligence and good judgment to hire a janitor or a porter, that man should be removed from his position and a man capable of doing that work and making such appointments named in his stead. After an appointment of that kind has been made, it should be reported to the Civil Service Commission, and the appointee should hold his position unless he is removed from it for good cause.
I just wish again to point out to hon. members that in my opinion the success or the failure of the Civil Service in this country rests almost wholly upon the private members. If they will keep their hands off, if they will not importune the members of the Civil Service Commission to appoint friends to positions, if they will not use their political influence on behalf of those in whom they are interested, I believe the Civil Service Commission will do their work in a manner which will be a credit to that department. Otherwise, Civil Service reform will be a failure.


Mr. MANION:: I have had an important matter brought to my attention in the last few days by a man of fairly high authority, that is, that the Civil Service Commission, with which I am wholly in -sympathy, should, in filling positions in each district, appoint people residing in such district. I do not believe the Civil Service Commission should, at any time, except in unavoidable cases, bring from some outside district men into, -say, my district, to fill ordinary positions in the Civil Service. There may, at times, be positions which require men having special training, but as regards ordinary positions carrying salaries of $100 a month or thereabouts, in the customs, railways and .so on, il presume every constituency of the 234 constituencies in 'this country can supply men oap-alble of filling such positions. A rule should be laid down that the Civil Service Commission should he instructed in so far

as possible to fill those positions with men selected from the particular constituency in which a vacancy arises.


Edmond Proulx: In filling the positions
will any regard be given to the different political parties? A vacancy might occur in one locality and many people -might Ibe qualified to fill it. It does not require high qualifications to fill the position of postmaster of a small -place. When selections are -being made, how will the officers of the Post Office Department be instructed to make selections?
Mr. A. K. 'MACLEAN:	They will find
out iby some means or another.
<Mr. PBOULX: It will probably depend -much on the political complexion of the officer. 'It he lie in -sympathy with the Government, he will endeavour to find -a person who as known to be a supporter of the Government. If the officer is a supporter of the Opposition, he will probaibly want to -select a Liberal. At the last election we were given pledges by the Prime Minister and some of his colleagues that there iwas to toe no more patronage. The Premier stated there would be -an equal division of the seats in the Cabinet amongst the Conservatives and Liberals. We have not reached that stage yet, tout we expect to reach it. The other day the Premier said that he was going to implement his pledge, and that Liberals and Conservatives would occupy the -same nu-mtoer of seats in the Cabinet. When he made that -pledge, we expected that in appointments to the Senate, regard would Ibe had to the two political parties supporting the Government. Since that pledge iwas given, about a dozen appointments have been made, to the Senate, -and I do not think one Liberal has been appointed. Perhaps the Prime Minister meant by that fifty-fifty basis, that fifty Conservatives would toe first appointed, and then perhaps some Liberals. It might turn out the same way with the Civil Service Commission, that under the guise of no patronage and an equal share to both parties, only members of one party might be appointed. The hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) said a few minutes ago that there was more efficiency in the Outside Service than in the Inside. There may be a reason for this. The qualifications for the Outside Service are not as high as those for the Inside Service. I am pretty much of the opinion of my hon. friend that in the case of these minor appointments it will be just as hard

for the Civil Service Commission to find properly qualified persons as for members of Parliament, and perhaps harder.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: And sometimes easier.


Edmond Proulx: Perhaps.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Frequently the
Civil Service Commission -will fill a vacancy much more quickly than if it were left to a member of Parliament. I have known of vacancies in highly important offices remaining unfilled for perhaps one or two years because the member of Parliament in control of the patronage could not make up his mind what person he would nominate.


Edmond Proulx: So far as that is concerned I agree with my hon. friend. I am in favour of abolishing patronage. I think it would be a good thing for members on both sides of the House. But, as the hon. member for Queens and Shelburne (Mr. Fielding) has said, in the practical working out it might be more difficult for the Commission than for members of Parliament to make a selection.


Mr. NESBITT:: If the Government will carry out this resolution as it is on the Order paper, it will be the greatest step in advance, in my judgment, that has taken place in this country for many years.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: I wish to draw the minister's attention to a report of the Committee of the Privy Council, approved on the 18th March, 1918, as follows:
The Committee of the Privy Council have had before them a report, dated 16th March, 1918, from the right hon. the Prime Minister, stating that application has been made to the heads of several departments for the dismissal of public officials on the ground1 of offensive partisanship during the recent election.
The Prime Minister observes that the power to dismiss upon such consideration should be sparingly exercised.
It seems to me that that word "sparingly" is utterly opposed to the principle of the Bill. Might I have some explanation from the minister.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: As I understand
it, this Order in Council is a direction to the Civil Service Commission that any dismissals made by them should he made only after very careful consideration, and for some offence-against the state for example, *or for dereliction of duty. The last paragraph of the Order in Council reads:
The Prime Minister, therefore, recommends that in no case shall any dismissal for such a cause he made except after reference to the Civil Service Commission ,and with the approval of that Commission, after such inquiry
and investigation as the Commission may deem desirable in the public interest. In reaching a determination the Commission shall have regard solely to the question whether the public interest will be better conserved by the retention or by the dismissal of the official in question and shall take into account his efficiency, the length of his service and the relevant circumstances which may enable them to reach a conclusion.


Joseph Archambault: What are the
relevant circumstances and what about the first part of the Order in Council?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not feel I
should detain the Committee in explaining the Order in Council. After all, the portion I have read is the important part, because it contains the declaration of the policy of the Government in respect to dismissals.


Joseph Archambault: I think the first
part is just as important as the last.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The first part
states:	'	.
Application has been made to the heads of several departments for the dismissal of public officials on the ground of offensive partisanship during the recent election.
That means that since the last election very many requests have been made to the, heads of the different departments of the Public Service in Ottawa for the dismissals of persons who at the last election opposed the present Ministry.
Mr. ARiCHAMBAUiLT: The first recommendation of the Prime Minister is important.
Mr. A. K. [MACLEAN: The Prime Minister only made one recommendation, and it was contained in the portion I read, that dismissals be made only after due consideration by the Civil Service Commission.


Joseph Archambault: Read the other part.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Prime Minister observes that the power to dismiss upon such consideration should be sparingly exercised and he is of the opinion that, having regard to the policy adopted with regard to appointments to the public service, as set forth in the Order in Council approved on the 13th day of February, 1918, dismissals for such a cause should only be authorized in flagrant cases and' subject to the conditions hereinafter set forth.
I submit to my hon. friend who interjected this matter quite irrelevantly into this debate that there is nothing in that to give cause for criticism. The purpose of the Order in Council is quite obvious, I think, to any person who wishes to read and understand it. It means that since

the last election a great number of applications have been made for the dismissal of persons who at the last election opposed this Government. In my hon. friend's own province, I suppose, there was hardly a person holding a Government position who was friendly to this Government at this last election, and there naturally came to the Government requests-


Jacques Bureau: 
Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: My hon. friend the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. A. K. Maclean) *must not think that any inquiries which have been made on this side meant that we were opposed to the principle of the Bill. In fact, as my hon. friend will remember, the idea of Civil Service reform has been a Liberal idea. If has been advocated on this side of the House for a number of years. The fault that has constantly been found on this side of the House is that the .ight hon. gentleman (Sir Robert Borden) who leads the Government did not implement the promises which he had constantly made before each general election for years past. )It 'was a favourite pastime of the Prime (Minister to promise Civil Service reform. The only actual Civil Service reform that has been carried out in this country was carried out under the leadership of my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition ('Sir Wilfrid Laurier), and is contained in the statute of 1908. Wd want this Act to be improved, if any improvement can be made in it, and we are back of the Government in any genuine reform of the Civil Service. My hon-friend, ('Mr. A. K. Maclean) must not try to convey to- the country the impression that the Liberal party is opposed to Civil Service reform because some questions have been asked from this side of the House. On the contrary, we have been preaching it for years and we are advocating it now.
Mr. IMUiRPHY:	With the principle on
which this resolution is supposed to be founded !I am in the most complete sympathy. Any citizen of Ottawa who has spent all his life in this city, and who has had anything at all to do with public life, will very strongly support any measure calculated to remove political patronage. I am not going to weary the committee at this stage of the discussion and at this hour of the night, with any recital of what the members for the city of Ottawa have had to undergo in the past, and possibly have to undergo even yet, in connection with patronage. But I can assure you, that, although I have not the honour to

represent the city of Ottawa, the county which I do represent in this House includes a portion of the city of Ottawa, that portion in which His Excellency the Governor General resides. He is a constituent of mine. - He has never voted for me, but having regard to the resolution under discussion, perhaps it is proper for me to add that neither has he asked me for a job or to appoint anybody to a posi-. tion; so that, I have no complaint about patronage on that score.
The hon. junior member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) has said that patronage is a curse. Most heartily do I echo that designation. It is such a curse that my continual wonder has been that men on both sides of politics would put up with it for the length of time that it has endured. I remember that when I was Secretary of State I was 'summoned one day to the office of the Governor General of Canada, the representative of His Majesty the King, to discuss a matter of urgent public business. When the messenger entered my room I was engaged in a wrangle with an individual who insisted that I should appoint him to the position of, what do you think?-ash sifter. Aish sifter! It was useless for me to tell him that there was no such position, useless for me to tell him that I could not create such a position; he demanded it as his right as a free man and a citizen of Canada. I had never heard of or seen him before, and I never want to see him again. That man was the cause of my delaying the Governor General, the representative of His Majesty, fifteen minutes while I discussed that important question of patronage. However, that is an extreme case, but it is an exiperience that is liable to happen to any member of any Government should a hungry office seeker of that type succeed in invading his office. That is only a very minor example of what people have to undergo in Ottawa in connection with patronage.
During the discussion of this resolution a question was asked by my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queens (Mr. Fielding) regarding the provision in the resolution for the payment of a salary of $6,000 to the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission. My hon. friend the Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. A. K. Miaclean) was not quite sure whether that wms the same salary as had previously been paid or was an increase of $1,000. If my hon. friend will recall the circumstances connected with the creation of the Civil Service Commission and its personnel, he will remember that the com-

mission as first appointed consisted of two commissioners, Mr. Shortt and Mr. Laro-chelle, each receiving a salary of $5,000. Neither of these gentlemen was appointed chairman, but by reason of dominating the work of the commission, Mr. Shortt succeeded in having the public address him as the chairman, and he never objected to the title. There was no chairman as a matter of fact. Then the personnel of the commission was increased to three, and provision was made that the last appointed would be chairman of the commission. The three present members of the commission are Hon. Dr. Roche, one of our late colleagues in this House; Mr. Clarence Jamieson, another respected colleague of ours in thfe late Parliament, and Mr. Larochelle. Dr. Roche is chairman of' the commission. This is a provision for increasing by $1,000 the salary previously paid and it is for the Chairman.
The hon. Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. A. K. Maclean) in the course of his last remarks, stated that this was the most ininteresting Parliament in the history of Canada. By dint of repeating that they have abolished patronage, the members of this Government, or at least some of them, seem to believe that patronage actually has been abolished. I do not blame them for that but I wish to point out, particularly to my hon. friend from Springfield (Mr. Richardson) who expressed the belief that the Government was honestly trying to eliminate patronage, how difficult it is for those members of the committee, and particularly for any person who has lived in the city of Ottawa and who has knowledge of what is going on, to accept that statement without qualification. With the copy of a letter in my pocket written by one of the members of this Government to a correspondent telling him that he would be placed on the patronage list for orderfe in his line of business, I think I would be doing violence to my common sense if I should accept without qualification the statement that patronage has been abolished.
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN; That has no reference to this resolution.


Charles Murphy: I propose to show that
it has.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What about the Order
in Council?


Charles Murphy: If my hon. friend will
hear with me I propose ,to show that it has, because this resolution, and the Bill to be founded upon it are designed to "eliminate

political patronage in the control and management of the said Service."


Rodolphe Lemieux: And the patronage list.


Charles Murphy: My hon. friend from
Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) has been good enough to point out that the phrase "patronage list " appears in the Order in Council which hae been brought down, which is supplementary to the resolution under discussion and which is supposed to form part of the basic upon which the new Act will be founded. Now in addition to this letter, which was written by a member of the present Cabinet, after this Union Government was formed, I heard, as I entered the Chamber, discussion as to the appointment of Mr. Nichols.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Was that letter sent after the election?


Charles Murphy: No. It was a well-timed letter sent just before the election.


Rodolphe Lemieux: After the pledge?


Charles Murphy: I heard discussion as I entered the Chamber about the appointment of Mr. Nichols to the position of Director of Public Information, and I heard the tribute paid to Mr. Nichols by my hon. friend from Springfield (Mr. Richardson). As far as I am concerned I do not controvert what the hon. gentleman said with regard to Mr. Nichols in the slightest degree; but the whole point is, and 1 was glad to see my hon. friend from Springfield qualify his observation, whether the position was necessary or not. The position, I unhesitatingly say, was not necessary. Mr. Nichols had made a failure ot a newspaper enterprise in Montreal. He was, in the language of the day, " down and out." He is the half-brother of-I do not know whether he is Minister of Finance -but in any event, the half-brother of Sir Thomas White. He was a good fellow, no doubt. He was a supporter of the Government and a job had to be provided for him. The position of Director of Public Information was created at a salary of $5,000 a year to impress the public of Canada how entirely and sincerely devoted this administration is to the winning of the war. Now with that fact within our knowledge, I submit to my hon. friend from Springfield it would be doing violence to our common sense to accept unqualifiedly the declaration of the Government that they have eliminated political patronage.
In the city of Ottawa there is a publication known as the Civilian, a very'ably and well written paper, which is the official organ of the civil servants under the present Government. In issue after issue since the date of the election that paper has specifically charged this Administration with the exercise of most reprehensible forms of patronage. That paper in one or two issues made, in point of fact, a most shocking charge against the Administration in con-dectibn with appointments to some of the departments, a charge to which this evening I shall do no more than allude, but to which it may be necessary for me to return later on. I have not heard, and I do not believe, that these charges were challenged by the Government; in any event if they were so challenged I have not heard that any punishment has been meted out to the person responsible for making these charges over his own signature; and certainly if the charges could not be sustained, then the man or men who made them would merit, not only public dismissal but public punishment. I have not heard that anything of that kind has been done, and so while the record in that regard remains as it is, again I say it would be doing violence to one's common sense to accept without qualification a statement that patronage has been abolished.


Rodolphe Lemieux: By word of mouth.


Charles Murphy: Just about the time that this Order in Council was passed to which my hon. friend the acting Minister of Finance referred this afternoon and this evening and from which he has read extracts, we had, synchronizing, as his predecessor (Sir Thomas White) would say, with its passage, one of the most flagrant exhibitions of political patronage that ever occurred in the city of Ottawa, or in the public service of this country, and that is saying a good deal. We had an exhibition of political patronage which has spread disaffection through the whole body of civil servants, not only in Ottawa, but elsewhere throughout the Dominion. Civil servants, by reason of this happening, have reached the conclusion that unless through the accident of family relationship, or by reason of coming within the favoured class so delicately alluded to in the letter which was read by the hon. member from Prince Edward Island (Mr. Read) they have very little hope of receiving justice at the hands of this Administration. Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queens' (Mr. Fielding) and I think my hon. friend the acting Minister of Finance also, will be aware that the former Auditor Genera], as well as the present Auditor General, and the members of the Treasury Board under

the last two Administrations, took no position more strongly against innovations, or violations of the Civil Service Act and the Superannuation Act, than they did in connection with attempts to add more years of service to the term of service of the civil servant who wanted to retire. And yet, Sir, this Government claims it has abolished patronage, and the members of it comport themselves in public as if they actually believe that statement. These are the hon. gentlemen who are responsible for a transaction referred to in the columns of The Ottawa Citizen of February 14, 1918, and which I propose to read to this
10 p.m. committee. The article in question is an editorial, under the title of, "Sir Robert Borden's Prestige." The text of that editorial is as follows:
The superannuation of Mr. J. W. Borden, paymaster of the Militia Department, may have -been arranged without the Prime Minister being consulted about it. According to the terms of the superannuation and retirement act, in ordinary circumstances, Paymaster-general Borden would seem to have been entitled to a retiring annuity of about $1,600. By a dubious interpretation of certain provisions in the act, the retiring paymaster is being credited1 with five more years service than he has actually given to the state; and in this way it has been arranged for him to draw an annuity of about $2,0'00 ; practically $400 a year more than the ordinary civil service retirement allowance.
Mr. J. W. Borden is being credited with five years more than he has actually served, apparently on the pretext that the office of paymaster-general and accountant is being abolished. When, for reasons of economy and efficiency, certain offices are abolished in the civil service, the retiring official may be credited with extra years of service. But the abolition of the paymaster-general and accountant's office would seem to be something of a legal fiction, hardly in accordance with the spirit of the act. The office by a technicality may be said to have been abolished. Actually it has been divided into two offices paymaster-general's office and accountant's office.
With regard to efficiency and economy, whatever may be said for efficiency, the change could hardly have been made on the basis of war economy. In the place of one paymaster-general and accountant, Mr. J. W. Borden, at $4,000 a year, there has now been installed a paymaster-general, Col. J. G. Langton, at $ 6,000 a year, and one of the present officials of the department-a well qualified one, by the way-has been moved up to the position of accountant at $3,5 0'0 a year. So that, where the position formerly cost the state $4,000 a year, it will now cost, with the superannuation allowance to the retiring paymaster, $11,5-00.
There need be no great objection to the higher salaries. It has been one of the weakness of the Canadian civil service that the permanent officials who do the actual work have been much underpaid. It would perhaps have been more encouraging to the Canadian men overseas, if the position of paymaster had been given to an officer who had actually seen active service. It doefe not enhance the prestige of

the Prime Minister, however, to permit such a dubious interpretation of the superannuation and retirement act as the awarding of an extra allowance to the retirement annuity of Mr. J. W. Borden.
When -Sir George Murray reported to the Prime Minister in 1912, he said of this very practice:
"The provisions of section 12 of the Superannuation and Retirement Act, which enables an addition of years to be made to the actual service of certain persons, are in my opinion of doubtful expediency; and I should prefer to see them withdrawn."
As an instance of precept without example, in public service reform, the employment of this doubtful expediency for the financial benefit of Sir Robert Borden's own brother could hardly have been arranged in any spirit of friendship to the Prime Minister. It must be calculated to have exactly the reverse of a helpful influence with regard to the Prime Minister's resolution to establish Civil Service reform.
Sir George Murray says further of this mode of retirement as employed for IMr. J. W. Borden's benefit:
"Under the act the grant of the additional years is personal to the individual and depends on the view which may be taken, either at the time of his appointment or at the time of his retirement, of his qualifications, and on other considerations of a less relevant character. This involves a good deal of rather invidious discussion, which would be avoided if the grant depended not upon the individual but on the qualifications required for the office which he happened to hold."
When certain other cabinet ministers are desirous of perpetuating the business of political patronage, and debasing the Civil Service into a political machine, in spite of all the Government's pledges, they could not employ more subtle ways than by involving Sir Robert Borden personally in an evasion of the spirit of Civil Service reform, and in the countenancing of patronage influence in Civil Service changes.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. I hesitated
about calling the hon. gentleman to order, but my impression is that the reading of this article and the making of these complaints against the administration of patronage in the past would have been more in order if .brought up on the presentation of the militia estimates. However, perhaps the hon. gentleman will show whether or not he is in order by telling the committee, whether he is reading this article or making these complaints as a means of presenting reasons for or against the resolution.


Charles Murphy: I have cited the cases to which I have directed attention for the express purpose of showing the necessity of this resolution and of affirming my intention to support it, in order that the instances to which I have referred and the evasions and breaches of the law -which I have exposed may not be repeated in the future. No greater act for the purification of public life in Canada than a statute founded upon this resolution, provided it is rigidly enforced, could be passed by this or any other Parlia-

ment. I most heartily support the principle upon which, as I said, it is understood that this resolution is founded.


Robert Laird Borden: As to the motive of the hon. gentleman in reading the editorial to which he has referred, we can all form our own conclusions.


Charles Murphy: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: And we may take with how many grains of salt we may think suitable the reading of that article when the Minister of Militia (Major-General Mew-burn), who is responsible entirely for the incident to which he has alluded, is not here to make his answer. If the hon. gentleman desires to renew the discussion at the proper time-which, as he knows well, is on the consideration of the militia estimates-he will get his answer then from the Minister of Militia.


Charles Murphy: It is not my fault that the Minister of Militia is not in his place. Members of the Government, like other members of Parliament, are supposed to be in their places during this or any other discussion.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman knows that the Minister of Militia will be in his place when the militia estimates are under consideration. He knows also that that would he the proper occasion to raise the discussion which he has just now entered upon, and that this is not the proper time.


Charles Murphy: I do not know that.


Robert Laird Borden: There are none so blind as those who *will not see.


Jacques Bureau: Our friends on the other side seem to have a desire to reproach gentlemen on this side with opposition to the resolution. We are all in favour of this resolution; all we want is to get information. We see by the Order in Council which I had the pleasure of procuring since six o'clock, that the Government has gone to a good deal of trouble. There have been conferences will the Civil Service Commissioners, conferences with-the law officers of the various departments, and with the Parliamentary Counsel. The acting Minister of Finance seems to think that because this resolution is introduced by the Union Government, we must swallow it and say nothing; that we must regard it as the great benediction of the year. As the acting minister has said, if the purposes which appear to be aimed at by this proposed measure, accomplish the results which we
hope for, it will certainly be a good thing for the country.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Then why not let the resolution go through?


Jacques Bureau: We want it to go through, and that is why we want to throw some light upon it; so that my friend will be able to draft a Bill that will meet the desire of all members of the House, and so that he will go down to posterity as the choker of the great evil and -curse of this country, patronage.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I prefer to have all the light my hon. friend can give me when he has the Bill before him and is in a position to know exactly what he is- talking about.


Jacques Bureau: And I prefer that my
hon. friend bring down a Bill carefully prepared-he has the machinery to do it; he has the men with whom he can take counsel; he 'has the Civil Service Commission-and be in a position to give reasons for every clause in it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Bill is
ready, and if my hon. friend is desirous of getting light, why does he not allow the resolution to go through-or, at least, discuss the resolution, itself?


Jacques Bureau: Instead of losing his
tamper; instead of singing with his mellow voice " Carried " when we get up to speak, why does my hon. friend not take notice of what we say, so that, in conjunction with hie advisers, he may be able to bring down a Bill which will ,be satisfactory to the House and based upon such conclusions and such information as may be derived from this discussion? It is true that the Bill, if founded only on what is contained in the Order tin Council or the resolution, will ibe imperfect; but what I got up particularly to say was that my hon. friend ought not to accuse gentlemen on this side of the House with opposing the resolution. We are in favour of the resolution, but we have a right to ask for information. Last night we passed a Bill, and we were told: wait until next Parliament; we will then provide the machinery. We do not want to support a Bill which is simply an -enunciation of policy; we want to establish the machinery that will give effect to this proposed measure. My hon. friend, therefore, should go a little more into detail; if he has further information to give to the House, and wait until he brings down the Bill, it may then be too late. He will say:



why not let this Bill go through; we want to make an experiment; next year we will see where the defects are and at the next session we will bring down a new Bill.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: A moment ago my hon. Mend said he was going to make an inquiry in regard to the Bill, and he has not made the inquiry. If he has not made the inquiry, I am wondering why he rose.


Jacques Bureau: That would not be the
first time that my hon. friend would be wondering, not only at my rising, but at other things.


Robert Laird Borden: No one wonders when the hon. member rises.


Jacques Bureau: I am glad that somebody can realize" why I rise. I was going to ask if this resolution was introduced for the purpose of discussion, or if it was only introduced for the purpose of throwing it down upon the Table with the statement by [DOT]the Minister of Finance:	I have brought
down this resolution; wait until I introduce the Bill; when the Bill is introduced, swallow it? This resolution is brought down for the purpose of discussion, so that when the Bill comes before the House we shall have a Bill containing suggestions that deserve to be taken into consideration by hon. mem. beTS>. Therefore, if the minister is getting impatient, I may tell him that he need not [DOT]try to convey to this House or the country the impression that we are against the Civil Service Commissions providing patronage' is abolished and providing they will be a check upon the various ministers and will prevent them from writing letters such as the one which has been read here tonight by my hon. friend from Prince, P.E.I. (Mr. Read), stating mat everybody who is a Liberal Unionist or a Conservative Unionist may live happily because patronage hereafter will go fifty-fifty.


Mr. CANNON:: The hon. senior member
for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) declared ia moment ago that his Bill is ready. I am very sorry it is, because I would suggest that in this Bill should be included a measure of justice to repair the great injury committed by the late Government. During the period of six years from 1911 to 1917, when this new Union Government was formed, the evil of patronage existed; not only did it exist, but, I might say, it bloomed, and not only did it bloom, but it flourished. In the city of Quebec, in which I reside, and in the district of Quebec, a constituency in which I represent, public

officials were thrown out of office. People who had worked for the Government of the country for years, people who had given satisfaction during long periods of years, were thrown out of their positions. Why? Because they had either the fortune or the misfortune to be Liberal when a Tory government was in power. In the city of Quebec, we saw the very sad spectacle of politicians who had become members of Parliament writing letters to the different members of the 'Cabinet at Ottawa recommending that so-and-so should be thrown out because so-and-so happened to be a Liberal and the government was a Tory government. What happened then did not surprise us in Quebec, because we knew the methods of a really Tory government. But now I understand we no longer have a Tory government; that this Government has been improved to such an extent that it is transformed, that from a Tory government it has become a Union Government. I cannot judge of the actions of the Government in the other provinces as I have not *been there, but how has this new, wonderful, Union Government acted towards my province of Quebec? In the same old way as the Tory government which preceded it. I wish to recall to your memory, 'Sir, the very impaitial way in which officials were appointed in the province of Quebec to hold the recent election. Was patronage abolished? The Prime Minister of Canada (Sir Robert Borden) at that time was touring the province of Ontario with the President of the Council (Mr. Rowell), if I remember aright, and sometimes with the Solicitor-General. The promise made by the Premier in all the cities in which he spoke was: I have, since the formation of this Union Government, abolished patronage, and this Government, if elected, will introduce legislation to do away with patronage permanently. At the time the Prime Minister was uttering those words, patronage was being exercised by his own colleagues in the province of Quebec in the appointment of electoral officers. Of the enumerators appointed throughout the province of Quebec, not one, in any constituency of which I know, was a Liberal.


Mr.  A. K. MACOLEAN@: Perhaps it was impossible to get any to act.


Jacques Bureau: The result of the election shows that.


Lucien Cannon: 1 do not catch exactly what my hon. friend the minister means.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I say that probably it was impossible to get Liberals to act


Lucien Cannon: I am quite sure that if
the returning officer in my constituency had wanted a list of my friends who would ;be willing to act as enumerators, judging *by the majority I secured it would have been easier for me to supply a list than for my opponent to do so, and the same thing is true in every other constituency in Quebec. Not only were enumerators chosen from amongst the Tories, but after the election was over, after the Government was elected with a huge majority, was the system changed in our province? In the city of Quebec, has patronage been abolished? Since coming to the city of Ottawa to represent my constituency in this House, I have seen Tory supporters of the Government in the streets of Ottawa seeking jobs either for themselves or their friends. Would they be here if patronage was abolished?
I do not wish to take up any more of the time of the committee, but we on this side of the House, as the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) has said, are in favour of abolishing patronage, but we want the Government to be in good faith. We do not want the Acting Minister of Finance to say to us: You have to support this measure because I have introduced it.
Mr. A. K. 'MACLEAN: I did not say that.


Lucien Cannon: If the minister did not
say that, he came very close to saying it. Such a statement is no recommendation. We on this side of the House want more than that. The Government, from my experience, apparently has two means of defending measures; either they say:	You
must not talk against this measure because it is a measure to win the war, or they say:	You must not speak against
this measure because we former Liberals introduced it. This is no way of discussing legislation on its merits. If the Government's Bill is good, we shall support it; if it is bad, we shall vote against it. The Government, so that we may be sure that this is a good -measure, has first of all to prove its sincerity. Has the Government proved its sincerity?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Wait until my
hon. friend sees the Bil].


Lucien Cannon: I need not see the Bill;
I have the resolution. I say that the Government, by the appointments which have been made since the recent elections, such as the appointment of the postmaster of Ottawa, whjch has aroused the anger not only of Liberals but of Conservatives, and
46*
similar appointments made throughout the country, has shown that patronage has not been abolished. Yet when we ask for an explanation from the Acting Minister of Finance, he does not give us any explanation, he simply says:	The hour is late;
let us pass the resolution, and I shall introduce my Bill. We on this side of the House are willing to support all measures which the Government prove to us are good.


Georges Henri Boivin: Before reporting this resolution I should like to say that in my humble opinion, the discussion on the resolution has been entirely out of order, and I must ask hon. gentlemen not to transgress in the same way when in future a resolution is being considered in committee. The position of the Chairman was made more difficult because some of the oldest parliamentarians in the House, on both the Government and the Opposition side, transgressed- the rules. A resolution is placed before the committee for the purpose of obtaining the approval of the committee to the principle of expending a certain sum of money, andi for no other purpose. The discussion which has taken place on the resolution has been very interesting, and I hope it will have the effect of saving considerable time on the second reading and when the Bill is in committee. It was, however, entirely out of order and in future I shall so rule.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Hon. A. K. MACLEAN thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 53, respecting the Civil Service of Canada.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.



WOMAN SUFFRAGE.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir Robert Borden (Prime Minister) Bill No. 3, to confer the electoral franchise upon'women, was read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. C. C. Ballantyne (Minister of Naval Service) Bill No. 49, respecting the Naval Discipline (Dominion Naval Forces) Act, 1911, was read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-Naval Discipline (Dominion Naval Forces) Act, 1911, made applicable to Canada:
Jacques Bureau: Very few of us have had occasion to refer to the Naval Discipline Act enacted by the Parliament of the United

Kingdom. We do not want the details, but perhaps the minister might explain briefly what the effect of this Bill will be.


Mr. BALLANTYNE:: In brief, it is this: Suppose the Rainbow is on the Pacific coast, and one of its oflicers has committed a serious breach of discipline, necessitating his trial by court-martial. On that particular boat there may not be an officer of sufficiently high rank to conduct the court-martial. If this Bill meets with the approval of the committee and the House that officer could be tried by a senior officer on board any British, Australian or New Zealand man-of-war that happened to be in the harbour. The Canadian Naval Service would simply call upon that senior officer to preside at the court-martial. It is simply for discipline purposes. I might state that in 1911 the Imperial authorities passed what was known at that time as the Naval Discipline (Dominion Naval Forces) Act, 1911. It did not apply to any of the overseas dominions, unless the parliaments of those dominions saw fit to pass similar legislation to that passed by the Imperial authorities. Australia passed the legislation which we are now asking to have adopted on 12th August,
1913.	New Zealand passed it on 16th July,
1914.	And, inasmuch as the Canadian navy is still very small but at the same time considerably larger than it was some years ago, we thought it necessary, for discipline purposes, that we should be able to have an interchange of officers between any of the ships belonging to England, Australia, New Zealand or any of the overseas dominions.
Mr. McMAS'TER:	Will the minister infore me whether that applies in times of peace, or only in time of war, when the ships of Canada have been placed under the jurisdiction of or are co-soperating with those of Great Britain?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: If this Bill passes the House it will be on the statute books, and will have effect in time of peace ju6t the same as in time of war.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Ballantyne for the third reading of the Bill:
Jacques Bureau: I understand some hon. gentlemen have further comments about the Bill being in force in times of peace, and in regard to allowing Australian officers to preside at an inquiry on a Canadian ship.
[iMr. Bureau. ]


Robert Laird Borden: This is a good
opportunity to make those remarks.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: 'Canadian officers
have the same privileges as the officers of Australia. Suppose an Australian ship were in Halifax, and one of the junior officers committed a breach of discipline, and it was necessary he should be tried by court-martial, and a Canadian man-of-war had a senior officer on board, the Australian ship could send over to the Canadian ship and get that officer. It is simply for the purpose of holding court-martial-nothing more nor less. Australia has passed similar legislation, as also has New Zealand, and the only country which has not done so is Canada.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I can quite understand and quite approve of the provision that in time of war the navies of the different overseas dominions and of Great Britain should act as one, and that there should be this perfectly free interchange of authority between officers of the different overseas dominions, and of the Motherland, but without very careful consideration, and without strong reasons for the proposal, I am very doubtful whether the proposal tends to what we are all desirous of having, namely, the closest possible spiritual unity between the different British Commonwealths. Frankly, I do not like the idea that in time of peace a servant of the Canadian Government should be tried by court-martial presided over by an Australian. Although the hon. minister informs us Australia passed this legislation, at the same time I do not think it would tend towards unity to have an Australian tried by court-martial presided over by a Canadian. I believe the greatest unity will be brought about if, as far as possible, in times of peace we should all act as one. I desire to insist upon that. And it would be better to have Canadians, if they have made any errors or have infringed the military or naval law in any way, tried by their own fellow-countrymen, and by them alone. Suppose that in one of these trials a miscarriage of justice occurs-and it is possible-what bitter feeling might be engendered. If, say, a Canadian superior officer by some mistake condemned an Australian improperly, I think a very considerable amount of feeling might grow up between Australia and Canada. I would not like this Bill to pass without this aspect of the situation being presented, because I believe those who have thought about the relation which should exist between the different British Commonwealths have come to this

conclusion, that the tie which binds us will be strengthened in proportion as each individual Commonwealth is allowed to work out in its own way what seems best to the citizens of that Commonwealth, and I am afraid that the Bill presented to-night endangers that spirit of unity which I spoke about. I cannot aliow the measure to pass without drawing to the attention of the Government the objection which I have in mind.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. gentleman has spoken and has exhausted his right.


Jacques Bureau: This Bill was presented yesterday. Will the Prime Minister consent to have the third reading at the next sitting of the House? I understand some other gentlemen on this side of the House would like to express their views. I would move the adjournment of the debate.


Robert Laird Borden: That is a motion that is not debatable.


Jacques Bureau: I am asking to have the third reading Monday.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. gentleman moved the adjournment of the debate.


Robert Laird Borden: Under the circumstances, the Bill only having been presented yesterday, I consent to the debate being adjourned. I may say, however, to the hon. gentleman who raised this question (Mr. Bureau), that the Bill only carries out the purpose, as I understand it, which was embodied in the legislation of this House as far hack as 1910. There need not be the slightest anticipation of any difficulty or lack of harmony in working it out. It is merely a Bill designed to assist co-operation between the permanent naval forces in each portion of the Empire, whether in time of peace or war. As a matter of fact, its operation would be practically altogether confined to the time of war; it is extremely improbable that it should ever be invoked in time of peace. It might, but it is a remote possibility, that it will have any effect in time of peace. Its operation, in so far as it would come into operation at all, would be in time of war.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.

[Stage Direction]
On Ithe motion of Hon. J. D. REID (Minister of Railways and Canals), Bill No. 42, to amend the Department of Railways and Canals Act, was read the second
time, and the House went into Committee on the Bill;, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Jacques Bureau: The minister said the other night that the Government would take the initiative in acquiring the rolling stock and materials that were necessary for the Government and other railways. I understood the minister to say that some of the material so acquired would be apportioned to the Canadian Pacific railway. Am I right in that surmise?


John Dowsley Reid: One hundred thousand tons of rails will go to the Canadian Pacific. The Government will purchase the rails and distribute them amongst the different railways. The Canadian Pacific will get probably half of these rails. It is merely a book-keeping account so far as they are concerned. The rails will be shipped to them and they will immediately pay the -money back to us; or they will pay the Dominion Iron and Steel company for the hundred thousand tons of rails that they get.


Jacques Bureau: I understood the minister to say the other night that he had given orders to the various steel mills for steel for cars and rails?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: Also that contracts for freight cars have been given, and that the companies that have received these contracts will get steel through the department for the building of steel frame cars?


John Dowsley Reid: If there is anything
that the Government can purchase for any of these companies cheaper than the companies can purchase it themselves, it will he glad to do so. The Government is able to purchase some things in the United States that a private company probably cannot purchase. In that case the Government will purchase the material and, hand it direct to the car company at whatever is paid for it, in order to be sure that the care will be completed at the earliest possible moment. Last year two or three companies had great difficulty in getting materials on the other side of the international boundary, but as the cars which they had contracted for were to be supplied to the Canadian Government for war purposes we were able, through our representative, to persuade the Washington Government to allow us to have the necessary materials, and we got them probably a little cheaper than the contractors would be able to get them. If we purchased anything of that kind it would simply be to hand it over to the company at the price we paid for it.


Jacques Bureau: The question was asked
the minister the other night if the car factories in Canada were in a position to deliver the cars as they were required by the Government. My hon. friend promised that he would bring down a statement or give us an idea of the different kinds of cars that were required and how soon they would be distributed and put in use on the Government railways. Are there in Canada sufficient car factories actually in operation to fill these orders and meet the demands of the Government? We have in Canada shipyards constructing wooden ships. I understand it is the policy of the Government to abandon that completely. I am told by the owners of shipyards now engaged in building wooden ships, that they are well equipped to build wooden ships, as well as steel freight cars. These ships will be launched in June or July and after they are launched the yards will be idle, although they have a complete equipment for building freight cars. Of course, I make that statement on the information of a gentleman who, as the minister knows, is perfectly well qualified to speak upon the subject. One of them has been the managing director of a big car factory in the United States and even in Canada. They say that within a very short time, perhaps within a month, they will be in a position to turn out freight cars at the rate of ten, twelve, and fifteen a day. Rather than see orders go outside of this country to the United States, and allowing these yards and this capital to remain idle, I suggest that in the national interest, it might be well to convert them into car factories. I may tell my hon. friend, surprising as the fact may be, that the men who are employed in the building of these wooden ships are all old men, and it is remarkable to see how actively and skilfully they do the caulking and the other different kinds of work required in shipbuilding. It seems that the wooden ship building is being revived, and it is giving a new lease of life to these old men whose business it had been in days gone *by to build wooden ships. Now, as I say, I raise the question because at the' time I asked my hon. friend this appropriation [DOT]was not before the House, and with the money that he had at his disposal, all the orders that he foresaw to be given, I understood from him, had been given. Now, if I am not mistaken, all these cars have not been ordered, and I would submit that what .1 have suggested be taken into consideration when he distributes the orders for these cars.
TMr. J. D. Reid.l
Mr. ,T. D. REID: The hon. gentleman, as I understand, has asked me if the number of car factories in Canada is sufficient to fill these orders. My information is that tnere are sufficient car factories now equipped in Canada, and have been in operation for some time, to manufacture probably five or six times more than the order that we have been giving and dividing up. If I remember well, the Canada Car Company, with their several plants, [DOT]could manufacture about thirty thousand [DOT]box cars per annum. The Eastern Car Company and the National Car Company of Hamilton can both manufacture several thousand. There are several other factories operating; in fact, the order that we distributed would suffice only to keep one of the factories going but a short time. :If I understand correctly, the Canada [DOT]Car Company, to whom we have given an order for five thousand cars, distributed among the three plants at Fort William. Montreal and Amherst, have taken an order from the American Government for ten thousand cars at a higher price than we are paying. I am informed the contract has been completed, if not, I know that the negotiations have been going on; and the company were very glad to get the order to keep their factory going. The difficulty with these factories is this: Take the Fort William factory. They tell me that it is one of the best equipped car factories in Canada, and even on the continent, with a very large capacity. It was built at the time of the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific and other roads, and then remained idle for some time, but they were enabled with the order for two or three thousand cars which we gave them last year to start the works up again. They have also been engaged in turning out Russian orders as well. However, if they were not able to get any other orders for cars than those that we have given them, I do not think their factory would operate longer than two or three months at the most. Our orders were distributed among those factories that are well equipped) and in operation, and I understand we are to have those cars by the first of September or the first of October for the transportation of wheat and other products.
I may say to the hon. member that the shortage of cars in Canada is causing us a great deal of trouble and creating uneasiness. The hon. gentleman comes from the province of Quebec. Let me tell him that I am very much worried for the reason that

I could ship fifty thousand cars
11 p.m. of pulpwood out of the province of Quebec that are now there awaiting shipment to the United' States, hut I have not got the cars to enable me to do so. The general manager tells me that if we send a box car over there we will not get it back. Ontario is also suffering for the want of cars; the people who are getting out pulpwood and lumber, and so on.


Jacques Bureau: And for the want of the money?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, suffering for the -want of the money also. If we could get the cars to ship these materials over it would help us out very much:	I think 1
have fully answered the hon. member.


Mr. WIGMORE:: Why is it necessary for the Government to purchase this large number of rails for a corporation like the Canadian Pacific? I can understand it being done in the case of the smaller corporations, but why should it be necessary for a corporation of the financial standing of the Canadian Pacific?


John Dowsley Reid: The reason is this: The Dominion Iron and Steel company and the .Algoma Steel company are the only two concerns that manufacture steel Tails in Canada. Both of them had orders from the Imperial Munitions Board, and it was necessary to arrange with that board to get them to release one of the companies for a time until we could get some steel rails rolled, in order to enable the main lines to be put into proper condition. Therefore, the Government, under the terms of an Order in Council, required the Dominion - Iron & Steel company to manufacture one hundred thousand tons of rails, which they purchased and immediately divided among the different railways. The rails are invoiced to the Government, the Government sends the invoice to the Canadian Pacific railway and the company promptly pay for them.
Mr. WiIGMORE: Then there is no expense incurred by the Government?


John Dowsley Reid: No expense whatever. When the invoice comes to the Department of Railways and Canals we send the account to the Canadian Pacific, and they forward a cheque. That cheque is deposited to the credit of the Receiver General. It is just a matter of book-keeping, and is done in order that we may promptly get and distribute the rails.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: Would that also apply to the Grand Trunk?
'Mr. J. D. REID: To the Grand Trunk as well. As for the Canadian Northern, they are financed by the Government, but the procedure is the same.


Mr. ROBB:: During the past two years the Government have taken up a lot of rails, some of them new, and shipped them to the Allies overseas. Are these rails sold to the Allies at about the same price as the Government are paying under this large contract?


John Dowsley Reid: I must frankly state that I have not gone into that matter carefully, but I could get the information and give it to the hon. gentleman. As I understand, the rails were taken up mostly in the West, and the cost of taking them up and shipping them is to be added to the cost and paid by the Allies. The rails were mostly taken from the Grand Trunk Pacific, and it was only a short time ago that I was speaking with the president of the Grand Trunk railway about the matter. I am satisfied that the price was adjusted satisfactorily; the amount is charged to the Allies, and there will be no difficulty about that. Of course, they are paying the same for the rails from the Transcontinental as they are for those from the Grand Trunk Pacific.


James Alexander Robb: These rails were taken up
and sent overseas, and possibly charged to the Allies on the basis of what they cost, plus transportation. The cost of these rails was considerably less per mile than the cost of the rails the minister is now contracting for; consequently, if the rails he is now buying are to be used to replace those sent overseas, so much more will be added to the capitalization of the railway and the Canadian people will have to pay for it.


John Dowsley Reid: These rails are not to replace those taken up and sent overseas. Any replacement of this kind will likely not be done until some future time. The only rails taken from the Transcontinental and sent overseas were those in sidings and yards, and they were replaced with secondhand or lighter rails.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Were rails taken up
from the Hudson Bay line?


John Dowsley Reid: We have not yet decided to take them up, but if we do so, they will be replaced with lighter rails.


Jacques Bureau: The minister says he has distributed orders for cars. On what basis are the orders given? Are tenders called, or is there a set price for which the companies are to build a special kind of car?


John Dowsley Reid: We asked all the car companies to submit tenders and we awarded the contracts accordingly. We asked the several car companies to say how many care they could supply. The Eastern Car Company, Nova Scotia, had an order for 1,080 cars last fall. Although they had a great deal of material on hand, they were unable to get all the material required to complete the order. However, they stated how many they were able to take and we gave them an order for what they could manufacture up to next fall.


Jacques Bureau: At what price?


John Dowsley Reid: At the lowest price in every case. We did the same with the Hamilton Car company, which had an order for 1,000 cars about a year ago. They completed the order about the 1st of May, and then wanted a further order for 1,000 cars.


Jacques Bureau: Was the price the same.


John Dowsley Reid: The tender of the Hamilton company was somewhat higher than the others, but they came down to the price of the lowest tender, and we gave them another order for 1,000 cars to keep their plant going. All orders were given within Canada except a total of 50 oil and water tank cars which are not manufactured in this country. These were purchased in Pittsburg at a very low price.


James Alexander Robb: What is the approximate cost of a 60,000 pound box car?


John Dowsley Reid: About $2,750 complete.


Lucien Cannon: Is it the intention of the Government to use the Transcontinental workshops in the city of Quebec?


John Dowsley Reid: It would require a good deal of money to put them in working condition. Of course, the whole railway situation will have to be looked into in the near future, and that is one of the matters that will receive attention.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: What steps are being taken to trace the 25,000 cars mentioned by the minister as having been sent to the United States and lost track of? How many box cars have been ordered from the different firms? If 25,000 Canadian cars are in the United States, it would be good business to make a special effort to trace them.


John Dowsley Reid: I think the number of cars to which my hon. friend refers has been reduced to 11,000 or 12,000. We cannot compel the return of these cars, but I have personally lby telegram and by letter to the

Director General of Railways in the United States made every possible effort to secure their return. The Canadian Railway Defence Asisociation in Montreal have also been doing all they can in this direction. Up to the last month, however, all these concerted efforts have not reduced very much the number of cars which are still outstanding. I have also taken the matter up with Mr. Lloyd Harris, of the war mission, at Washington, and he has been doing all he can to .shave these cars returned.
That shows that every effort has been made. In addition to that, almost every other day I am telegraphing to find out if I cannot have the cars returned to this country. Only this evening, I sent a message to t'he several railway companies in the United States urging them to try and let us have cars to take out the pulpwood and lumber in Quebec and other places. Everything that can be done, either by the railways or by the Government, to get the number of Canadian cars in the United States reduced, is being done.


James Alexander Robb: I hope the minister will
not make the mistake that seems to have been made in the United States, of going so far as to place an embargo against Canadian cars going into the United States. The House and the country must remember that our cars do not go into the United States empty, they go there with Canadian goods for which money comes back to us. It would not hurt this country if we had a little reciprocal treatment from the United States and had cars coming into this country loaded .with corn which we need so much. It is largely owing to the War Board in the United States that the railway situation has been tied up. I hope we are not drifting along into the same condition in this country.


John Dowsley Reid: Last fall, we allowed
cars to enter the United States so as to let our products move out, with the result that the cars that went across the border never returned to Canada. The number of Canadian cars in the United States mounted up to 25,000, and if we had not prevented our cars from crossing the border, the result would have been that we would not have been able to move our own Canadian products from one part of the Dominion to the other. If, at the present time, we were to load our cars with lumber, pulp-wood and other products and rush them into the United States, we would not have cars for our own traffic. Instead of a surplus of Canadian cars being in the United

States, there should Ibe a surplus of American cars in Canada. But when our cars get into the United States, the American railway companies /will ndt return them.
Mr. 'MANION: The car situation is a very important matter. Can the minister impose any penalty upon cars going into the United States? If a car of goods comes here, and it is detained for twenty-four hours in the yards, we have to pay demurrage charges. Why should we not impose some charge on cars going into the United States? If we are allowing our cars to go into the United States and they are being held in the United States, and we have to buy new cars to replace them, I do not see any advantage in that.
iMr. J. D. RBID: We cannot do other than allow the arrangement entered into between the railways and the Interstate Commission to be carried out. A foreign car on any railway is charged a certain per diem rate, and the railway that has that foreign car must pay that rate. At the present time, it pays the United States railway companies to pay that rate and to hold the cars. Let me draw the hon. gentleman's attention to the reason why the United States railway detain our cars. In the United States they have given an order for 100,000 cars and 3,000 engines, which shows the shortage of cars there. Therefore, any railway that can secure any foreign ears and can keep them by paying the per diem allowance, will do so, because it pays them to do so, owing to the great shortage 'of cars. The United States railways are very short of cars, and there is nothing more we can do than we have been doing to get those cars returned. The Government realize that the fact of our businessmen not being able to ship goods to the United States is affecting our trade balance. The necessity of maintaining our trade balance is one thing that makes it imperative for us to do everything possible to have our cars returned to Canada.


Robert James Manion: Is any duty imposed?


John Dowsley Reid: There is just a per diem rate. The moment a United States car arrives in Canada, a per diem rate is charged until the car returns to the United States. If a Canadian car goes to the United States, for instance, on to the New York Central, while it is on that road they pay sixty cents a day. That railway can keep that car, because there is no way of compelling it to return it. They might keep it for a year ,by paying, say, $180 for the use of that car.


William Stevens Fielding: Hbw is that rate fixed?
.Mr. J. D. REID: By an agreement between our railways and the United States railways.


William Stevens Fielding: A penalty might be imposed by increasing the rate. If it pays the United States' railways to keep our cars over there, we should increase the rate.


John Dowsley Reid: In order that that might be accomplished, all the railways would have to agree to it. The Canadian railways could not do it alone, and as the United States railways are so much in the majority, it might 'be a little difficult to make such an arrangement. The suggestion, however, is a good one. Since last fall the Government railways represented by myself, together with some of the other railways, have been doing all we could to get our cars back from the United States; we have reduced the number from twenty-five thousand to ten or eleven thousand, and we hope in the next few months to reduce it still further. That reduction, together with the new cars we are getting, we hope, will put us>
in a much better position than we have been in for some time.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The shortage of cars is a very serious problem, and, to a certain extent, the Minister of Railways deserves credit for this legislation, but I am amazed to learn that the same oldi penalty of sixty cents per day represents the demurrage when a car has 'been sent into the United States and has not been returned. The two Governments, having succeeded in establishing a commission on international waterways, a commission which has been working most successfully since its establishment, should establish a joint railway commission. Some years ago, when I w-as in the Government the then chairman of the commission in 'Canada, Mr. Justice Mabee, was authorized, not officially, to enter into negotiations with the commission in the United States. I do not know the result. Mr. Mabee died shortly afterwards, and I do not know if the matter was pursued further. At a time like this, it is of the utmost importance for both countries, having regard to the precedent of the joint commission on international waterways, to find1 a way out of this difficulty by some arrangement between the two railway boards. Since the beginning of the war the Government has been able to reach some conclusions which, before the war, were considered absolutely impossible of solution. Many arrangements that have

been made between the Ottawa Government and' the Washington Government since the war commenced, are to-day considered as matters of course. This is a practical question which will affect relations between both countries for all time to come. My hon. friend, if he is a progressive minister, should see to it that we have a joint arrangement between the Interstate Railway Commission and the Railway Commission in Canada. Last winter, a company with which I am connected had most serious difficulty in securing cars because our cars were in the United States. I appealed to my hon. friend and to the Chairman of the Railway Board and got as much satisfaction as they could1 give me, for which I am thankful. We simply had to Ibeg for these cars and we got them back in driblets. It seems to me that the time has come for my hon. friend to strike a bold blow and make an arrangement with the United Statets for raising the penalty. With a penalty of only 60 cents a day, the companies in the United States will keep cars for months, and probably for years.


John Dowsley Reid: The Chairman of the
Board of Railway Commissioners has been working unofficially with the Interstate Commission and has been doing everything he can to get the cars back. The organization that was established in Montreal by the railway companies has also accomplished something. Their secretary has been travelling backwards and forwards and has been working in conjunction with the American organization. The War Board in New York has also been, working along the line suggested by my hon. friend. It had never occurred to ine before that raising the penalty might have some effect in getting the cars back, but I am to have a meeting with Sir George Bury, Mr. Gillen and other gentlemen connected with this organization next week, and as we had intended to discuss this matter I will bring my hon. friend's suggestion before them. We are anxious to devise some means for getting our cars back and keeping the spread to a minimum, and I am glad to have my hon. friend's suggestion.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: Will the Government's purchase include coal cars?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: Have the orders been placed?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.	,


Rupert Wilson Wigmore: I do not think any
organization will be so effective in tracing

ears as the Railway Departmetn itself. I think it will be good business for the Railway Department to send men over the different lines in the States to locate these cars and send them back. What is everybody's business is nobody's business, and wiring to. the different railroads will not be very effective in my opinion.


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

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. F. B. Carvell, the House went into committee on Bill No. 41, to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-Definition of work:
Charles Murphy: Is the present definition being widened?


Mr. OARVELL:: Yes>. I have not the exact citation, but I think a decision was made by one of the courts throwing some doubts on whether " structure " included power lines and that kind of thing.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is an " aboiteau?" I know it was a work well known to the Acadian farmers of the old days.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think it means dyke.


Robert Laird Borden: It is a very well known term in the country from which I come. It means the embankment which is made across a creek running into a piece of land that has been dyked off from the sea. There are creeks in such land, and it is necessary to build a very much heavier embankment than usual across such creeks, and they are called aboiteaux. Usually there is a sluiceway through which the water can enter to a limited extent into the creek. One supposed derivation of the word is from the two words " abattre " and " eau."


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The whole question arises over the uncertainty as to whether the former Act covered overhead cables and wires of different kinds. The idea of this Bill is to follow the lines of the Railway Act, which prevents telephone, telegraph, electric light and power companies from stringing wires over a railway except under special plans and specifications approved by the Railway Board. The idea is that this was to be the same thing, except it was to be approved by the Minister of Public Works.


Jacques Bureau: Applications have been
made when wires were stretched over the St. Lawrence.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I dare say; I have not
the exact citation here, but I know some of the courts have questioned whether the word "work," as defined in the original Act, was broad enough to cover this particular kind of structure. To take it out of iany controversy it has been suggested by the officers of the department, and I think, rightly so, that this small amending Act should be passed. That is practically the only object of the Bill. It goes a little further than that however, and there is another phase of it. I refer to sections 4 and 5. The original Act provided that no work should be placed upon or built over or crossing a navigable stream except on plans approved by the Governor in Council, bui this did not apply to small wharves, or small protections where the cost did not exceed $1,000. The language of section 4 is obscure and it is intended to make it perfectly plain that there can be no quesr tion that it must have the consent of the Minister of Public Works. Section 5 which is an extension of the former section, provides that if any works are constructed in, upon or along a navigable stream without the consent of the proper authorities they may be removed by an Order in Council. This goes further and provides that whatever salvage there is may be sold and credited up to the cost, and the owner can be compelled to supply the deficiency whatever that may be. That seems to me to he logical. If there be an" authority in the country which has the right to say what obstructions there shall toe to navigation, whether or not anything shall be built, in or upon or along a navigable stream, then if any person chooses to build any of these erections without the consent of the proper authorities he ought not to find very much fault with their removal. I think those are really the principal objects of the Bill.


Jacques Bureau: There is another change, if I' remember. Under the old Act the Governor in Council, or the Minister of Public Works, had the right to order the destruction of the works if they were an obstruction to navigation. Under this Bill the right is absolute. I think the Act is all right, and I perfectly agree with the Minister of Public Works that these various works which were not completed at the time of the passing of the first Act, such as running pipes over the river to carry water, running power wires over the St. Lawrence as they do, was not contemplated at the time. But there is one case where a grave injustice is being worked, and I want to call my hon. friend's attention to it, because
the matter has been hanging fire for a long while and I do not think the consent of the Governor in Council ought to be refused. The people of Shawinigan Falls could not cross the river with boats on account of the great quantity of logs which aceummulated there every spring. They got together and asked the provincial government to furnish one fourth of the funds, the municipality one fourth, and the Shawinigan, the Belgo-Canadian, the Electrical Chemical company and all the companies that are using the power,' to furnish the other fourth. These people did not bother about any statute. They went to work and took advantage of the ice, and -started their piers. I asked them one day: " Have you permission of the Public Works?" They said, " Why? We have the permission of the provincial government, which is contributing to this bridge'; and this is their river." I said to them: " The St. Maurice is 'a navigable river." I then made the proper application and prepared the necessary documents. At that time the false works were all up and the ice on the eve of breaking, and if it had broken, the whole structure would have come down, and there would have been a loss of $80,000 or $90,000, or perhaps more. When the advertisements were all complete, and the four weeks were over, I presented my application. Naturally the Justice Department reported that the site must be approved, although the statute said that all works constructed before a certain time shall not require such approval, but we did not come within the exception. But in this ease the Department of Justice were -strictly within the law. I may add en passant that we got a letter from the secretary of the Public Works Department, under the amendment of 1908, which authorized the Governor in Council or Minister of Public Works to tear down this structure, ordering ns so to do. I am not sure as to the date of the amendment ordering the town of Shawinigan Falls to tear down their bridge. They were in an awful state, and I came up to Ottawa about the matter. The St. Maurice is a navigable river and it is a non-navigable river, paradoxical as that may seem. Parts of the river are not navigable. At this particular point it is not navigable, except for the alligator of the Government which runs near the falls to pull the booms in. This boat can pull itself ashore and go around the falls. The injustice is this: the municipality paid its share andi the provincial government paid its share, and the companies say, "You are not in a position to

collect money from us because you are not authorized by the Government, the site has not been approved 'by the Governor in Council." This matter has been hanging fire for four or five years, and I have been trying to have it arranged. I think an exception should be made in this case. The construction was made in good faith. I may say the bridge was being built under the supervision of the engineer of the Public Works Department in Quebec, and if we had stopped when we were told to stop, the whole false work would have gone out and the superstructure would have been carried away.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Has it been completed?


Jacques Bureau: Yes, but there is that part of the money that was promised to the company.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Have you applied to the Public Works Department for a certificate of some kind?


Jacques Bureau: No, they applied for
leave and approval of the plans after the bridge was completed. The bridge had been commenced when it came to the notice of these people that they had no authority. It was commenced in ignorance of the law, and when we gave notice and the application was made, we had to advertise for four weeks. The ice was on the eve of breaking away, and they were ordered to stop, and if we had stopped it would have been a dead loss.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Was it above or below the falls?


Jacques Bureau: Above the falls.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not suppose any one can seriously say it interferes with navigation to any considerable extent.


Jacques Bureau: Certainly not.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend will see that the amendment proposed in no way changes the previous law.


Jacques Bureau: No, but the provision
may work a 'hardship in cases like this.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do mot know just
how far the department would be justified in going in order to approve of plans of that kind, but a reasonable amount of common sense should be exercised in such a case, and if the hon. gentleman can convince the present Minister of Public Works that this is not an interference with navigation and that he has the power to ap-

prove.the plans and specifications he will not be long in doing it.


Jacques Bureau: That is the trouble. I
do no't think he has the power to ratify plans under the Act when the work is finished. The Act gives him power to approve of the site and plans. The objection that was taken toy the Deputy Minister of Justice was the fact of the bridge being built, and the site occupied and plans being executed. He had nothing to recommend. It was beyond the power of the minister to do anything. But I will take i't up later on.
" 'Mr. CARVELL: 'I am expressing a very offhand view, tout notwithstanding the very high authority the hon. gentleman quotes it seems to me there should be a large element of common sense in dealing with matters of this kind, and I would be disposed to go the whole limit in order to rectify it.	*


Jacques Bureau: I am glad to hear that.
I will take the matter up with my hon. friend.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Have any applications ever been made to the Department of Public Works by any private interests concerning the project of damming the River St. Lawrence at Long Sault? For many years various attempts have been made by private interests to obtain from the Canadian Government the necessary powers to dam the St. Lawrence at that point. The water-power to be developed at Long Sault is one of the most important, if not the most important, after Niagara Falls. There are some gentlemen in the United States and Canada who are banded together in order to force the hand of this Government just as they were banded together to force our hands when we were in office. Fortunately, so far, the Governments which preceded the present one have kept these interests at bay. This syndicate has not been allowed to get control of this magnificent water-power. My hon. friend is aware that there is a strong feeling in the country in favour of the Government owning the remaining water powers on the St. Lawrence. I am not arguing in favour of the Government ownership of railways. I am not discussing that phase of the question of Government ownership, but I am speaking of water-power. Where the Government has the upper hand in reference to this question of water-power it should keep these powers, and if the river is to be harnessed it should toe harnessed as a Government enterprise and for the greatest good to Canadian consumers. With the

scarcity of coal that exists, it is' of the utmost importance that our water-power should he conserved for and in the interest of the public. While I believe in competition in regard to the operation of railways, and while I have yet to learn that government ownership is the best thing in connection with railway operation, I am a believer in government ownership as regards the water-powers of the country, particularly those large water-powers on the St. Lawrence river, and I hope my hon. friend will prove to be the faithful watchdog of the Canadian people.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am somewhat surprised that my hon. friend digs up the old ghost that I thought had ceased to exist seven or eight years ago. We spent thirty-six or forty-eight hours' time in the old House of Commons debating that question, and I have never heard of it since.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It exists.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Since II assumed the duties of (Minister of Public Works, no application has been made to me either officially or privately and I have never heard the matter discussed, except that I read something in the report of the Conservation Commission which was sent to me a few days ago. The secretary of that commission seemed to be chasing that phantom, the same as my hon. friend is to-night, but. I can assure him that it is only a phantom and no person need lie awake at nights for fear that some of the Dominion's interests are going to be sacrificed by the gobbling up of these water-powers on the St. Lawrence. I had a big flood of telegrams from all sorts and conditions of people,	municipalities	and	organizations, from	the	Atlantic	to	thePacific, in October	last,	protesting against
the ratification of plans farther down the river, I think, somewhere below Beau-harn'ois.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Cascades?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It was below Beauharn-ois.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The	Cedars?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think it was below the Cedars, but I never looked into it. I understand that in the month of September somebody gave notice that he would apply to the Public Works Department for the approval of plans but the application has not been made. I can assure my hon. friend he can rest easy and rely upon the old doctrine that sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.


Mr. HAY:: Between the county of Selkirk and the county of Springfield there are a number of ferries crossing the Red river. They are operated by means of cables stretched across the river which can be lowered when a steamboat is approaching or passing. Would they be affected by the operation of this Bill?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Not by any means. The object of this Bill is to see that these ferries shall be installed according to specifications ratified by the department. The chief object of the Bill is to see that no such obstruction as a wire ferry shall be placed across a navigable stream until it has been properly investigated, a proper plan prepared and the work constructed according to this plan.


Thomas Hay: These ferries have been in operation for a great many years.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There is a provision regarding them in the original Act. I can assure my hon. friend that this Bill is not aimed at anything like that. This Bill is to protect things of that kind, but to see that no obstruction is put across a navigable stream without the matter being properly investigated.
Bill reported read the third time and passed.



PUBLIC WORKS ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. F. B. Carvell (Minister of Public Works) the House went into committee on Bill No. 40 to amend the Public Works Act, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-Power to dredge, etc., beds of navigable waters.
Charles Murphy: Does the necessity for this legislation arise owing to a judicial decision?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, I do not know that it arises over a judicial decision.


Jacques Bureau: It is confiscation of part of the bed of a river.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend is right in a sen-se, but I would say that it is expropriation of property rather than confiscation. We have been going on for a great many years, but the only authority which the Government have for taking possession of the beds or 'banks of rivers for the construction of public works has been the vote by Parliament. That is, when the money has been voted for the work it is the only authority we have, and the question has arisen as to whether that is sufficient authority. The officers of the department,
7.34

and contractors and other persons working under them, have been threatened with suits for trespass, and as I hardly know a member of this House who does not want public works in his constituency, I fail to see how I am going to meet all these requests unless I can get authority to go on the land and do what is necessary. It might to some extent amount to what my hon. friend from Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) calls confiscation, but if it so be, it is confiscation for the public good. One can hardly imagine the Public Works Department deliberately confiscating property without rendering some value to the community concerned.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In this oase the bed of the river?
Mr. CARVE,LL: The bed of the river or some place along the bank. You must have a place to put your wharf on, or your pier, or things of that kind, and this is really a sort of short-cut, I would say, to the expropriation of the property required. I do not think there is any question whatever but that this Parliament has the jurisdiction.


Jacques Bureau: I do not know about that.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have not the citation at hand, but I remember a case some years ago in which our good old friend Mr. Con-mee was asking for a charter. The question arose as to the right of the Dominion to expropriate-even the right of the Crown as represented' by a province-and I remember that the decision- of the Privy Council explicitly stated that we had that right. Therefore, I think there is no question about our jurisdiction.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What was that oase?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have forgotten the
name of the case, it is some eight or nine years since I looked it up, but I am sure there is a decision of the Privy Council to that effect. Therefore, having the jurisdiction, it seems to me very proper that we should have authority, and that is the sole object of this Bill.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Has it not been the practice to purchase land needed by the Public Works Department as the site for a wharf?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think so, and this Bill does not say that we are going to confiscate ; it only gives us the right to take possession. I cannot conceive that the Government will confiscate people's property, it is only a short cut to expropriation.
[Mr. Carvell 1


Jacques Bureau: My observation in regard to confiscation was said by way of a joke, but I am sorry that my hon- friend the Minister of Public Works did not consult the Attorney General for the various provinces before introducing this legislation. However, it cannot do any harm, (because it is in the public interest and with the object of improving navigation. Referring to the river St. Maurice, part of that river is in the harbour of Three Rivers, and harbours, as hon. gentlemen know, are within the jurisdiction of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. The works in that part of the river St. Maurice which is in the harbour of Three Rivers are maintained by the Department of Public Works. On account of a contract made between the St. Maurice Boom and Driving company and the Department of Public Works-^-a contract which I think ought not to have been made, but at any rate it was done- 12 p.m. the department have been paying for all the piers, for the booms and for everything.
New, the Canada Iron Foundries company needed a wharf on which to land pig iron and the clay for their moulds. Application was made to the Department of Public Works, who in turn forwarded it to the Marine Department, and pending the desired permission advantage was taken of the ice by the company to draw materials and go on and complete the work. Now the Department of Marine and Fisheries take the position that parties may not build a dock before getting the approval of the department, whereas the location for the dock has to be approved by the Department of Public Works. We are in this unhappy position, as between the two departments, that we do not know who has jurisdiction, and we .are all at sea.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am sorry, but they are wonderful people at Three Rivers.


Jacques Bureau: I am not finding fault, but I think the question of jurisdiction ought to be settled.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I know, the people there are willing to accept almost anything. In fact, I understand they want to build ships on dry land and then get the department to dredge a launching basin for them.


Jacques Bureau: Sites have to be got on land, they cannot build them on the water.
. Mr. CARVELL: To go back to the suggestion of my hon. friend as to the booms and piers, I do not think he should object to that. If the Dominion of Canada for forty years have been doing that which they have

no right to do, surely he cannot object to their trying to get back to solid ground and handing those booms and piers over to the people who are using them. I do not want to get into a discussion on the point now, because that raises the question as to the Gatineau river, and I think the Ottawa river also. Why on earth the Dominion of Canada should provide booms and piers for the big lumber corporations is something I could never understand. Furthermore, why Three Rivers, and the Gatineau and Ottawa rivers should be singled out from all the rest of the rivers in Canada is a mystery to me. I think it was a very wise provision indeed to get these particular piers and booms out of the jurisdiction of the Public Works Department, and the Government generally, and let the big corporations look after them the same as is done elsewhere in Canada.


Lucien Cannon: What about compensation for damages if any should arise?
' Mr. CARVELL: I want to point out to my hon. friend that we have been taking this land ever since Confederation. You cannot have public works unless you have the authority to go on the land and construct them. I do not see that there is any change in principle proposed here.
Section approved of, Bill reported and read the third time.



PENSIONS.


Robert Laird Borden: That the following members do compose the Special Committee, ordered by the House on the 10th instant, to consider the report upon the Pension Board, the pension regulations and the sufficiency or otherwise of the relief afforded thereunder, the pension lists in force in Canada for disabled and other soldiers and the dependents of those killed while on active service, and any other matters relating thereto or connected therewith:	Messieurs. Oronyn,
Green, L. A. Lapointe, Lemieux, Nesbitt, Nlekle, McCurdy, Murphy, Power, Parent, Redman, Rowell, Ross, Sutherland, Turriff.


[Stage Direction]
Mlotion agreed to.

Robert Laird Borden: That Messieurs. Pulton, Harold, Scott, Trahan, and Tweedie be appointed members of the Special Committee on Bill No. 25 in the place of Messieurs. Green, Nesbitt, N-ickle, Redman and E. Lapointe.
He said: These gentlemen are to take the place of four members of this committee who have been made members of the Pensions Committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Sir Robert Borden the House adjourned at 12.12 a.m. (Saturday.)
Monday, April 15, 1918.