Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (leader of the Opposition):

I suppose the House

may assume that the statement made in the

press to-day by Mr. Murdock to the effect that he has sent to the Government his resignation as a member of the Board of Commerce, is correct, and that the letter which appears as addressed by Mr. Murdock to the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) is a copy of the letter actually sent to my right hon. friend. I would like to know if Mr. Murdock's letter is a correct copy of the communication which the Prime Minister has received, and., if so, whether my right hon. friend does not feel the matter of sufficient public, importance to justify the bringing down immediately of all the correspondence that has passed between the Government and the members of this board, so that Parliament may have an opportunity before prorogation of discussing the status of the board and matters incidental thereto.

Et. Hon. Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime Minister):

I have not verified the communication which has been published in the press, but I assume that it is the same as that which I have deceived. Indeed, I have not had an opportunity of reading it except as it appeared in the press. A communication reached me from Mr. Murdock this morning which, doubtless, corresponds to that which has been published in the press. I should like to say that so far as certain conversations which I have had with Mr. Murdock are concerned, he is under a misapprehension-though his statement was made, I have no doubt, in all sincerity-as to what I intended to convey to him. I did not intend to suggest to him that the Government would wait until after the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council before filling the vacancy on the 'board. On the contrary, I invited from him an expression of this view as to a suitable person to appoint when the resignation of Mr. O'Connor took effect. I did say to Mr. Murdock that the question of an appointment to the board was of so serious a character that I was afraid the Government would not until after prorogation be able to give it the attention which its importance undoubtedly deserved. Indeed, I went so far in conversation as to discuss the name of a gentleman whom Mr. Murdock suggested as suitable for appointment to the chairmanship. I stated my concurrence in his suggestion, but expressed doubts whether the gentleman in question would accept the chairmanship of the board. I have not had an opportunity of very careifully considering Mr. Murdock's letter or of replying to it. It is my intention to reply to it and to give to

my reply the same publicity that Mr. Murdock has given to his letter. Then, so far as the correspondence between the Board of Commerce and the 'Government is concerned, the greater part of it has already been laid upon the table of the House. The only thing that, to my knowledge, has so far been withheld is correspondence which Judge Robson insisted on regarding as absolutely private and which he thought ought not to be communicated to the public without his consent. My colleagues took that matter into consideration during my absence, and, for the time being, withheld the correspondence because of its alleged confidential character and because Judge Robson thought the correspondence might be misunderstood. Of course, he had his own version with regard to it. In view of the fact that Mr. Murdock has made public a portion of the' correspondence in question, I am inclined to accept the view which has been put forward by my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) that the whole of the correspondence ought to be brought down and laid upon the table of the House.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

May I ask my right hon. friend also whether he will consent to arrange a time for the discussion of this matter in the House? I think the whole question of the Board of Commerce and the correspondence that has taken place has assumed a public significance which would seem to warrant a further open discussion of the matter in Parliament before we prorogue.

Sir ROBERT BORDEN:

I do not know that there is necessity for making any special arrangement. The House must be moved into Committee of Supply on many occasions before we prorogue. If my hon. friend will indicate any day on which he would like to discuss the subject, we will move the House into Committee of Supply for the purpose.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Any time .after the correspondence is brought down-assuming that it will be brought down immediately-will be convenient.

Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Shelburne and Queen's) :

I desire to call the attention of the House to an error of the press. I do not

often bring such a matter before the House; indeed, I have no recollection of ever before having done so. In the present instance the matter is not one of much importance, but I think it is well that the facts should be correctly stated. The press report of the debate on the indemnity question, referring to the member for Peterborough West (Mr. Burnham) states:

He (Mr Burnham) named several members, including the Hon. W. S. Fielding Dr. Michael Clark and Mr. Ernest Lapointe who, he said, were strongly In favour of the increase and were prepared to speak in favour of it had they been present in the House to-night.

I was not present when the member for Peterborough West (Mr. Burnham) began his speech-with the Prime Minister and several other members I was in attendance at a very important committee meeting. If I had been in the House and if the hon. member in my hearing had used such language it would have been my duty at once to challenge the statement and to say, as I say now, that neither to the hon. member for Peterborough West, nor to any other person did I express any such views as are here ascribed to me. I came into the House later during the debate, when the hon. member was just about resuming his seat. I participated in the debate; what I said is of record and, of course, for that I am responsible. But I am not willing to be held responsible for the statement so ascribed to me. Reference to Hansard, however, goes to show that the member for Peterborough West did not make the statement; on the contrary he is reported there to have said distinctly that he did not know my views and had never exchanged any words with me on the subject-which was quite correct. Now, if the matter were reported only in the local press I would not mention it, because local knowledge and reference to Hansard would explain the facts. But I find that this report has been telegraphed all over the Dominion, and thousands of people who will never see Hansand and never know the facts will read it. For that reason only, I have called attention to the matter. I am making no complaint, because I am quite sure that the error on the part of the reporter was accidental and was not meant to mislead anybody.

Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):

May I be allowed to say that so far as I am concerned, my hon. friend from Peterborough West fairly and correctly interpreted my feelings.

Hon. N. W. ROWELL (President of the Council):

As I explained when I laid the statement on the table of the House-

IMr. BELAND: I was not present, I am sorry.

Mr. ROWELL:

-there were certain

branches of the public service in regard to which the application of the classification had not been completed, and therefore, they could not be properly included in that statement. While at the time I did not mention any particular branch of the service, I assumed that the House of Commons would be one of those; at least the Civil Service Commission had not received the classification of the House of Commons staff at the time the statement was sent to the printer. If it has since been completed or is now available, there is no reason in the world why it should not be printed and -aid on the Table. I mentioned at the time that the application o-f the classification in two or three departments or branches of the service will not be completed before the House rises, and, therefore, the Civil Government Estimates for them, will have to be on the basis of the existing classification.