tody. At any moment, any day, Miner may be recaptured. Whether or not he ever will be I no more can tell than the hon. gentleman himself. But this I say and say without fear of successful contradiction that there was no stone left unturned by the inspectors of penitentiaries or by myself, to secure the recapture of that man from the moment we received the first intimation that he had escaped from the penitentiary.-

On the former occasion on which this matter was discussed, the hon. gentleman indulged in other things. I do not know if they have been repeated to-day but I wish to say while on my feet one word in regard to at least one of the statements then made for which the hon. gentleman promptly took me to task. I stated when on _my feet before, although I was speaking without any previous opportunity to refer to the files, and eighteen months after the event, that that was not the first escape that summer from the penitentiary of British Columbia. The hon. gentleman at once challenged me and no sooner had I taken my seat than he thought to put the Minister of Justice in a hole by referring to the official report which stated there were six escapes during the year from that penitentiary and that the other two were subsequent to those of Miner and his three companions. The explanation was simple. Of course the hon. gentleman was not aware of this and I have no doubt he was speaking in perfect good faith, but we take no account in our annual reports of escapes which have not been successful, of escapes which are followed by recapture before the end of the year when the report comes to be made. There had been escapes previous to this from the British Columbia penitentiary as I stated. I remembered the circumstances perfectly when I was speaking and I remember them still. I can give the hon. gentleman, if he wishes, the name of the convict; I can tell him all the circumstances of the escape and I can tell him that we recaptured that convict within forty-eight hours and therefore he did not appear in the report at all. But the circumstance was there, the fact was that when Bourke reported Miner's escape that was not the first escape that summer, and this second escape as it then was, coming so close upon the heels of the former escape, prepared me to believe just what was officially reported by the inspectors as the result of the investigation, that the discipline in the penitentiary at British Columbia had been too lax. Do not the facts which I laid before the House three weeks ago and which are spread upon ' Hansard ' demonstrate that? You have interviews taking place with convicts contrary to the regulations upon the sole responsibility of the warden or

Mr. E. L. BOEDEN (Halifax).

My hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ayles-worth) began his remarks with a statement which must have been carefully considered, and which was designed-i submit to the judgment of every member of this House-to cast discredit upon the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. J. D. Taylor). I do not think that my hon. friend the Minister of Justice would have the courage himself to deny this. The purport of that statement was this: That in the

British Columbia newspaper, published in the city of New Westminster, the answer given by the Minister of Justice on the 17th of February in this House, had been wrongly set forth, althougn it had been properly and correctly set forth in every other newspaper in British Columbia. Now, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice whether he adheres to that statement or whether he withdraws it.

Mr. AYLESWOETH.

My authority for the statement is not a personal examination, but a statement made to me that in every other British Columbia newspaper, the answer had appeared as in ' Hansard.'

Mr. E. L. BOEDEN.

I think it would have been more becoming the position of the Minister of Justice in this House, before he undertook to make a statement of that kind, obviously levelled at my hon. friend from New Westminster for the purpose of discrediting him, to have made a personal examination. I wish to inform the Minister of Justice that the statement he made in this House this afternoon in that respect is absolutely unfounded and unwarranted. I have under my hand the 'Daily News-Advertiser,' from which the paragraph was copied into the columns of the 'British Columbian,' as stated here this afternoon by the hon. member for New^ Westminster, and it will be seen that the inaccuracy to which attention has been called by the Minister of Justice (in the very fair manner that has characterized his remarks this afternoon) is to be found in the columns of the ' News-Advertiser ' exactly as my hon. friend from New Westminster declared. I will read it in order that there may be no mistake on the subject:

There was no record of Bullick or Terry's visits in the visitors' book, although there were records of all the others. The department first became aware that the visit of the detectives was to locate or secure information as to certain stolen bonds when, at the investigation conducted by Inspector Dawson, Chief Constable Macintosh said that Miner told him that Bullick said he (Miner) would be pardoned if he surrendered the Australian bonds. Macintosh said he repeated Miner's statement to the warden, who knew about it. Inspector Dawson wrote to Bullick, who re-

plied that the only time he had seen Miner was when he visited the penitentiary in the company of Terry, at which time the warden was present.

This is exactly the same inaccuracy of which the minister complains. I think that it is to be regretted that a gentleman holding the position in this House of the Minister of Justice should have ventured, without more care than the hon. gentleman seems to have taken, to make a statement designed, obviously and plainly designed, for the purpose of casting discredit upon an hon. member of this House. But these eccentricities on the part of the Minister of Justice are not uncommon. We heard him yesterday declaiming-though he said he had no right to declaim-against certain action of the Ontario government

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

Order.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

Very good. I might refer to that by illustration properly within the rules of this House. And I may remark, there is no hon. gentleman who transgresses that rule more frequently than the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier) himself. I may say, in this connection, that it is indeed a matter of surprise to us to find a Minister of Justice holding a portfolio in this government which has refused a fiat to a very large number of men who assert that they have a valid claim against this government in respect of its Post Office Department. It is a surprise to hon. gentlemen in this House who have listened to recent debates in which the Minister of Justice] expressed himself very strongly on this point.

But these are all matters by the way: the real point of this case has not been touched by the Minister of Justice, and every hon. member who has listened to him knows that the real point has not been touched by him. The point of the case is this; what explanation has the government, what explanation has the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth), what explanation has the Solicitor General (Mr. Bureau), for the fact that a convict was permitted to escape in broad daylight from one of the penitentiaries of this country, and up to this time that man has not been recaptured? What is the meaning of these rumours depending on evidence-if the statement of responsible men reported in the newspapers are to be regarded as evidence-that this man, at the time of his escape, had been permitted to have his hair grow to the ordinary length, like any citizen of this country, and liis moustache to grow as well, so that he would escape recognition as a convict.

Has my hon. friend the Minister of Justice touched upon that point this afternoon? Everv one knows he has almost carefully evaded it. I leave to any hon. gentleman in this House who reads the discussion Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

which took place on the 11th February, who examines the statements made then by the Minister of Justice, and the utterly inconsistent statements as they seem to me, of the Solicitor General, I ask hon. members of this House if they will say that up to the present time any true and reasonable explanation of this matter has been given? What is the meaning of it all? What is the meaning of the extraordinary apologetic attitude assumed in this House by the Minister of Justice towards this man Bourke? Why, he told us on a previous occasion that he had made a demand on this man- he had made a demand, with theatrical gesture and loud voice he said he had made a demand unon him that this information should be forthcoming; and when we came to examine that letter, why, Mr. Speaker, we saw that the Minister of Justice, when he addressed himself to Mr. Bourke, was roaring it as gently as any sucking dove. And this afternoon he has been at great pains indeed to assume a remarkably apologetic attitude towards Bourke. What does it all mean? This man has been charging, by direct implication, if not in express terms, and I am inclined to think in express terms as well, though I have not the context under my hand-this man has been charging conspiracy in connection with the escape of the convict Miner-let that be understood-and he has been charging that officials for whom the Minister of Justice is responsible in this House have connived in that escape. What does the Minister say? He says, will you please give to me, the Minister of Justice, any information that you have on this subject? And he stands here in the House this afternoon and regards the situation as absolutely solved to his satisfaction, because he has received a somewhat curt letter from Bourke informing him that he has no further information than that which has already been given. Why then did Bourke state on previous occasions, over his own signature, that he had such further information? Should 24 hours be lost before a committee of this House was appointed to bring that man Bourke before the committee and take his evidence on oath? Sir, that is not the attitude of the Minister of Justice. The attitude of the Minister of Justice is absolutely a departure from what we would expect of a gentleman whose management of a department in this important respect had been challenged in the public press over and over again. He beseeches the grace of Bourke, because he has made no attack upon Bourke in this House, and he flatters himself that Bourke has made no attack upon him. Bourke has made a direct attack upon the management of an institution for which the Minister of Justice is responsible Further, I say that when the Minister of Justice boasts in this House as to the treatment which he accorded to Bourke after that

escape had taken place, in superannuating him exactly as if the discipline in that penitentiary had been all that was required, treating him as if no escape had taken place-I say that when the Minister of Justice boasts of that, he boasts of something of which I think he has absolutely no reason to be proud. It is in my belief the bounden duty of the government to see what that man has to say on that subject under oath. It is true, he has given his evidence already. I have already stated in this House that I would not be inclined to give much credit to the assertions of a man who, having once given evidence on oath, declares afterwards that there are circumstances within his knowledge which would throw new light on this subject. But we cannot afford to have the administration of justice in this country thrown into contempt and disrepute. When we have reflections such as have been made by this man Bourke and by other men in British Columbia. indicating that there was some collusion or conspiracy, it seems to me the bounden duty of the government not to let the matter stand where it is. Instead of attempting to cast discredit upon an hon. member of this House who brings these matters to the attention of the government, I would think that the Minister of Justice should welcome the aid of any member of this House in trying to bring about a better condition of affairs than seems to exist in the administration of the penitentiaries.

Hon. J. BUREAU (Solicitor General).

I did not intend to take part in this debate, nor to sav anything more after the explanations of the Minister of Justice. But I see there is an inclination on the part of our hon. friends opposite to misinterpret his words, and to endeavour to impute to him motives which he has not. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition greatly surprises me when he says that this debate was brought up wholly for the purpose of drawing from the Department of Justice some explanation of the escape of Bill Miner. He says the Minister of Justice has not answered the questions put by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Taylor), because he has not explained the escape of Bill Miner. Well, Mr. Speaker, I appeal to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition what more can the Department of Justice do, or what more can the Minister of Justice do, than to hold an investigation, to call the officers who were supposed to know anything of the circumstances of the escape, and examine them under oath, to take their evidence and come to a decision thereupon?

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

That is a fair question; will mv hon. friend permit me to answer it? Will he tell me, in the first place whether the circumstance with regard to the growth of this man's hair and moustache before his escape, had been investigated, and if it had not been investigated, does he not think in all fairness it should be investigated?

Mr. BUREAU.

Well, the leader of the opposition asks me a fair question. As he krows, I am not charged with the administration of the penitentiaries. But I was informed after the debate that took place on the Uth of February that the then warden of the penitentiary, as has been stated by the Minister of Justice, had certain weaknesses in regard to this matter, and I told him I was informed that at the time of the escape, the officers reported that Bill Miner's hair had not grown three-quarters of an inch-if I am not mistaken that is the answer I made.

Mr. CALVERT.

What about his moustache?

Mr. BUREAU.

About that I have no information. The leader of the opposition has accused the Minister of Justice of casting a slur upon one of the members of the opposition. Now, Mr. Speaker, my attention was called to the articles of the ' Daily Columbian' when the Minister of Justice cited these editorials of the 18th of February. I ask now, is there any man sitting in this House who reads newspapers, or any man outside of this House, when he sees a despatch in a daily paper of the importance of the ' Daily Columbian,' a paper whose importance is enhanced by the fact that a gentleman interested in it sits in this House-is there, I say, any man in this House or out of it who is going to write or telegraph to the editor of that paper, or to the manager, to find out whether a certain despatch is genuine, or whether it was copied from another newspaper. I submit in all fairness to the members of the opposition that when the Minister of Justice saw in that paper a report purporting to have been telegraphed from Ottawa, he was perfectly justifiable in thinking that the report had been telegraphed from Ottawa, had been telegraphed in the regular course of business, as happens in all newspaper offices which wish to keep their readers posted upon the proceedings of this House. This paper says in so many words that Chief Constable Macintosh was the man to whom. Miner reported that Detective Bullick had been at him and had offered him his liberty if he would give back the bonds. The report of the minister speaks of the instructor. Mackenzie, not only in one place but in different places. Here it is at page 1228 of 'Hansard':

During the investigation conducted by Inspector Dawson after Miner's escape and on '3th September, 1907, Instructor MacKenzie -tated in his evidence that after the interview with Bullick and Terry, Miner had told him that Bullick said Miner would be pardoned *f he would surrender to the Canadian Pacific

Railway Company certain Australian bonds which the company believed he (Miner) had taken from their express car on the occasion of the robbery at Mission. Mackenzie further deposed that he had reported Miner's statement to the warden, who said he knew about it. No record of the interview of Messrs. Builick and Terry with Miner is entered in the convicts' visitors book.

I submit that under the circumstances the hon. member for New Westminster should see that his readers are properly, rightly and correctly informed that they should know the truth about this deal. He cannot accuse the Minister of Justice before he writes a word to correct the state-ment^ which appeared in the ' Daily Columbian,' because, in justice to the Minister of Justice and to himself, that correction should be made.

Mr. J. D. TAYLOR.

1 wrote that word several days ago to Chief Constable Macintosh.

Mr. BUREAU.

My hon. friend may have written a letter but the paper does not speak about it. His private correspondence does not affect us very much in this transaction. We are more concerned in what the paper published. The matter was published in the newspaper and the correction ought to- be made in the newspaper. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) seems to make it a crime that, the Minister of Justice did not immediately send a constable or detective after Mr. Bourke and bring him down here that he might be brought before the bar of the House to answer any questions that any hon. member of the House might see fit to put to him. He makes it a reproach to the Minister of Justice that he wrote to Mr. Bourke: Will you please give me the information ? Mr. Speaker, I do not know that a superior, writing or talking to one who has been an officer of his, whether he may be still in the service or out of the service, has to bully him when asking anything of him. The leader of the opposition is not justified in finding fault with the Minister of Justice because he has written a civil letter. He also says that the Minister of Justice ignores the rules of the House that the Minister of Justice is trying to_ heap abuse on some body, that he his trying to get after the hon. member for New Westminster, that he his trying to get after the government of Ontario, and in the same breath finds fault because the Minister of Justice has written a polite letter and makes it a crime that is a crime.

Mr. HUGHES.

As I understand it the Minister of Justice stated, in very loud tones that he had demanded of Mr. Bourke an explanation and when the demand was brought down it was found to be a veritable sucking dove sort of letter.

Mr. BUREAU.

Mr. BUREAU.

Of course, it is only natural, I suppose, that my hon. friend the member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Hughes) never demanded what he got. We remember the whole history with regard to that hon. gentleman and we know that he got more than he demanded sometimes. When my hon. friend the Minister of Justice says that he demanded, the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton may endeavour to impart a meaning to his words by adopting the tone to which we have just listened. My hon. friend is a military man, he must be a good sport and if so will he in all fairness tell us what he wants the Minister of Justice to do ?

Mr. HUGHES.

I want the minister to be honest when he comes to this House and not say that he demanded something when he only asked for it in a very humble tone.