Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance).

I think the hon. gentleman who has just spoken, and the leader of the opposition also, have an entirely erroneous impression of the nature of the inquiry on which Judge Cassels is about to enter. They have assumed that the inquiry of Mr. Justice Cassels is a review of the work of the commission whose report has already been presented to the House. Nothing could be more erroneous than that conception of Judge Cassels' duty.

Mr. BERGERON.

What is it then?

Mr. FIELDING.

Judge Cassels' duty is to inquire into certain matters as to which the commission seemed to have failed to prosecute their investigation to the end. The commissioners' report may be deemed to be divided into two parts. One part of it relates to the ordinary questions of the civil service, such as the conditions of admission, examinations, promotions, salaries, &e., questions of a broad and important class. In addition to that there is another branch and that probably is the branch which has received the most attention and consideration by the public, that is the accusation made in somewhat general terms, of not mismanagement, but much worse. It is practically stated in the report of two of the commissioners, Messrs. Fyshe and Bazin, that there has been corruption in the Department of Marine and Fisheries. The word is not used but my hon. friend says he knows what the report means.

Mr. BERGERON.

So do you.

Mr. FIELDING.

No, I will be frank and say I do not know what it means. I know in a general way, but I certainly think, with all deference to the gentlemen composing the commission, for whom I hare the greatest respect, that on that particular point it is a fair criticism to say that the commission has said either too much or too little. If they wished to go into that branch of the question-and I do not say they should not have done so-as to whether or not the officials in the service were corrupt, then they were bound in justice to themselves, to the House, and the individuals concerned, to go further, and say in some detail who was corrupt and wherein the corruption lay. 'mat is the only criticism I offer on the report of the commission As to its general recommendations, I do not call them in question. We will have to deal with them later. My hon. friend says: Why not deal with them? Whether or not we will deal with them has to be considered. If we fail to deal with them at all, we shall be no worse than hon. gentlemen opposite who had a similar report in 1892, kept it for four years and did nothing.

Mr. BERGERON.

It was not complete.

Mr. FIELDING.

The report was most complete, and if my hon. friend does not want to take the trouble to read it, he may have seen in the Ottawa Conservative paper in the last week, three or four letters from a civil service official, calling attention to the fact that years ago, in 1892, four yems before the Conservative government left office, a report was made by a civil service commission dealing with practically the same classes of questions as are referred to in this report, the question of the political influence exercised in relation to patronage, the inequality of salaries, the purchase of supplies-all these questions were reported on by that commission, which included one of the gentlemen who sat on the recent commission. The hon. gentlemen opposite remained in power for four years from the date of that report without attempting any remedy whatever. So, if it should be the policy of this government, and I hope it will not, to pay no attention whatever to the report of the commission, if we should be simply content to receive it, pigeon-hoie it and forget it, we would be on even terms with my hon. friends opposite, because that was precisely their course with regard to the report of the commission of 1892 as will be explained later on if necessary.

Mr. BERGERON.

The report of the commission of 1892 and the report of the last commission are not at all alike.

Mr. FIELDING.

Let me mention some respects in which they are alike. They are aliice in the allegation that political patronage enters largely into appointments.

Mr FIELDING

Mr. BERGERON.

Yes. That is not a crime.

Mr. FIELDING.

That is not a crime, but the commissioners said that was a great evil. They said that in 1892 and it is said -by the present commissioners. But while in 1892, that evil, so far as it is an evil, was pictured by that commission in their report just as it is pictured to-day, the Conservative government of that day pigeon-holed the report and took no notice of it.

Mr. BERGERON.

And the same thing may happen in this case, so far as that point is concerned.

Mr. FIELDING.

If it should happen, then my hon. friend (Mr. Bergeron) will be in a position to assail us ; but the time has not come yet. ,

Mr. BERGERON.

I say it is not a crime.

It is something that takes time and is very hard to do. . But when the commission said that stealing goes on. that robbery goes on, that corruption exists, it is a very different thing. [DOT]

Mr. FIELDING.

But I want to come to some other things in the commission of 1892. That commission reported on the question of supplies. We had a debate here, not many days ago, on that question. Whatever evils there may be in regard to the patronage element in the purchase of supplies existed in 1892 ; it was reported on in 1892 ; it was fully exposed to the Conservative government of that day,-and they took no notice of it. In that respect, the report of 1892 and the report of the present day are substantially alike. My hon. friend says there is corruption, there is dishonesty-

Mr. BERGERON.

' Lack of conscience.'

Mr. FIELDING.

Yes, ' lack of conscience'. Now, my hon. friend says he knows what that means. I wish to be candid and to say that, as respects any officer of the Marine-and Fisheries Department, I do not know what it means. I know what it means generally ; I know what thieving, robbery means. But surely my hon. friend would not have this government, on the strength of that report-which, on that branch of the subject, I say is incomplete-lie would not have the Minister of Marine and Fisheries dismiss men now in the service on the ground of dishonesty. Would he have these men, some of them employed for many years in the public service, branded with the charge of dishonesty and dismissed ? Surely he would not. He may suggest that now, but if he had that sense of responsibility which men in public office ought to have, he would say that such a course would be utterly unfair and unjust.

Mr. BERGERON.

Would the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) allow me ? That is

what is going to happen it what the Minister of Marine and Fisheries says is carried out. He says that he wants a commission to find out and punish the men

Mr. FIELDING.

But the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bergeron) says he knows who these men are. -

Mr. BERGERON.

It is clear, for instance, that they are not the officers of the Department of Finance. They are employees of this department which has been reported upon.