May 15, 1918

BILL TO AMEND INSURANCE ACT WITHDRAWN.


Mr. M. Steele, for Sir Herbert Ames, presented the fourth report of the Select Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce : Tour Committee have had under consideration Bill No. 62 to amend the Insurance Act, 1917, and have agreed to recommend that the said Bill be not proceeded further with this session, owing to the fact that it affects British and foreign insurance companies and that such companies have not had sufficient time to consider and express their views on the proposed measure.


REPORTS AND PAPERS.


Return showing food destroyed in Toronto between April the 4th arid April 29th, 1918, and the action of the Food Controller in regard thereto.-Hon. Mr. Burrell. . Names of persons employed in preparing the Votes and Proceedings, Orders of the Day, and Journals of the House of Commons (English and French).-Hon. Mr. Burrell. Names of persons employed in reporting and translating the Proceedings of the House, and cost of printing and binding Debates; also cost of reporting the translating, typing and printing of proceedings before Parliamentary Committees.-Hon. Mr. Burrell.


PAYMENTS TO SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK.

?

Right Hon. S@

Sir Charles Fitzpatrick has

asked me to read to the House a statement with regard to some criticisms which have been made in the House. The memoran-*dum is as follows:

Topic:   PAYMENTS TO SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK.
Permalink

SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK AND PRIVY COUNCIL.


Fiscal Year, 19113-14.-Vote:-Travelling expenses of Sir Charles Fitzpatrick attending sittings of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, ?2,500.00. No claim for this amount and no payment made. Fiscal Year, 1914-15.-Vote :-Travelling expenses of iSir Charles Fitzpatrick attending sittings of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, $2,500.00. This amount [was paid as Sir Charles Fitzpatrick attended sittings of the Privy Council in August or September, 1914. Fiscal Year, 1915-15.-Vote :-Special allowance to Sir Charles Fitzpatrick to cover expenses in connection with Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, $i2,5'0'0.00. Claim was made for this amount, in monthly instalments, by the department having charge of the vote and as attendance at the sittings of the Privy Council had been omitted as a necessary condition of payment, the claims were allowed as in other cases of special allowances. Fiscal Year, 1916-17.-VoteSpecial allowance to Sir Charles Fitzpatrick to cover expenses in connection with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, $2,500.00. This amount was paid for the same reason as in l'915-16i . Fiscal Year, 1917-18.-Vote:-Special allowance to Sir Charles Fitzpatrick to cover expenses when attending the sittings of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, $[2,-500.00. No claim was made for payment of this amount as .Sir Charles Fitzpatrick did not attend the sittings of the Privy Council.


PUBLISHER OF OFFICIAL NEWS.

STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER.


Right Hon.Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime * Minister): I deem it my duty to make a statement to the House with-respect to an item which has appeared in the press of the country touching a despatch received from the Secretary of State for the Colonies at the end of last week, which was given out to the press in the ordinary course.


UNION

Samuel Hughes

Unionist

Sir SAM HUGHES:

Received from and by whom?

Topic:   PUBLISHER OF OFFICIAL NEWS.
Subtopic:   STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER.
Permalink
UNION

Robert Laird Borden (Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Unionist

Sir ROBERT BORDEN:

Received from the Secretary of State for_ the Colonies. About the middle of January last I suggested to the British Government, through the Secretary of State for the Colonies, that

it would be desirable to have a weekly resume, Or summary, of the war situation, which should be issued under the authority of the War Cabinet, and which might be published. We had been receiving for some time secret reports, which, of course, could not be made public, and the information set forth in those_ weekly reports was communicated only to members of the Administration, and in some cases to the Prime Minister alone.

We received a reply intimating that the matter would be taken into consideration, and about the end of March we were informed that such a despatch for publication would be sent to us weekly in the early future. These despatches began t-o come in about the end of March, or a little after, and when received they were published as was intended. They were not sent in code, and they were marked as official news for publication. It is understood that one of the Dominions of the Empire made a suggestion about two or three weeks ago that these news summaries were not as valuable as they might be for the reason that they set forth for the most part matters that had already been published in the press of the country. On Saturday last, one of those official news despatches was received in the ordinary course through His Excellency the Governor General, signed, as all these despatches are signed, by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Eight Hon. Walter Long. It was handed out to the press and published in the usual w>ay. Yesterday a further despatch correcting it in one respect was received in the same manner from the same source, and signed in the same way. That also has been given to the press. In communicating to the British Government in January last, we asked that these despatches might be sent to us under the authority of the War Cabinet. 1 do not know, of course, whether or not this particular despatch was sent out under the authority of the War Cabinet. I am content to accept the statement of Lord Beading in that behalf; he doubtless has more information on the subject than I have. What I desire to .make clear to the House and to the country is that the despatch in question was received in the ordinary course under the arrangement alluded to, and purported to be signed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies'. It was received through His Excellency the Governor 'General, and the despatch which corrected it was received in the same man-125

ner through the same source and signed in the same way. My purpose in making this statement is to assure Parliament and this country that if there has been any mistake or misapprehension with regard to this official news despatch it has not occurred here at Ottawa; it has occurred somewhere else.

Topic:   PUBLISHER OF OFFICIAL NEWS.
Subtopic:   STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER.
Permalink

QUESTIONS.


(Questions answered orally are indicated by asterisks). Mr. W. P. McKAY.


WAR TRADE BOARD OFFICERS.

L LIB

Mr. PEOULX:

Laurier Liberal

1. Are the following persons employed in the War Trade Board: Messrs. Trower, Wilkie, Forrest, Russell and Murphy?

2. If so, what duties are they performing, what salary is paid to each, and by whom were they recommended for employment?

3. Did the Civil Service Commission under the provisions of the Order in Council authorize their employment? If not, why not?

4. On what dates were the above named persons employed?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   WAR TRADE BOARD OFFICERS.
Permalink
CON

Sir GEOEGE FOSTER:

Conservative (1867-1942)

1. Yes.'

2. Mr. W. K. Trower, general secretary, $500 per month; Mr. J. H. Wilkie, assistant secretary, $250 per month; Mr. T. M. Forrest, in charge of Statistical and Information Departments, $208.33 per month; Mr. E. M. Russell, expert on metals, $175 per month; Mr. W. P. Murphy, in charge of Filing Department, $125 per month. These men were selected by the board

as being competent for the duties they are now performing and the board were satisfied with their credentials and they are now performing the duties assigned to them in an efficient manner.

3. Yes.

4. Mr. W. K. Trower, February 25, 1918; M*r. J. H. Wilkie, March 1, 1918; Mr. T. Mr. Forrest, March 13, 1918; Mr. E. M. Russell, April 8, 1918; Mr. W. P. Murphy, February 14, 1918.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   WAR TRADE BOARD OFFICERS.
Permalink

EMPLOYMENT AT VICTORIA, B.C.

L LIB

Mr. BOURASSA:

Laurier Liberal

1. Has the Government been informed that in the spring of 1912* men were hired to go to Victoria, British Columbia, and wrork there as lumbermen, carpenters, painters, etc., at the rate of $3, $4, and $5 per diem, travelling expenses prepaid and lodgings gratuitously provided for?

2. Has the Government been made aware of the fact that, when the said workmen and mechanics had reached Victoria, all travelling expenses were deducted from their wages ; that they were paid only $2 and $2.50 per day, and that they had to pay for their lodgings?

3. Is it the intention of the Government to pay for these men's travelling expenses so as to enable them to return home?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   EMPLOYMENT AT VICTORIA, B.C.
Permalink

May 15, 1918