Mr. AYLESWORTH moved that the House go into committee on Monday next to consider the following proposed resolution : That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient to provide for the payment to four additional judges of the Superior Court in the province of Quebec, each $7,000 per annum, and to one additional judge of the Court of King's Bench in the province of Manitoba, $6,000 per annum.
Mr. SPEAKER.
He said: I have to state that His Excellency, the Governor General having been apprised of the subject matter of the resolution, recommends it to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. GRAHAM moved that the House go into committee on Monday next to consider the following proposed resolution: That it is expedient to provide that the bounty of one and one-half per cent per imperial gallon payable on crude petroleum from Canadian wells, or from shales or other substances mined in Canada, authorized by chapter 52 of the statutes of 1908, may be paid to the owner or occupier of the soil through which it is mined or won, or to such other person interested or injuriously affected by the mining operations or works, as the Governor in Council may approve. He said: I have to say that His Excellency having been apprised of the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the House. Motion agreed to.
Mr. FISHER moved that the House go into committee on Monday next to consider the following proposed resolution: That it is expedient to amend the Civil Service Act by providing for the appointment of temporary clerks for the compilation of any decennial census, who may be employed for a period not exceeding three years, and who shall be eligible for the annual statutory increases provided by the Civil Service Amendment Act, 1908; by providing that the salary of a temporary clerk employed under section 23 of the said Act shall not be greater than the minimum salary authorized for subdivisions B of the second division, subject to be increased as authorized by section 33 of the said Act; and for the payment to collectors of customs of a salary not greater than $1,500 per annum; and for the payment of officers of inland revenue salaries not o-reater than the following maximum, viz.: inspectors, $3,200; collectors, $2,800; deputy collectors, $2,200; accountants. $1,800; special class excisemen, $2,500; first, second and third class excisemen, $1,500; probationary excisemen, $600; stenographers and typewriters $700; messengers, $800; and for the payment of officers of the Post Office Department, as follows, viz.; Post office inspectors on appointment, $2,500, with an annual increase to a maximum of $3,500; assistant post office inspectors and superintendents of the Railway Mail Service on appointment, $1,600, with an annual increase to a maximum of $2,500, and to authorize the increase to the minimum of the salary of any such officers whose salary is at present less than the minimum; and assistant postmaster, on appointment, a salary of not less than $1,100 and not more than $2,800, and that the said salaries and increases shall be payable as from the first day of April, 1910. He said: His Excellency the Governor General has been made acquainted with the substance of this resolution, and recommends it to the House. Motion agreed to.
On the orders of the day being called: ' Mr. THOMAS BEATTIE (London). Mr. Speaker, there is a very important matter that I would like to bring to the attention of the minister in charge of immigration. This unfortunate affair happened at Quebec towards the close of navigation last year. A most respectable family who had been engaged in farming in the old country. composed of a father, wife, son and daughter, were induced to come out to this country by a very prominent citizen of London. This old country farmer determined to sell out his holding in England, come out to this country and take up a farm. Feeling that these people were strangers in the country and that they might have trouble in landing at Quebec upon their arrival, this gentleman in London took the pains to go to Quebec to meet them. He met them on the ship, escorted them to the immigration shed, and left them there to be examined and to pass their baggage. After waiting for some time he looked for his friends, but he could not find them at all. He hunted for an hour around the landing stage at Quebec, but he could not get any track of these four people. Finally, one of the truck wheelers informed him that there were four parties confined in a room upstairs. He went upstairs and inquired, but the officials refused to open the door. But, as he happened to be a very large man, six feet four inches in height, he threatened that if they did not open the door he would put his foot through it. Thereupon the door was opened and inside he found the mother and daughter sobbing and saying that they had been locked up as prisoners without any reason having been given. He could not get any reason from them why they were locked up. The father of this family had no less than £200 of British money on his person, which he had unfortunately showed to the person in charge. I do not want to insinuate that the man was actuated by improper motives, but we know that such things do occur, that they have occurred in the United States, and that they may occur in Canada. No immigration officer is fit to be in such a position who would lock four respectable people in a room and give them no reason therefor. The only impression that the man got was that they were locked up with the idea of being taken somewhere else afterwards and there given an opportunity of getting rid of their money. This is one of those cases in which respectable people should receive different kind of treatment. This man was pretty well to do in England, being a small farmer there, and he sold out his holding and brought all his money with him. He had £200 in British money on his person, and the balance he had in the form of a draft. Being an Englishman and being accustomed to regard public officials in uniform with confidence, he no doubt placed the same confidence in the uniformed officer at Quebec. This is a very serious matter, this gentleman has been speaking to me several times with Tegard to it, and I think it should be brought to the attention of the minister, because, if there are officers of that description in the employ of the government and if inquiry substantiates the case which I have presented to the minister, they should be dismissed immediately. There was no possible justification for locking up this respectable man, his wife, son and daughter without giving them some reason why they were detained. It is so extraordinary that I cannot account for it. I have crossed the Atlantic sixty or seventy times myself and I have never known a case of that kind. I have my suspicion that the officer, seeing the money, thought there was a chance to get these people some place outside where they might be relieved of it more readily. However, I do not make that charge. The minister should find out who that officer was, although. I suppose, it would be rather difficult. I just bring the case to the attention of the minister, and I would be very glad if the minister would make an inquiry or inform the head inspector and have him report on the case.
Mr. OLIVER.
I am very sorry to hear of an occurrence such as my hon. friend (Mr. Beattie) has brought to the attention of the House. I only regret that it was not brought sooner after the alleged occurrence took place, so that we would be more certain of a satisfactory investigation. I can assure my hon. friend that his statements, as they have been made, will receive every attention at the hands of the department, because I can assure him and the House that the last thing that the administration wish is to in any way hamper or impede immigration of the character that my hon. friend has mentioned.
Mr. BEATTIE.
I did not hear of the matter until ten days ago. I happened to meet this gentleman and he mentioned it to me. Otherwise I should have brought it to the attention of the House before. I am quite sure that the Minister of the Interior will do all that is possible to inquire into the matter and see that this condition is remedied.
Mr. M. CLARK.
Before the House leaves the matter which has been brought to the attention of the minister by the hon. member for London (Mr. Beattie)-and I think he has placed the House of the country under an obligation by bringing the matter before the House-I wish to state that during the Easter holidays I was called upon by a farmer delegate returning from the duties to which he had been assigned in the old country by the Minister of the Interior. He told me that he noticed that a large number of immigrants who happened to come over on the' same boat with himself were being treated with very scant courtesy by the officers of customs at the port of landing. He went and remonstrated with some of these officers, with the result that there was an immediate amelioration in the way that they handled some of the immigrants. This Is, of course, one of the minor evils of a custom tariff, but _ in consideration for those who are coming out to be citizens of this country and in many cases with capital, although I do not think that should make much difference, I hope that the minister will look into this matter and not pass it off with the assurance that he is very sorry. It seems an inconsistent thing to be bringing immigrants to this country and then make them the victims of a circumstance like this, which only happened to reach us in the case of those who chanced to be travelling on the same boat as a farmer delegate returning from his duties in the old country.
Mr. OLIVER.
I wish to again assure the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clark) that it is the intention and desire of the Immigration Department that their officers should treat immigrants with every possible consideration. Of course the duties of the immigration officers are imperative, and must be discharged without delay. There is no time for lengthy discussion, and promptitude may have been understood as incivility. While I would ask for the immigration officials every consideration in the discharge of their sometimes unpleasant, and always very hurried duties, I want to assure every one that the intention of the department is that every immigrant, whatever class he may belong to and whoever he may be shall be treated with due courtesy by the officers of this government. I will be glad to have any instances of the infraction of that rule brought to our attention at the earliest possible date. I would mention to my hon. friend from London (Mr. Beattie) that we would like to have the name-not necessarily for ' Hansard '-but we would like to have the name, and about the date of the occurrence, and also in the case mentioned by my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) we would like to have what information we can.
Mr. BEATTIE.
Mr. BEATTIE.
I shall be very pleased to give the minister the name of the person. I may say that my reference was to a most respectable person who is in very good circumstances.
Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called I wish to direct attention to an item appearing in the Toronto ' World ' of Monday last which I had not seen until my attention was called to it. It is one of a series of items commenting upon certain political matters at Ottawa, and it reads:
One outstanding mistake of those who controlled the affairs of the party some few years ago was the acceptance of a salary by the leader of the opposition. Mr. Barker, of Hamilton, negotiated this matter with the Minister of Justice at the time, and Mr. Borden was cognizant of what was going on. The ' Globe ' has been taunting Mr. Borden ever since and saying that in some way he was bound to be subservient towards the administration.
Now, Mr. Speaker. I would not personally have taken any notice of that; I pay very little heed to anything that appears in that paper because it is my opinion based on pretty general knowledge of the people where those connected with that paper are best known, that very little reliance can be placed upon what appears in it. But, it imputes inpropriety to the then Minister of Justice as well as to myself That may not appear so clearly on the face of this particular item as if you read it in connection with the speeches of the manager of that paper, who is a member of this House, and his public utterances throughout the country. To those who perhaps may place some little trust in such speeches my silence on this occasion might be taken to be some confirmation of the charge of impropriety as against the then Minister of Justice, who is now absent filling a most important mission in Europe on benalf of the British empire. So I do not think it would be right for me to allow that item to go without a remark. The manager of that paper has again and again alluded to the Act of 1905, (which deals with the indemnity of all members of this House, and of the Senate, and some other matters, including the indemnity to the leader of the opposition) and he has spoken of it as a reward for the betrayal of the people. And, taking the whole of his speeches from time to time he alleges that the betrayal has been of the very broadest character by members of this House. That gentleman has spoken of public men who had wrought iniquity, and who by that Act of 1905 had voted themselves public money in
salaries, in pensions, and in indemnity, as a reward for their treachery to the people. And in connection with it he in Effect charges in that item that I, and the then Minister of Justice, negotiated that little-what I suppose he would call financial transaction-intended to reward public men for a betrayal of the interests of the people of this country. It is one of these 3kilful items which this gentleman indulges in. I do not mean to refer here so much to the gentleman who wrote the item, as to the man who inspired it, and I have no doubt who that was, and I am sorry he is not here to-day.
Mr. HUGHES.
He will swear he was here to-day, though.
Mr. BARKER.
Now, that he has made that charge, and that 1 have called attention to it I desire to give it the most unqualified contradiction. There is not a word of truth in it, and if I may be permitted to say so, I believe the man who inspired it, whoever he may be, knew he was telling a wilful lie. I have reason to say that; I have good reason to say that he knew better than one would imagine from that false statement. He charges me with having negotiated one feature of what he calls the reward for treachery that was provided by the Act of 1905, and he does that squarely. Now, I have no doubt that most members of this House recall very well what took place in 1905. Up to that time the indemnity to members was $1,500 -it had been placed at that amount in 1901. There was a great deal of agitation in the House owing to the very long sessions we had had for two or three years, and that was so especially in the case of gentlemen who had come from the Atlantic and Pacific shores, and practically had to stay here throughout the sessions without ever returning to their homes or their business during a session. It was considered a very great grievance indeed that these men should come here, and give up their time to the public service, and receive only $1,500. Rightly or wrongly, they had that grievance, and the first I heard of any action being taken was when I was told that a round robin was being circulated. Although I had never seen it, I was asked would I sign it. I said, no, I had never signed a round robin and I would not now. But I do not mean it to be supposed that I was opposed to the increase. I said I was in favour of a proper increase. The round robin was, I believe, presented to the leader of the opposition, and I presume to the leader of the government. At all events the result was, so far as my knowledge goes, that the leader of the opposition called into conference members of his party from every province which was then represented in the Conservative party. The question was discussed frankly, and freely and openly in all the relations of that Act to the members of this House. It was what I may call a conference of the party. There was no secrecy, no concealment, it was all open and plain. The first question before us we on our side all agreed upon, and that was that the indemnity then allowed to the leader of the government was wholly inadequate to the obligations of his office and position. There was not a worl of doubt on that; no person hesitated for a moment. It was equally the opinion of those of our friends on the Conservative side, who were thus consulted, that it was unfair that the party in opposition should be asked to collect subscriptions or themselves pay the subscriptions towards the official expenses of the party leader; and that it was equally unfair that he should travel from the Atlantic to the Pacific on the many duties of leadership at his own expense. I do not think there was one present who doubted that. The only one I have any recollection of who hesitated was the leader of the opposition himself. My own opinion was clear and undoubted that it was a proper thing, and I could never see, and do not yet see how the acceptance of a grant from parliament, by the leader of the opposition, makes him a servant or in any way obedient to the government of the day. I never could understand it, and I cannot understand it now.
Mr. HUGHES.
It is the peoples' money.