Mr. D. C. FRASER (Guysborough) moved:: That the first and second reports of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts be now concurred in. *


Hon. JOHN HAGGART (South Lanark).: I do not rise to object to this particular motion being adopted only a few minutes after it has been presented to the House. I believe that we should have an opportunity of knowing what these reports contain, and I wish to give notice that I shall object to this procedure in every other case.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: My reason for moving the adoption of the report now' is, that there are but two smali matters referred to in it. The first is the employment of a shorthand reporter, and the second, that certain evidence which was taken before the committee last year be brought down ; and, as the committee may have to meet any day, I did not want it to meet without having this before it. That is the reason I made the motion.


John Graham Haggart: I withdraw the objection in this particular case.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Because the point of order was well taken.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Before the point of order is taken, I would ask my hon. friend to let the matter stand until Monday or Tuesday, so that we may examine the case. I doubt whether a notice is required to be put on the Order paper in order to make a motion for the adoption of the report.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I certainly agree to that.


John Graham Haggart: I have no objection to the motion; but nearly every day,

reports of committees are adopted a few minutes after they are read in the House. I think this is irregular, and I simply give notice that after this I hope the rule will be enforced.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 31) respecting the Buffalo Railway Company and the International Railway Company.-Mr. Osier.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W.
S.	Fielding) moved that the House again go into Committee of Supply.
['Bill (No. 24) respecting the Windsor and Detroit Union Bridge Company.-Mr. Cowan.']
Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle).: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the Chair, I wish to bring before the House a matter that has been talked of a good deal in this House and outside of it, with reference to a statement which I made some days ago as to declarations made by the late Minister of Marine and Fisheries, Sir Louis Davies, in relation I to the abrogation of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, and the settlement of the Alaskan boundary question. A couple of days after I had made that statement I received from Sir Louis Davies the following letter :
The Supreme fcourt of Caaada.
February, 21, 1902. Dear Mr. Bourassa,-My attention has been called to the report of your speech in the House of Commons on your motion for papers in re the Clayton-Bulwer treaty in which you credit me with having made the statement that I 'had spent three months in London trying to get the officers of Mr. Chamberlain to take the part of Canada at the sittings of the Anglo-American Commission.'
May I ask you for your authority for attributing to me such an extraordinary statement ?
Faithfully yours,



[Stage Direction]
As I received this letter just before I was leaving for Montreal, I simply dropped a note to Sir Louis Davies, a copy of which I have not kept, telling him that I would try to satisfy his mind on the matter. So, on the 25th I wrote to him the following letter : House of Commons,
Ottawa, February 25, 1902.
Sir Louis Davies,
Supreme Court,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,-In compliance with the promise I made* you last week, I send you my authorities for the statement which I made in the House in the following terms :
And here is the exact statement I made as reported in the official report of the Debates :
One of the Canadian ministers, who was on that occasion one of the British plenipotentiaries, the late Minister of Marine and Fisheries, Sir Louis Davies, went to London and passed three months there. For what purpose ? He Hon. Mr. HAGGART.
was candid enough to tell us, when he came back from England that-after the Anglo-American Commission had sat for six months, after they were supposed to have at their back the influence of the British government-he, Sir Louis Davies, was obliged to pass three months in London to convince Mr. Chamberlain's officials that they should not side with the American government, but with us.'
I go on :
My authorities for making such a statement- Hon. Mr. HAGGART. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I do not know under what rule or right the bon. member for Labelle brings into the House a controversy between himself and Sir Louis Davies on a particular subject. The most he could possibly do would be to make a personal explanation of something which he said on a particular day, and as to which he was misrepresented or misquoted; but to read letters which have passed between him and Sir Louis Davies is clearly out of order.
Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I understood, from what has been said so far, that the hon. member for Labelle wanted to make a personal explanation, and I supposed that the letters he has just quoted were simply his excuse for making the personal explanation which he desired to make. I would call the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that all he can do now is to make a personal explanation, and I would ask him to confine his remarks as much as possible to that.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Certainly, it is not my intention to do anything else than make gcod the statement which I made and which has been challenged in this House and outside of it, and on which Sir Louis Davies asked me to make a personal explanation in this House. Therefore, I do it, in justice to the hon. gentleman, in justice to myself, and in justice to the House; and I think the House will be pleased to have a full explanation of the matter. I think it is my right to explain for what reason I made the statement, and to prove that the statement was accurate.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: If the hon. gentleman wants to make a debate, he should be very cautious about it. He should not go so far as to refer to a past debate. I am afraid that the hon. gentleman is referring to a previous debate, and simply reaffirms the statement he made.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to refer to a past debate. I merely wish to give the explanation which has been asked for by Sir Louis Davies, who was a plenipotentiary on that occasion. My only purpose is to make that point clear, without any reference to what may have happened in this House. The letters I am reading now are necessary to make the whole record complete. I went on :
My authorities for making such a statement are the interviews which you gave on your arrival from England and published in the

'Montreal Gazette' on October 30th, 1899, page 7 ; in the 'Toronto Globe' of the same date, page 10; In the 'Montreal Herald,' of either of the same day or the next, page 9.
I may have made a mistake as to the length of time you passed in the Old1 Country. But the substance of my statement is fully justified, I think, by those interviews which, to my knowledge, have never been rectified.
Yours respectfully,


HENRI BOURASSA.
[Stage Direction]
To this I received the following reply ;
Supreme Court,
Ottawa, 26th February, 1902.
My Dear Mr. Bourassa,-This morning I received your letter in answer to mine of the 21st instant, in which I asked you for your authority for making the extraordinary statement you were reported in the newspapers to have attributed to me in your speech in the House of Commons on your motion for papers in the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. This report stated that you ' then went on to credit Sir Louis Davies with making the statement that he had spent three months in London trying to get the officers of Mr. Chamberlain to take the part of Canada at the sitting of the Anglo-American commission.'
I am glad to find that you uow repudiate the correctness of this report, and send me as a correct statement of what you did say that I ' was obliged to pass three months in London to convince Mr. Chamberlain's officials that they should not side with the American government, but with us.'
While accepting this statement of what you really did say, I have failed to notice that you have made any public correction of the report of your remarks.
As your authority for making this statement you refer me to certain alleged interviews which, you say, I gave upon my arrival from England, namely, the ' Gazette,' and the ' Herald,' Montreal, and the Toronto ' Globe,' of October, 1899. I have looked up these reports which you gave as your authority, and I am obliged to say that after a careful perusal of them, I am unable to see that they afford just ground for the statement you were reported to have made, or the one you send me as the statement you actually did make.
I gave no ' interview ' to any of those newspapers, and the report to which you call my attention do not purport to be in the form of a regular interview ; but with respect to the charge you make, you have been entirely and grievously misled. I went to England in 1899, accompanied by Mr. Pope and Mr. King, to lay before the Imperial government a complete statement of the contention of Canada with respect to the Alaska boundary line. Our treatment by the officials of the colonial office on that occasion was most sympathetic, and those gentlemen did everything they could to furnish us with any official documents and information we required. In point of fact, Sir John Anderson, who had charge of this question in the colonial office, did everything that lay in his power to further the object of our mission.
Nothing could have been further from my thoughts than to have attributed to Mr. Chamberlain, or any of his officials, either indifference or hostility to Canada's interests, and if I had done so I certainly would have done violence to the truth.
And here I call the attention of the House to the following paragraph :
The American correspondents of the English
papers in Washington and New York had been transmitting during that summer letters and cablegrams to England giving a very perverted and incorrect view of Canada's claims and position, with respect alike to the main contention and the provisional boundary line then being established, and these telegrams would, no doubt, have had the effect of prejudicing Canada's case, if left unanswered. I did what I could to dissipate this prejudice.
I certainly never made any such statement as you are reported to have attributed to me ; nor did I ever make any such statement as you in your letter give as the correct report of what you said. I never knew or heard of any officials of Mr. Chamberlain taking any part adverse to Canada during the sittings of the Anglo-American commission or afterwards ; on the contrary, as I have stated before, so far as my knowledge went they were ready at all times to do everything they could to further Canada's interests.
As you were one of the secretaries of the Joint High Commission, and sat as a colleague with me for two sessions after this alleged interview took place, and never to my knowledge, made reference to it before, I trust you will take an early opportunity in the House of Commons of correcting your statement, which is certainly a misleading one and unjust to me.
Yours faithfully,

[Stage Direction]
The three interviews, or whatever you may choose to call them, were as follows : The first appears in the Toronto ' Globe ' of October 30, 1899, page 10. It is a special despatch from Montreal dated October, 29. The despatch first notes the arrival of Sir Louis Davies from London, and after a long story about his difficulties at the customs in New York, it reads as follows :
In London he laid the whole Canadian case regarding Alaska before the British government and cleared away the fog which was raised by American correspondents of London papers, who succeeded to some extent in prejudicing Canada's position. He prepared a lengthy volume on the case, and the whole British government are now thoroughly posted on the matter. As it stands now, a temporary arrangement has been made, pending the settlement of the whole case. To that end, Sir Louis, on behalf of Canada made three propositions, an unconditional arbitration, or a reference similar to the Venezuela case, or, finally, if the United States claimed Skagway and Dyea in any event, Canada should have Pyramid Harbour in any event.
Then the Montreal ' Gazette ' of October 30, page 7, had the following :
Sir Louis Davies arrived yesterday from London, Eng., where he had been for some months consulting with the Imperial government regarding the Alaska boundary difficulty. He found that the Americans, and particularly certain American correspondents of London papers had succeeded in prejudicing Canada's case in the eyes of the English authorities, but he had drawn up quite a lengthy volume setting out the position of Canada and through this and personal interviews with the government re-
[Stage Direction]
816 moved these false impressions. The British government is now thoroughly seized with Canada's contention.
And the Montreal ' Herald ' of October 31, 1899, page 9, published the following :
' Sir Louis Davies, Minister of Marine and Fisheries, returned Sunday from London, where he had been for some time past engaged in putting the case for Canada, with regard to the Alaska boundary, before the Imperial authorities. He says he found that the Americans, and particularly certain American correspondents of London papers had succeeded in prejudicing the case for Canada in the eyes of the English authorities, but he had drawn up quite a lengthy volume setting out the position of Canada, and through this and personal interviews with the government, removed these false impressions. The British government is now thoroughly seized with Canada's contentions.
Now, Sir Louis Davies gives those interviews or reports, or whatever you may choose to call them, a denial. The whole thing, he says, was perfectly false. Well, if the whole thing was falsh, if Sir Louis Davies never gave to the newspapers the information on which they based these reports, if they were not inspired by him, I think it is rather strange that lie should have delayed saying so until now. I think it rather singular that a representative of the Canadian government and at the same time a plenipotentiary of the British government, should have waited two years and a half before correcting the report published by three of the most reliable newspapers in Canada-one a Conservative and the other two Liberals-that the hon. gentleman was obliged to go to London to dissipate the prejudices raised by American newspapers in the minds of the British people. The only statement which Sir Louis Davies complains of is that which I made. He does not complain of what may have been reported by this or that newspaper, for whose reports I am not responsible.
Well, all I have to say to-day is this, that for six months the Canadian commissioners, acting as British plenipotentiaries, endeavoured patiently and assiduously, but in vain, to have this question settled between the British and American governments on the same basis of action as the Venezeula dispute. I have been accused in the public press of having been indiscreet because I told the truth. Why, a similar statement was made to this House at least three times by the right hon. the Prime Minister. If therefore I have been indiscreet, the right hon. gentleman has been equally guilty. More than that, the hon. gentleman not only made a statement similar to mine, but on the 5th of June, 1899, he laid before the House protocol 63 of the Anglo-American Commission, in which it is shown that a proposal had been made by the British plenipotentiaries to have the Alaskan boundary dispute settled by an arbitratlve tribunal, as was done in the Venezuela dis-1
Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: pute, that the American commissioners refused this offer and made a counter proposition, and that when the British plenipotentiaries reported that they could not accept this counter proposal, the whole thing was left in the hands of the American and British governments.
I think the Prime Minister is loyal enough to say that, in this matter, I am not going one iota beyond the statements that have been made by himself, made by common agreement between Mr. Fairbanks, the president of the American commission, and the right hon. gentleman, acting as chairman of the commission, Lord Her-schell being sick. Therefore, I am accused of indiscretion, a few gentlemen in this House and a few newspapers want to lay upon my shoulders-that have been accustomed to scuh treatment for two years and a half-the full burden of what is the fault, or rather the alleged fault of others. But I contend that there is no fault. I have always stated, on the only two occasions when I have referred to the Anglo-American Commission, that the Canadian commissioners did the best they could in the interests of Canada ; they made the best fight it was possible to make to protect Canadian Interests. But what I say, and what I am supported by the testimony of the Prime Minister in saying, is that when they thought it impossible to get any settlement of the question from the commission, they handed it over to the British government. And then what did we see ? Three months after it was handed over to the British government, one of the British plenipotentiaries told us that he had been obliged to take means to dissipate prejudices aroused in the minds of the British authorities, to whom our case was committed, by articles appearing in the American press. Sir Louis Davies does not deny that some things were said to the press,' but he objects to these being called interviews. I do not care what name is used ; what I am interested in is the fact and the result. And in the letter which I have read, Sir Louis Davies makes the admission. He says that the American correspondents in Washington and New York of the English papers transmitted, during that summer, letters and cablegrams giving a very perverted and incorrect view of Canada's claims and position. And he says, ' I did what I could to dissipate this prejudice.' He does not even go so far as to say that he actually dissipated the prejudices, and we have now the proof that this prejudice has not been dissipated.
I have said nothing that is not now repeated in the letter written to me by Sir Louis Davies. After the adjournment of the Anglo-American Commission, the whole settlement of this question, so far as Canada's interests were concerned, was put in the hands of gentlemen who preferred being prejudiced by articles written by American correspondents of newspapers rather than

81S
take the case laid before them by Lord Hersckell and our own Canadian representatives.
It has been said, X do not exactly know where, by some excited or erratic individual, that I calumniated Lord Herschell. Sir, I never uttered a word regarding Lord Herschell but once. In 1899, in the debate on the address, at the opening of the first session following the adjournment of the commision, I spoke about Lord Herschell. This is what I said :
1 consider the sad death of Lord Herschell as heavy a loss to Canada, as it is to Great Britain. His very appointment was a great favour and a high compliment to Canada, as well as an acknowledgment of our independence. One of the most eminent jurists of this century, a straight opponent of the present English administration, and therefore out of political office, the presence of Lord Herschell on the commission meant that the whole political direction of the negotiations was left to the Canadian commissioners, who were given the help of a great legal mind and the moral and constitutional support of Great Britain. And the American commissioners understood it ; they saw clearly that in Canadian matters they must deal with the Canadian people, behind which stands the British flag, not as a forced protection1 to a flock of slaves, but as a free help to free men1.
Mr. Speaker, I have changed my mind on some of the things I said then. I was full of hope. I was impressed by the deliberations of that commission, and I had full confidence that, with the good case so ably made by Lord Herschell, and after the energetic efforts made by our own representatives, we could count on the British authorities to show as much zeal In the interests of Britain's loyal colony of Canada as they had shown in the case of Venezuela. I was justified in making that statement then. I have now a good deal to withdraw so far as the British government is concerned. But so far as rendering a testimonial to the ability and zeal and devotedness which were displayed by Lord Herschell, in the case of Canada, I have nothing to withdraw. My opinion of Lord Herschell is the same to-day as it was then. And, if any man says I calumniated I.ord Herschell, then it only shows that in the British-Canadian dictionary, there still needs to be retained, as a living and useful expression, the word ' Tupperisin.'
It has been stated also-I do not know where, for I have been absent for eight day's, but I have been told that it has been stated-that I had been very indiscreet in disclosing the secrets of the Anglo-American Commission ; that, time and again in the province of Quebec, I made declarations about it which showed me to be an excited and erratic individual. I hope I shall always be an excited and erratic individual in that case, for the moment I become composed and judicial, as some of the hon. gentlemen who have spoken on this matter believe themselves to be, I suppose I shall be
free to discourse in Tupperisms or Mou-keyisms. But, having such a bad reputation as I have, I am bound to remain within the limits of truth and discretion. As a matter of fact, I have never opened my mouth on the subject of the Anglo-American Commission. I acted as secretary to that Commission, and I perfectly understood what my duties were, just as I understand what my duties are to-day. For two years I was perfectly silent, though I was beginning to perceive what was going on. I was waiting for the moment when public facts known to the whole people of Britain, as well as the whole people of Canada, would allow me as a Canadian representative, to state, on the floor of this House-where I have the right to speak in the Canadian interests as well as anybody else-what was the true position of Canada. But, since the case of Canada was handed over to the British authorities, not one inch of progress has been made. What is my authority for this ? Is it taken from the deliberations of the commission ? Not at all; it is taken from the repeated statements of the Prime Minister. And my anticipations as to the betrayal-that may be considered too strong a word, then, if you prefer let us say the abandonment-of our rights by the government of Great Britain, are merely those that were expressed in this parliament by the late leader of the opposition, Sir Charles Tupper. I suppose I am not bound to be more loyal to Great Britain than that hon. gentleman was. On the 22nd of July, 1899, the late leader of the opposition, Sir Charles Tupper, read in this House the announcement that was made of the adjournment of the commission by Mr. Fairbanks and Sir Wilfrid Laurier acting respectively as the American and British presidents of the commission, and added : Those who have read the American papers, and those who have read the London 'Times,' know that a great deal of misapprehension has existed with regard to this question,, and that the steady and persistent efforts of the press of the United States of America to mislead the public mind on the question have been eminently successful in that country, and I regret to say too successful in Great Britain. . . . But I now come to a very important question, and that is the reluctance on the part of Her Majesty's government to do that with the United States that they would do with any other country in the world. I speak from intimate knowledge, and from my personal acquaintance and official association with both the great governing parties in England-because there were many changes of government while I held the position of High Commissioner, and I was necessarily thrown, in relation to these matters, into intimate association with both-when I say that from 1868, when I had occasion to deal with an important question relating to Canadian interests with Her Majesty's government, down to the present hour, I have been struck very forcibly with the unwillingness on the part of Her Majesty's government to allow any circumstance whatever to even threaten a col-' lision with the United States.

And so on. Well, Mr. Speaker, before this day I never uttered a word of blame against the British government in relation to this question, I never uttered a word of criticism upon the conduct of these negotiations. Contrary to what has been stated in this House and outside, I never opened my mouth, either in this House or elsewhere, giving a single word of what passed during the commission upon this question. The only time 1 referred to it was in 1899, just at the opening of the session, when we were told the deliberations of the commission would begin pretty soon, and I said I felt that in the hands of our commissioners our case was safe, and I hoped also it would be safe in the hands of the British government. Down to this session I have never said a word during all the time that comments were freely made by members on both sides of the House, and in the Canadian press, accusing at one time the British government, at another time the Canadian government, and at another time the United States government. During all that time I remained silent. But when I read this article published under the signature of the late Minister of Justice in the December number of the 'Empire Review,' I felt compelled to speak :
Canada is a great North American State. Her commerce is far greater in proportion to her population than that of the neighbouring republic. The construction of a Central American canal would he as much called for in her interest, as in that of the United States, and We shall never he content to submit to any other rule in respect to such a canal than that of perfect equality. This is what our neighbours asked for at the outset, and this is all they have a right to claim now.
The provisions of the Clayton-Buiwer treaty in this regard, are vital to Canada, and the government of the United Kingdom must not, for any political consideration, sacrifice the interests of Canada, and the future of the British Empire upon this continent.
And later on :
To give the United States possession of the canal, is practically to transfer the territory of Central America to that republic, contrary to the terms of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. We shall see by a further examination of the diplomatic correspondence upon this subject, how the principles by which they then claimed to have been governed in the adoption of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, and their adherence to a particular construction of that instrument have been departed from in the bolder pretensions which they have recently put forward. These,
I think, upon careful examination, will be found to be of such a character that to recognize them would be a greater menace to our security and future progress than any other matter of controversy that now presents itself for solution.
Not fifteen days bad elapsed after these lines were written over the signature of an adviser of the Crown in Canada, before we were told that the Clayton-Bulwer treaty had been sacrificed, that the interests of Canada -to use the words of the late Minister of Mr. BOURASSA.
Justice-had been sacrificed by the British government. Well, Sir, the least I expected was that the British government had done something in the way of securing compensation for Canada in return for the abandonment of its rights under the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. Therefore, when I heard the declaration of the Prime Minister that the Alaskan boundary question had not advanced one single iota, when I heard that the Clayton-Bulwer treaty had been abrogated without any protest having been made in relation to that question, when I remembered that the late Minister of Marine and Fisheries was obliged to admit, what we have now in evidence over his own signature-that it was sufficient for some American correspondents to write to the London papers in order to destroy, in the minds of the British officials, the results of six months' labour under the presidency of such an able and devoted man as Lord Hers-chell-I said to myself that it was time that we should know a little about it. I am sometimes told that I am an Anglophobe, that I am an anti-imperialist. I hope the time will come when it will be seen that my love for Great Britain, though perhaps not so bombastic, not so noisy, not so voluble as that of some whose expressions we have heard, still it is true. But I believe we can best prove our attachment and admiration to Great Britain by showing that we have as much national spirit as they have, and that when our interests are sacrificed we see clearly through the game. I think it is very important that this question should be cleared up. Within a few months the Prime Minister will be going to the foot of the Throne, and will lay at the feet of His Majesty a declaration of the unswerving fidelity and loyalty of his Canadian subjects, and in that respect the people of this country are a unit. I hope that in addition to that declaration he will also be able to point out to the British officials that the Canadian representatives understand their duty towards the Canadian people, and if this parliament is ready at any time to vote millions of dollars to assist some English cause elsewhere, at least a majority in this House are disposed to assure the British government that the Canadian people are determined to see their rights respected. I did not expect to go fully into these details ; but in summing up. I think I am justified in saying that the letter I have received from the late Minister of Marine and Fisheries and which I have just read to the House, is a full justification, not of the words I am reported to have used, but of the declaration I actually made, namely, that Sir Louis Davies was obliged to go to London in order to dissipate the prejudices that had been raised in the minds of the British officials by articles in American newspapers. I think it is important that it should be thoroughly known in tills country that the American newspapers

had more influence with the British govern^ ment than Lord Hersehell had, or the four representatives of the Canadian government.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: When my hon. friend (Mr. Bourassa) rose a few moments ago, I was under the impression that his object in speaking to the motion now before the Chair, was simply to rectify a statement which had been made by him, and to which exception had been taken by Sir Louis Davies. So far as that matter is concerned I do not propose now to do anything more than coniine myself to that issue. A few days ago I received this letter from Sir Louis Davies :
February 28, 1902.
My dear Sir Wilfrid,-I have been obliged to correct a most unjust and misleading statement made by Mr. Bourassa in the House of Commons with respect to my mission to England re the Alaska boundary line in 1899. I inclose you herewith a copy of the last letter I have written him in which I request him to make the necessary correction in the House, so as to put me straight with the country and with the officials in the Colonial Office, if any kind friends were to send them marked newspapers with Mr. Bourassa's statements. May I ask you, if Mr. Bourassa fails to make the proper explanation and correction, to do so for me at some convenient time, and if necessary, to read those passages of my letters giving his ctatement full contradiction. I have marked in pencil the passages.
Yours faithfully,



[Stage Direction]
At the same time Sir Louis Davies showed-me a copy of the letter he had addressed to Mr. Bourassa, in which he takes issue, not, I remind the House, with the words which have been attributed to him by the hon. member for Labelle, but with the construction which has been put upon them by the hon. member for Labelle. In that letter Sir Louis Davies writes as follows :
My dear Mr. Bourassa,-This morning I received your letter in answer to mine of the 21st instant, in which I asked you for your authority for making the extraordinary statement you were reported in the newspapers to have attributed to me in your speech in the House of Commons on your motion for papers in the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. This report stated that you 'then went on to credit Sir Louis Davies with making the statement that he had spent three months in London trying to get the officers of Mr. Chamberlain to take the part of Canada at the sitting of the Anglo-American Commission.
Then Sir Louis Davies goes on to say :
I am glad to find that you now repudiate the correctness of this report and send me as a correct statement of what you did say that ' I was obliged to pass three months in London to convince Mr. Chamberlain's officials that they should not side with the American government but with us.'
That is the statement which the hon. member for Labelle is stated to have made concerning Sir Louis Davies' action. This action was that he had been obliged to pass three months in London to convince Mr. Chamberlain's officials that they should not side with the American government but with us. In regard to this inference Sir Louis Davies says that the hon. member for Labelle is attributing an action to him that he never contemplated and never did. I think it would have been more in accordance with the fitness of things if the hon. member for Labelle had accepted the statement of Sir Louis Davies without any qualification. The hon. member for Labelle, however, thought he was justified in not accepting the correction which was made by Sir Louis Davies. He thought he was justified in persisting in attributing to Sir Louis Davies an action which Sir Louis Davies repudiates altogether. My hon. friend for Labelle stated that he was justified by three interviews which he said were published iu the Toronto ' Globe,' the Montreal 1 Gazette ' and the Montreal ' Herald,' in persisting in attributing to Sir Louis Davies an action which Sir Louis Davies altogether repudiates. Well, I must say to my hon. friend that for my part I think he is not at all justified in taking from these newspaper reports the inference which he has. First of all my hon. friend must admit himself that the report, or the despatch, from which he has quoted, did not purport to be an interview with Sir Louis Davies. I do not know how the newspaper man could have made that report, but at all events, the journalist who sent it to the ' Globe,' to the ' Gazette ' and to the ' Herald ' does not pretend that he is reporting the words of Sir Louis Davies, but an inference himself, and from that inference another inference is drawn by the hon. member for Labelle. I think that in public life this is hardly fair. My hon. friend says to-day that Sir Louis Davies might have corrected this ; but did not. Well, my hon. friend has been long enough in public life to know that if a public man were to undertake to correct all the misstatements made regarding him in the newspapers, life would hardly be worth the living. This is an age of enterprise, newspapermen are looking for news and we all know that a newspaperman will sometimes build up an argument or a fact out of very little and sometimes out of nothing at all, and I do not think my hon. friend is justified in assuming the correctness of the report because Sir Louis Davies failed to make a correction at the time.
Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I have said that I was basing my holding of that view upon another paragraph of the very letter which the right hon. gentleman has in his hand.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I will come to that presently. I must say, at all events, that my hon. friend has no foundation to attribute to Sir Louis Davies a statement

which Sir Louis Davies actually contradicts and repudiates. The statement is very flimsy, or no statement whatever. I think my hon. friend would have done better not to have built up any argument upon these newspaper reports. As to the paragraph to which my hon. friend comments upon, it is this :
The American correspondents of the English papers in Washington and New York had been transmitting during that summer letters and cablegrams to England giving a very perverted and incorrect view of Canada's claims and position, with respect alike to the main contention and the provisional boundary line then being established, and these telegrams would, no doubt, have had the effect of prejudicing Canada's case, if left unanswered. I did what I could to dissipate this prejudice.
That Sir Louis Davies should have done what he could to dissipate whatever prejudice might have been caused by the American newspapers was not only within his rights, but a duty which he owed to Canada while he was in England, but, because Sir Louis Davies undertook to contradict and dissipate the Impression which might have been created by the American newspapers certainly cannot warrant my hon. friend in stating, as he does in his letter, that Sir Louis Davies was obliged to pass three months in London to convince Hr. Chamberlain's officials that they should not side with the American government, but with us. Certainly, there is no correction, and it is most unfair to Sir Louis Davies to persist in attributing to him statements which he never made. I have no intention of saying anything further upon this matter, but I submit to my hon. friend that in public life, when we are daily called upon to comment upon the actions and sayings of each other, when a public man of the honour and respectability of Sir Louis Davies makes a statement, it ought to be accepted without any further comment upon it, without being qualified at all, and without question.
One word more about another matter. The other day I was quite surprised, if I may be permitted to say so, because it is a matter of some importance, when I heard the reference made by the hon. member for Pictou (Sir Charles Hibbert Tapper) as to certain allusions which lie said had been made by the hon. member for Labelle unfavourable to the memory of the late Lord Herschell. I am bound'to say, in the presence of the hon. member for Labelle,, and I am sorry I cannot say it also in the presence of the hon. member for Pictou, that to my knowledge the hon. member for Labelle is absolutely guiltless in this matter. I have never heard any statement made by him disparaging to the memory of Lord Herschell. I may say that of the hon. member for Labelle, although it is not necessary for me to offer any defence of him, but since the memory of the late Lord Herschell


Sic WILFRID LAURIER.: has been mentioned, I am only too glad to testify for myself, as has also been done by my colleagues, to the great loss which Canada has suffered in the death of Lord Herschell, and to the great service which he rendered to Canada while he was chairman of the British side of the commission. The public do not know, and unfortunately ihe Canadian public will never know, the extent of the service which he then rendered to Canada, and the ability he displayed in defence of our rights. No Canadian could Have shown more zeal than he did for the cause of Canada, and no man, to whatever nationality he might belong, could have done it more effectively than he did at Washington and Quebec.


John Graham Haggart: Mr. Speaker, in reference to this extraordinary debate, something that I never had the honour of hearing before in this House of parliament, when an hon. member gets up, the rules of the House allowing him to make a personal explanation, and enters into a controversy as to whether a statement made by a gentleman outside of this House, occupying a dignified position, is correct or not, I desire to say a word or two. The right hon. leader of the government, whose duty it is to look after the rules of the House and draw your attention, Hr. Speaker, to any breach of these rules, as it is your duty, Sir, to maintain the rules, never stopped that hon. gentleman (Mr. Bourassa) until an hour had elapsed in discussing a question as foreign to the proceedings of this House as anything could be.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Will the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) allow me to interrupt him ? I did not interrupt the hon. member for Labelle, because, on a motion to go into Supply, the hon. gentleman was within his rights in discussing anything he wanted to discuss. He might discuss the empire of China, or the empire of Japan, or anything that he might desire to bring to the attention of the House.


John Graham Haggart: I thought the hon. member for Labelle got up to make a personal explanation.


The PRIME MINISTER.: He got up on the motion to go into Supply.


John Graham Haggart: Well, if there is a motion to go into Supply I shall discuss the question fully, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Labelle made a statement to this House the other day. He was secretary of a commission appointed by the Imperial authorities for the purpose of considering one of the most important subjects that could have been referred to it, the settlement of disputes between us and the United States, and for the purpose of arranging, if possible, trade relations between these two countries. He was cognisant of the proceedings of that commis-

sion. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bourassa) shakes his head, but I will quote the words he uttered in this House. He said :
But what happened after that ? One of the Canadian ministers, who was on that occasion one of the British plenipotentiaries, the late Minister of Marine and Fisheries, Sir Louis Davies, went to London and passed three months there. For what purpose ? He was candid enough to tell us when he came back from England that after the Anglo-American Commission had sat for six months, after they were supposed to have had at their back the influence of the British government, he. Sir Louis Davies, was obliged to pass three months in London to convince Mr. Chamberlain's oflicials that they should not side with the American government, but with us. Sir, I think that was a most unfortunate statement, but I think it was just as well that it should have been made. It is true that it made known to the public of the United States that in dealing with the government of Canada they were not dealing with the British authorities. But it is just as well tlffit the public of the United States and the public of Canada should know that while profuse compliments were being paid to us in the newspapers of Great Britain and by the speeches of public men in the British parliament, still, when it came to the point of helping the Canadian cause, the British officials sided with a foreign government.
Now, the right hon. Prime Minister was present when the hon. member for La-belle (Mr. Bourassa) made that statement-


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: It is true that we are ou a motion to go into Committee of Supply, but the rule applies on that motion as well as on others, that a past debate must not be referred to. I must admit that so far this debate has been conducted somewhat irregularly, and consequently I do not like to interfere with the discussion on which the hon. member (Hon. Mr. Haggart) has entered. I trust, however, that this will not be considered as a precedent.


John Graham Haggart: The statement was made on the floor of this House that six months after this commission met, certain proceedings occurred before that commission, and Sir Louis Davies was sent home for the purpose of pressing Canada's view on the Imperial government, but that Canada was not supported by the Imperial authorities. The hon. member (Mr. Bour-assa) says that such a statement was made previously by Sir Louis Davies, and by the right hon. Prime Minister, and we have the fact that the Prime Minister when speaking to-day never denied the charge of the hon. member (Mr. Bourassa), that the action of the commission was not Supported by the Imperial government. The hon. member for Labelle told us that in making that statement he was only repeating what Sir Louis Davies and what the Prime Minister had previously said.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. I rise to a point of order. I have never stated either in this debate or in any other debate, that the action of the
Anglo-American Commission during its sittings was not supported by the British government. Never did I make that statement to-day nor on any other day. What I have stated is, that after the case was laid in the hands of the British government, the British government took such action that one of our commission was obliged to go there to dissipate their prejudices. That was tlie only statement I have made.


John Graham Haggart: I quite understand the fine point which the hon. gentleman has made. He did not state in this House that anything occurred before the commission, or that the commissioners appointed by the Imperial authorities or any of them, had not supported the contentions of Canada ; but that some things which had been recommended by that commission were pressed upon the British Imperial government by Sir Louis Davies, and had not received the sanction or support of that government.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Hear, hear.


John Graham Haggart: Is not that what you said, Sir ?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Yes, that is right.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bourassa) says that he has not published that for the first time, but he was secretary of that commission, he knew the facts, he knew all the circumstances and whether or not it was the opinion of Sir Louis Davies and the Prime Minister, he had at all events given that statement his imprimatur when he quoted it.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I do not want to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but I must remind him that I was not acting as secretary when that occurred. My action as secretary ceased the day of the adjournment at Washington some time in February, 1899, while the matters which I have been referring to did not happbn until six months after.


John Graham Haggart: I am glad to hear the explanation of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bourassa) because I thought he was secretary of that commission at this very moment.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I am officially, but I mean actually. Since that I have never acted.


John Graham Haggart: Oh.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I am the secretary theoretically, if you prefer the word.


John Graham Haggart: We will not consider it a precedent. I believed myself that the whole discussion was out of order, and I drew attention to it, but the Prime Minister stated that on going into Supply we had a right to discuss all these matters.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Not a previous debate.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) was discussing a past debate.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: We can discuss, even a question which has been previously discussed, on a motion to go into Supply, but we must not refer to a previous debate. I am sorry to have to say that the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) went a little too far in that regard. Not only did he give a personal explanation, but he entered into a discussion of the matter. I therefore do not like to stop the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) in his argument, but I would ask that this should not be taken as a precedent.


John Graham Haggart: Oh, am I to understand that you have acted in a dual capacity, first as Imperial secretary and then as Canadian secretary ? At present the hon. gentleman is secretary of that commission he tells us, and we would like to know whether he is the Canadian secretary or the Imperial secretary. However, that does not bear on my argument. What I have stated is, that the hon. member (Mr. Bourassa) as secretary of that commission had full knowledge of the proceedings, and the very fact of his repeating what Sir Louis Davies said, gives that statement the imprimatur of the secretary. We should know about this. There is something which was pressed on the Imperial authorities and of which we have no knowledge whatever. Now, what is that ? Let us hear of it. We are entirely in the dark as to what contention was made by Sir Louis Davies and the commissioners. The other day the hon. member (Mr. Bourassa) made a statement in this House which was thought so important that a denial was obtained from Sir Louis Davies, one of the Supreme Court judges, and we witnessed the extraordinary spectacle of the Prime Minister, who is a member of the commission, sitting still in his seat and not offering a word of contradiction.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Contradict what 1


John Graham Haggart: The hon. member for Labelle made the statement that the Imperial government had refused to sanction some of the wishes and some of the aspirations that a majority of the commission had urged upon the commission for the purpose of settling our claim.


The PRIME MINISTER.: He never said that.


John Graham Haggart: And, he said that instead of supporting the Canadian view of the case the British authorities took a contrary attitude. That was the statement of the hon. member for Labelle, and that statement was not denied by the Prime Minister. The right hon. gentleman said that Canadian interests were not always safe in Im-


John Graham Haggart: perial hands, that we had been treated badly in the past, and he hoped we would not be so treated in the future, and he left the inference that as in the past we had been badly treated in our dealings with the United States, there was very little prospect of our receiving better treatment in the future. He led us to believe that it was a question of such importance and that it had reached such a crisis that we had better wait for two or three years for the purpose of having our rights adjudicated upon unless we were disposed to go to war on the subject. He had the despatch of Lord Lansdowne stating : ' We will not consent to the abrogation of the Clayton-Bul-wer treaty unless you settle the claims of Canada in regard to the Alaskan boundary.' With that declaration before him, made publicly to the whole world in the despatch of Lord Lansdowne, the right hon. gentleman was silent. But the hon. member for Labelle has let the cat Out of the bag. I doubt very much if there was even a protest made. I do not know that our interests were at all represented or that any communication on the subject was sent to the British government; because, if it had been, in view of the remarks of Lord Salisbury and Lord Lansdowne, no government which would consent to the abrogation of that treaty without making some provision for the settlement for the claims of Canada could continue to exist in England. There may be something in the background-I hope there is. It may be that the Imperial government, notwithstanding their consent to the abrogation of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, have had some understanding on the subject. We have no statement from hon. gentlemen opposite whether they made a representation on the subject or not. All we know is from the published statement of their late Minister of Justice in certain magazine articles, on which the London ' Times ' commented, commending the contention of the Minister of Justice. But I trust in the justice of the Imperial government. I have great belief in the power of the aegis which that mighty government flings over us, and it may be that they did not consent to the abrogation of such an important treaty as the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, in which we have such great interests involved, without having some understanding, perhaps not by treaty but onlv by word of mouth, for the settlement of these difficulties. At any rate, the public of Canada have a right to know our position in reference to these matters, and I hope we may be informed of it in a short time.


Mr. JOHN CHARLTON (North Norfolk).: Mr. Speaker, I consider the discussion now before the House a proper time for maki ig a few remarks with regard to the conduct of the Imperial government towards Canada. The idea is liable to go forth that an impression prevails in this House on the

part of a considerable portion of its members, and also in this country, that Great Britain has been guilty of neglect of the interests of this Dominion, and has come short of her duty in regard to promoting and maintaining those interests. I consider, Mr. Speaker-and I think I am warranted in making my belief public at this time-that such a charge at this time against the British authorities is entirely unjust. There have been a great many criticisms indulged in, at present and in the past, with regard to England's failure to maintain our interests, and it has been asserted tiiat in many cases she has been outwitted by American diplomats. It is well to bear in mind that Great Britain has world-wide interests. It is a mighty empire with interests in every clime and every hemisphere ; and Great Britain is unable to take exclusive cognisance of the interests of one colony alone, but in the management of her policy must be governed by broad considerations. It may be necessary at times for her to take a course which would not be taken if the interests of one special corner of her dominions were alone to be considered. I believe that on the whole England's management of the affairs of Canada has been all that could be expected-has been all that she could maintain for us. I remember when a boy there was an old controversy about our northern boundary. The American contention was for a boundary line on the 54-40th line of latitude. I remember that one of the battle cries of the great presidential contest of 1840, when I was a mere boy, was, ' 54 -40 or fight! ' This was inscribed on political banners all over the United States. Well, I consider it a very great triumph of British diplomacy that the boundary was secured at the 49th parallel instead of at 54-40. If the American contention had prevailed at that time, the great Canadian North-west, which is the future hope of this Dominion, would have been worthless to us, because we would have lost nearly 400 miles in width from north to south of the southern portion of that territory. At a previous time we had the boundary line of Maine settled. It has always been asserted that we were beaten on that occasion. Well, the American contention was that they were entitled to the southern shore of the St. Lawrence as their boundary, and the selection of the line which was selected was a compromise. Whether we got all we were entitled to or not, I am quite sure that Lord Ashburton succeeded in getting all that 't was possible to get, and that the interests of Canada in that settlement were as fully cared for as possible.
In reference to this Clayton-Bulwer treaty, which has been the subject of discussion here, and about which my hon. friend the late Minister of Justice has furnished communications to British periodicals, that treaty has been abrogated. I believe that the consent of the British authorities to the abrogation
of that treaty was good policy. I do not believe it was necessary to keep open a source of irritation which was in danger of bringing the two nations to the verge of *war, and I am quite certain that the new treaty is one which in a broad sense is advantageous to British interests. I remember speaking to Lord Pauncefote at Washington the day after the treaty was signed, and that eminent diplomat stated to me that there was no incident in the course of his whole diplomatic life which had afforded him so much gratification as the fact that he had been instrumental in setting at rest difficulties between the two governments which had threatened to lead to the most serious consequences. It has been maintained that we should have special rights in this canal. We have rights which the British government have deemed sufficient for Great Britain. The American people are of course more intimately connected with and more intimately interested in that canal than any other people. It is practically an extension of their coast line from the Atlantic to the Pacific. We have not the same intimate interest in the canal which they have, but we have all the advantages which any neutral power has. I believe we are making an unnecessary amount of fuss about the abrogation of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. I believe that the British government has in this matter been governed by broad and high considerations and did what was best under the circumstances. I have no sympathy with these criticisms of the British government. We have no ground for complaint against that government. We have had the protection of its army and navy, and the use of its consular and diplomatic corps without cost, ever since we have had existence as a Dominion. On every occasion the British authorities have shown the most friendly feeling and the most earnest desire to protect our interests, and while Great Britain may not have on all occasions done all that we desired, yet she has done all that it was possible to do in our interest.
So far as this Alaskan boundary question is concerned, it is unnecessary to say that our contentions are well founded and those of the Americans not tenable in our opinion. But that is a matter which is pending now. We cannot open this question. The government are not in a position to take the House and the country into its confidence. If it were to do so, that would have a most pernicious and prejudicial effect on the progress of the negotiations. I think that the position of the government is unassailable. It has pursued the proper policy, and the criticisms levied against it are not well founded.


Mr. SPROULE.: I do not understand the contention to be that we are dissatisfied because England abrogated the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, but because it was abrogated without any settlement of the Alaskan boundary dispute. That was the contention put



forward by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell), and not that he was dissatisfied with the abrogation of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. He said, what every one will admit, that we have as great interests both on the Atlantic and the Pacific as the United States, because our territory extends to both these oceans, and is quite as large as the United States. Therefore, anything that affects the interests of the one in this matter must also affect the other.
But what I rose to refer to more particularly is the keeping back of papers which ought to have been before us long ago.
The Joint High Commission was appointed in 1898. It carried on its operations from time to time, during six months, and practically, so far as we know-and we glean that information from the remarks of the hon. the First Minister last fall at Montreal-it will never meet again, We are further told by the secretary of that commission that he has long ceased to be its secretary. If the statement of the premier be accurate, then all these papers and correspondence should have been before this House long ago. Without these documents we are unable to judge of what has been done or criticise it intelligently, and yet, on one pretext or another, they are refused. In view of the announcement which was made by the First Minister, it seems to me that these papers should have been before us long ago. Until they are before us neither this House nor the people will be satisfied that Canada's interests have been defended as they should have been.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into committee.
Dominion public building, Manitoba-Renewal improvements, repairs, &c., ?5,000.
Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER.: How much has been spent ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon. J. Israel Tarte).: Two thousand four hundred and fifty-eight dollars.


Mr. PUTTEE.: This is an exceedingly modest item for Manitoba, where there is great necessity for public buildings. The business of the city has increased so much that the public service is hampered through lack of accommodation. Our accommodation has not been increased for a good many years, and I am sure that the Minister of Customs and the Postmaster General will be able to show the Minister of Public Works that the business in their departments has been more than doubled in the last few years. The population of Winnipeg has practically doubled between the two censuses, and the last month's returns from the Customs Department are 30 per cent higher from those of February of last year. This matter has been brought to the attention of the hon. minister several times.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My attention has been called by the board


Thomas Simpson Sproule: of trade and other people to the position of affairs in Winnipeg. I quite appreciate what my hon. friend has said, but Winnipeg, like Montreal, Toronto and other places, has not so far been able to get all that it requires. We will have to grapple with the situation, which I admit requires a remedy.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Does Winnipeg come into the category of those places not entitled to the favour of the government 1 That is to say, in regard to the representative of Winnipeg in this House, is he entitled to demand, if not favours, justice, in the way of the expenditure of public money ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have the greatest regard for the representative of Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee). He is one of the representatives of the labour element, and any representations he makes to me are received with the consideration that I always entertain towards the labour element. Now, my hon. friend (Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper) is altogether wrong in stating his views as mine. I am prepared to stand by what I have said, but I do not like to have him attribute to me things that I have never said and opinions that I do not entertain.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: The hon. minister is aware that many of those who sit in this House represent more working people, perhaps, than does the hon. member for Winnipeg. Is it a question of whether one represents working people or whether one supports or opposes the government ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: With me, there is no other question than justice and fairness.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Then, the hon. gentleman has turned over a new leaf.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The new leaf is not a bad one, neither was the old one.


Arthur W. Puttee: I have placed the position of Winnipeg before the minister purely on the actual demands of the public service. As far as we in the west are concerned, we see that the time that has been talked of for years, the new time with us, is practically dawning. This year has shown that we are entering upon the .era of prosperity and incoming population that has been talked of. I am sure the hon. minister will understand that the public service in Winnipeg demands further accommodation in the matter of buildings. As to what the hon. gentleman (Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper) says concerning the support and non-support of the government, I believe he understands that, so far as I am concerned, these matters make no difference. I am prepared to deal with this government or any other government solely on their action and their merits.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: I understand that this item is to be expended on public buildings not merely in Winnipeg but in Brandon and other places. Is the hon. minister able to tell us what portion will be spent on the basis of day's labour and what on the basis of public tender and contract ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It will be all by day's labour, as the amounts are very small.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: What is the largest amount the minister has in view ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: An expenditure on the custom-house, of $933.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Will that be by day's labour ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.
Mr. SPItOULE. Judging by the figures given in the Auditor General's Report, which show only a number of small expenditures, the buildings must be in fairly good repair. The same thing would be indicated by the fact that we see here in the estimates ' appropriations not required for 1902-1903, $17,900.'


Mr. McCREARY.: I was rather surprised when I saw this sum of $5,000 in the estimates as the total that was going to be spent in the province of Manitoba next year for Dominion public buildings. When we compared that $5,000 with the amount to be expended in other provinces, even, judging on the basis of population, it will be seen that we are very small potatoes indeed.


An hon. MEMBER.: The buildings are in good' condition.


William Forsythe McCreary: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon, the buildings are not in good condition. I know the Dominion immigration hall at AVinnipeg pretty well, and I know that it is certainly not in good condition. The Dominion immigration hall should be reserved entirely for foreign immigrants, and for British immigrants there should be a new building distinct and apart from it. The best class of immigrants do not care to go into the Dominion immigration hall. I am not afraid to say that, because I know it. Every year, about March or April, there are some contagious diseases, and the building is in such a condition that it is almost impossible to keep it as it should be kept. What I did two years ago, was to rent a building on the edge of the river, which happened to be vacant, and put the British immigrants there, reserving them a place for themselves. The consequence was that we got the best class. Not only the steerage passengers, but the intermediate passengers went to that building, and they were quite content. Why ? Because it was a good 27
place for them to stay. AA'e had it fitted up with beds so that the people could have a rest. As I understand it, the Dominion immigration halls at Quebec, Halifax and other places are fitted up splendidly, with beds provided and every accommodation. Much more is this required in the Dominion immigration hall at Winnipeg. When the immigrant crosses from the seaboard he likes to rest over at Winnipeg for a day or even two or three days. They are weary with their journey, the children are exhausted, and they like to get a good rest. The immigration hall should be fitted up much better than it is. With regard to the post office building at Winnipeg, I know something about that because I live in the city, and a great number of my constituents come to the city for their mail as my constituency touches the city on three sides embracing such parishes as Kildonan and St. James and part of Rockwood. The Winnipeg post office is almost a disgrace. The revenue of that post office makes it the third in the Dominion, yet I have seen, at the general inquiry wicket an average of eight or ten people waiting their turn to ask for mail matter. The first floor of that building is entirely too small. This year land should be bought, even if the building of an extension is not carried on at once. On Main St., property is going up so rapidly that, if it continues at the present rate it will double in a little over a year. Property that was bought by Messrs. Osier, Hammond and Nanton at $600 a foot-50 feet of it, not on a corner-was sold to certain parties for $1,000 a foot almost spot cash, and a building is to be erected upon it fifteen stories high. That land is almost opposite the post office. The banks, wholesale houses and other enterprising institutions are buying real estate and erecting large buildings. I would urge upon the minister that, before the property gets too valuable, a site should be secured either alongside the post office, or in rear of it, and a new building erected, and then remove the custom-house, inland revenue office and the land office and centralize them all in one place. The Dominion government should keep pace with the progress that is being made there and be ready to meet the wishes of the people.


Mr. CLARKE.: Has any representation been made to the Minister of Public Works as to the unsatisfactory state of the Dominion immigration building in AVinnipeg ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC AVORKS.: I do not remember any other representations having been made to me. My hon. friend must not forget that I am only a builder. That immigration building is under the care of the Minister of the Interior. AVhen he wants repairs and applies to me, I make them, but I do not remember having received any application for another building.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is a building rented for the accommodation of those immigrants of British origin, or are they herded along with the foreign elements ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I see the hon. gentleman is urging the erection of another building.


Edward Frederick Clarke: If we want additional accommodation. Has a building been rented for the purpose of providing accommodation for the British immigrants there?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If one has been rented, it was not done by my department. I have none under my charge. I don't know whether my engineer has rented a building.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If there is any necessity for an additional building or enlargement of a present one, would not application therefor be made by the Minister of the Interior to the Department of Public Works ?


The SIINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And no application has been made ?


Tie SIINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Not that I remember, and not that my officers remember.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: I suppose if new buildings were erected it would devolve on the Department of Public Works to look after them, light them, pay water rates, and so on ?


The SIINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, all that; except that in some cases the Militia Department take care of their own buildings.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Who is clerk in Winnipeg ?


The SIINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Sir. Cyr is in charge for the province.
Public Works-North-west Territories-Carn-duff court-house, $3,000.


The SIINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The site has been purchased from the Canadian Pacific Railway Company for $440, and a contract has been awarded to a firm in Brandon, Slanitoba, for the sum of $5,238.40.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: I thought the minister had concluded to do these small works by day labour ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I made up my mind it was better in this case to give the contract after tender. I never said I would carry out every work by day labour.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: The hon. gentleman did not bind himself to do so, but if I remember rightly he expressed sympathy with the views of some hon. gentlemen in this House who were of the opin-


Hon. Mr. TARTE.: ion that where the amount was small the government could save money by doing the work directly under the supervision of the department.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In this case I thought it was better to call for public tenders. It is a far away place, and I did not know any one there.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much is this building likely to cost ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: With furniture, &c., we expect it will cost $9,000. The item we are now discussing will complete the work. The lowest tender was accepted, and the contract is to be completed on the 15th of July, of the present year.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I would like to know if the minister has adopted any plan or rule as to what work shall be done by day labour, and what work by contract, or whether all new works of construction are to be done by contract ? Are there any particular classes of buildings that the department construct by contracts, and are there any other classes where the department adopts the rule of constructing them by day labour ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: As a rule we erect all new public buildings by tender and contract. There are very few exceptions. I do not remember any case where a new public building has been erected otherwise than by contract.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: In the Department of Marine and Fisheries I think they still continue the practice of building lighthouses by day labour. I think the rule was that where the work cost less than $10,000, that was the better plan of doing the work, and they had an official, Mr. Noble, who had charge of these works in the different provinces. That rule, I understand, has been abandoned in the Department of Public Works.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Would my hon. friend advocate such a rule ? I would like to have his views.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: 1 practiced that rule, though not absolutely. I referred to the experience of the department, which I think has been continued, and I mentioned the name of the gentleman whose time was wholly occupied in supervising the construction of these lights. My inquiry was as to whether such a rule still obtains. I understand it does not In the Department of Public! Works.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood the minister to say the other day that in his experience most public works could be carried out quite as well by day labour as under contract, and he gave as an illustration the

building of his dredges at Sorel, and the building and repair of harbours. Now he seems to have come to another conclusion, and he thinks the proper course is to let the work by contract. If it is a proper course to pursue to let the erection of a building by tender, although it may only cost $5,000 or $6,000, surely, by the same parity of reasoning, the same oughUto apply to the building of a wharf or a'wessel. I can understand why it might not apply in the case of the government operating a shipyard of its own, but in a hundred and one instances the minister has adopted this system of doing work by day's labour, and he defended it the other night on the ground that the contract system, was, in his experience considerable of a failure.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It has not been a failure in every case. Public buildings have been erected by contract. Most of the important works have been constructed by contract also. I am constructing some smaller works by day's labour. I may say in all frankness that doing work by contract gives a minister a good deal less trouble, as all those who have been in office will admit, but there are works that cannot possibly be given by contract and it was while discussing these works a few days ago that I said what the hon. gentleman for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) has alluded to. The repairing of a public building cannot possibly be done by contract because you never know in advance the quantity of work you must carry out. Works of repairs cannot be done by contract.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Small repairs.
The MINISTER OF1 PUBLIC WORKS. Yes, you cannot do them in that way. As to larger works, while I spoke the other day very much from a theoretical standpoint, I would say it is necessary for a prudent man to have a good foreman when he makes up his mind to do work by day's labour. Unless he has a good foreman, I would not advise any one to undertake public work by day's labour.
Mr; CLARKE. It was stated the other day that the practice of some municipalities was to do municipal work by day's labour and that it had been found to work out fairly satisfactorily. I may say frankly that under proper conditions I am very much in favour of work being done by day's labour, but I want to point out that the methods adopted by the government are not such as to enable that system to be tried as fairly and successfully as it ought to be done. The municipalities that I have any knowledge of which have adopted the day's labour system ask for tenders for all the supplies that they require for a municipal work or service that they undertake to do by day's labour. That practice does not 27i
apply in the department of the hon. gentleman, or in the department of any of his colleagues. If they desire to strangle the system of doing work by day's labour they will persist in the course they have pursued. If the best possible results are to be obtained, why not take a leaf out of the book of the municipalities, why not ask for public competition to supply the government that purports to do work by day's labour with the best materials procurable at the lowest possible price ? The plan which the hon. Minister of Public Works has adopted in carrying out public works by day's labour is not to call for public tenders for the supplies that are required, but rather to give orders here and there to political friends. And then, in the selection of workmen to do this work, no municipality that I know of would confine the giving of employment to men of one political stripe. Why should workingmen who do not agree with the hon. Minister of Public Works, or who may not agree with any political party, be deprived of the right to receive a reasonable amount of employment on public works ? They will have to contribute their share towards the cost and maintenance of these public works and the plan adopted now is a plan designed to militate against the development of the principle of doing government work by day's labour. If the hon. Minister of Public Works is really sincere, if he is honest in the desire to give a fair trial to that system, he must amend his methods considerably. I take it that the hon. minister is honest in striving to apply that principle to all of these small works, but I would point out to him most respectfully that he is doing that principle or system of doing work a very great injury. If he is really sincere he must in future purchase supplies by public tender and he must not confine the giving of employment to men who are to be engaged to do this work by day's labour, of one political stripe. I ask the hon. minister if he has any plan as to the magnitude of the work to be done by day's labour; that is to say, if works that would cost a certain sum are to be' given by contract and works of less magnitude are to be done by day's labour ? There does not seem to be any plan now. Some works costing $3,000 or $4,000 may be Aone by day's labour and works involving an expenditure of a smaller sum may be done by contract. If the hon. minister would decide as to the magnitude of the work that may be done by day's labour and of that which may be done by contract, ask for supplies by public tender and not give employment to men of one political stripe only in carrying out that work, I am perfectly satisfied that much more satisfactory results would be obtained. I am not in favour of indiscriminately doing public work by day's labour as it has been done, but I am strongly in favour of giving the system of doing government work by day's labour a fair chance, and that is what I claim it has not been given by the hon. Minister of Public Works.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I am in a very peculiar position. The reproach has often been made to me by a good many of my political friends that I am still employing opponents of the present government. My hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) is unfair, though not knowing it, I am sure, when he seems to level at me the reproach of being altogether exclusive. May I be allowed to tell him just now that the addition which has been erected here by day's labour, has been under the control of one of my officers, not a permanent officer, who is a strong opponent of the present government.


An hon. MEMBER.: Turn him out.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: Turn him out, I am told. That is just the way. On one side the minister is told by his political friends to turn out everybody who is not in sympathy with him, and on the other hand, when he comes to the House, the opposition-it is fair warfare, and I have no complaint to make-tell him : Well, you are in office, but you have no right to exercise patronage in the interest of your own party. When we were in office we did not do anything of the kind, but do not do it now, if you please ! That is my position; between the two I try to be fair. I give a preference to my political friends, and it is my right and duty to do so, but I say that when I leave office I think I will be able to bear the testimony for myself that I have not cut off all the heads that others might have cut off. When an officer does his duty well he has a right to be protected, and he has a right to vote as he pleases. But my hon. friend will admit with me, that in a riding where a public work is going on, the preference has to be given to a large extent to political friends. Nobody would do anything else. As to the supplies, we buy upon quotations, as all firms do, and most of the time we ask for tenders. I suppose it is impossible to lay down a fixed rule in advance as to the works that can be carried out by day's labour. If you find a good foreman and material at hand, you can successfully carry out the work by day's labour.


Mr. CLANCY.: The minister has just demonstrated niat the contention advanced by this side of the House is well founded. He would have us believe that he does this solely for the interest of the working men, the words are scarcely cold on his lips when he tells us of the insuperable difficulties he encounters. I have no doubt of the hon. gentleman's goodness of heart, but I have very great doubt as to his strength to carry out his intentions. He knows very well that when he starts on the system of day's labour the work will be pounced upon and monopolized by his political friends. He does not pursue his course in the interest of the working men of Canada, but in the interest of the partisans of the government. Under our system that seems to be the rule, and personally I do not com-


Edward Frederick Clarke: plain at it, but I do complain of the hon. gentleman pretending that he has adopted this system in the interest of the working men, when we all know that he has adopted it in the interest of his political friends. The hon. gentleman says that he does his very best, but I can tell him that his best under such circumstances is worthless. When Contracts are let every man gets a chance of employment according to his merits, but when the work is done by day's labour it simply amounts to an unfair use of public patronage. The minister tells us that he gave this work to a man in his department who was a Conservative. Would he turn out that man because he was a Conservative ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I could have done it.


James Clancy: Oh, I suppose the hon. gentleman could, and I suppose he is astounded at his moderation because he did not do it, but I can tell him that if he did so, it would be adding another sin to the many he is guilty of.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am not guilty this time anyway.


James Clancy: I do not complain for one of the patronage going to the Liberals of this country under our present system, but I do complain of the minister claiming that he is benefiting the workingmen of Canada when he is simply benefiting his own partisans.


John Graham Haggart: On what authority did the Minister of Public Works erect a building costing over $5,000 without letting it out by contract ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I stated that the building had been erected under the supervision of a man who is a strong political opponent of purs.


John Graham Haggart: By day's labour ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes. It could not be done any other way.


John Graham Haggart: The minister must know that the law of the land prevents him from doing that.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.


John Graham Haggart: The statutory law makes it incumbent on you to give a contract for any building costing over $5,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is no law of that kind.


John Graham Haggart: There is an Order in Council which in a sense is higher than a statute, because it has been approved by the government itself. I have heard that principle contended for time and time again when the Liberals were in opposition, but perhaps they have disregarded their principles more in this than even in other matters. I always understood that we asked

the minister if the work would be given by contract whenever a vote was taken, but perhaps we did not do so in this case.
SIR CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER. Here is the Order in Council.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I know the Order in Council very well.


John Graham Haggart: This Order in Council states :
Order in Council, May 23rd, 1880. On a Joint memorandum, dated March 20th, 1880, from the Honourable the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Railways and Canals, recommending that hereafter all public works involving an expenditure of over $5,000 shall be let by public tender and contract, unless owing to urgency or other cause it be deemed advisable to take different action, and that in all such cases authority be obtained by an Order in Council.
Probably the Minister of Public Works did not even get an Order in Council passed. All expenditures such as this are illegal except in the case of a canal breaking or some work of emergency. The Minister of Public Works disregards Acts of parliament, Orders in Council and everything else. I do not know of any possible way of keeping him within the principles which were so earnestly advocated by his friends when in opposition. An Act of parliament won't do it, an Order in Council won't do it, and I don't suppose we can secure a vote of censure from the House on the conduct of the hon. minister.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not think that my hon. friend could get the censure of the House, because there is no ground for it. The hon. gentleman is altogether mistaken in his interpretation of the law. I invite him to read it; it is very clear :
The minister shall invite tenders by public advertisement for the execution of all works, except in eases of pressing emergency in which delay would be injurious to the public interest or in which from the nature of the work it can be more expeditiously and economically executed by the officers in the service of the department.
The minister is perfectly free.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What are you quoting from ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The Public Works Act.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. minister must see, if he reads it again, that it bears no such interpretation as he says. Unless it can be otherwise done better by the department-


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Of which the minister himself is the judge.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Certainly; if not, who is the judge ? But more than that there is an Order in Council, to which my hon. friend probably has meant
to allude, which provides that all works costing over $5,000, and done by contract must be advertised. I cannot give a contract for any work costing over $5,000 without advertising for tenders; but if I make up my mind to carry out by day's labour any work, whatever the cost may be, I am perfectly free to do it. Whenever I give a contract for a work costing over $5,000 without tender, I must go to my colleagues; but if I want to carry out any work by day's labour, I am perfectly free to do it, and it was done over and over again by the late administration. For instance, I have often cited the case of the post office and custom-house of St. John, New Brunswick, the work on, which cost over $200,000, and was done by day's labour.


John Graham Haggart: It was a case of emergency; the roof was burnt, and it had to be repaired.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Was there an Order in Council for the addition to this building ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, there was not, and it was not necessary. I did not give any contract for the work; I carried it out by day's labour, as I had a right to do.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: The hon. gentleman has just said that he has not the right to do it without an Order in Council where the cost exceeds $5,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am sorry I have not made myself understood. I cannot give a contract for over $5,000 without an Order in Council, but I can carry out by day's labour any work, whatever the cost may be, without any Order in Council. That is the law.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am not finding very particular fault with the Minister of Public Works for doing work by day labour; but I hold that the method he is adopting is not giving that system fair play. As one who desires to see the system of day labour more generally adopted, I protest that the method at present followed in the Public Works Department is not conducive to the continuance of that system. If the day labour system is to be successful, it must be divorced entirely from partisanship ; but that unfortunately has not been the case. If it is germane to this discussion, as we have the Minister of Labour in his seat now, I particularly ask the Minister of Public Works what he has to say of the circular or letter which was sent out by the Postmaster General when acting as Minister of Public Works two years ago to his political friends throughout the country, with regard to doing work by day labour or by contract. I find that a copy of the letter, which was sent by the Postmaster General to his political friends in March, 1900, is spread on ' Hansard ' of July 13, 1900.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I may say that I never read it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I will read two or three lines of it, and I want to know what the minister will do about it.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I will judge fairly.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am sure he will judge fairly between the Minister of Labour and the Postmaster General.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Is it long?
In case of any work not now under contract, but authorized by vote of parliament, please state whether you advise its being carried out by contract or by day's labour.
I want to know from the minister whether the advantage that a political party may obtain by work being done by day labour or by contract is the only one to be taken into consideration, or does he think that that method of doing work should be applied ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I want to read the whole letter. I cannot judge an important document of that kind without reading the whole of it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The gentleman wanted to know if it was a long letter, and I wished to spare him the reading of the whole of it. But I will read the whole of it. It is to be found in ' Hansard ' of 1900, at page 10,110 :
Ottawa, March 13, 1900. My dear Sir,-During Mr. Tarte's absence I have been requested to take charge of his department for him, and it would be of great service in enabling me to take up his work if you would kindly write me at your earliest convenience with reference to the following subjects :
1. For what works in your constituency has there been a parliamentary vote ?
. 2- Have these works been begun ? If so, in what state of progress are they ?
3.	If not begun, what is your advice as to whether or not they should be begun ?
4.	Are you asking for provision being made in supplementary estimates for :
(a)	New works ;
(b)	Carrying on or completion of works already authorized or begun ?
If so, what are your views :
(a)	As to sum required ;
(b)	As to what work should be performed ?
5.	In case of any work not now under contract, but authorized by vote of parliament, please state whether you advise its being carried out by contract or by day's labour.
Yours faithfully,


WM. MUuOCK.
The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: YY ell, I think it is a document that is worthy of attention. My hon. friend) was new to the Department of Public Works; be did not know the work of the department as well as I did, and be wanted information, Mr. CLARKE.
and I congratulate him on bis desire to do right.


Edward Frederick Clarke: And evidently he could not get any information in the department.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not see anything wrong in that document. My hon. friend the Postmaster General was simply asking for advice, as my hon. friend opposite would have done under similar circumstances.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Then the idea that has been disseminated most carefully by the hon. gentleman and his friends opposite, that they believe in this system of day labour, is not very well founded. Political exigencies evidently have guided them so far, and judging by the statement of the Minister of Public Works and the letter from the Postmaster General which I have just read, there is not much hope of any reform in that direction.


Mr. GANONG.: I had occasion last session to call attention to the manner in which a large public work in the county I have the honour to represent is being conducted. That public work has resolved itself into an immense political job, neither more nor less. This is easy accounted for by the frank statement which the minister has made to-day. He has told us in plain terms that preference would be given on government works to the political friends of the party in power. The hon. gentleman can certainly find no fault with the manner in which that principle is carried out on the work at Wilson's Beach. When an applicant asks for employment on this particular work, he is asked whether he paws with the right foot, and it would be interesting to learn from the hon. minister if that is another of the many graphic phrases which have made his name a household word. Well, if the applicant paws with the right foot, he gets the job. Otherwise be does not. If the bon. minister is responsible for this system of selection, if be has sent out a circular to ascertain how manv people down there paw with the right foot, I would ask him to take the House into his confidence and let us know.
, There have been considerable purchases of material in connection with this work, and I doubt whether in any single instance tenders have been called-for. In the Auditor General's Report, we find one purchase of timber exceeding $8,000 and another exceeding $2,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Were any tenders asked? Mr. GANONG. Not so far as we know. No doubt the parties who furnished this timber pawed with the right foot. Certainly the firm of T. McAvity & Sons, which furnished supplies to the extent of $1,342, comes within this category. Has the hon. gentleman sent out his mandate that only those who paw with the right foot will be given work on this breakwater ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: The letter contains a good many clauses, but I will only read the fifth clause :


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot gratify my hon. friend's curiosity [DOT]with regard to pawing by either the right or left foot, but I think the House will ,'ind that his indignation is rather out of place when I inform it that we asked for tenders on this work and did not receive any, consequently I had to carry on that work by day labour. I suppqse my hon. friend, if he had called for tenders and had not received any, would not have done the work either with his right or left foot. I, however, am doing the work with both feet and both hands.


Gilbert White Ganong: Were any tenders called for, in the case of the lumber and other supplies ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot say. Those are details that were left to the engineer.


John Graham Haggart: The Minister of Public Works put his own interpretation on the Order in Council. He says it only applies to contracts over $5,000 and does not apply to work done by day labour. The hon. gentleman is the first minister to venture to put that interpretation upon it. But what does he care about Orders in Council or Acts of parliament. They are not binding on him. The words in the Order in Council are as clear as possible :
On a joint memo, dated March 20th, 1880, from the Minister of Public. Works and the Minister of Railways and Canals, recommending that hereafter all public works involving an expenditure of over $5-,000 shall be let for public tender and contract, unless, owing to urgency or other cause, it be deemed advisable to take a different action, and in all such cases authority must be obtained by Order in Council.
The hon. gentleman says he never got such authority, but he puts up the plea that while he could not enter into a contract of over $5,000 without calling for tenders, he could employ day labour to any extent.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If the hon. gentleman would read the whole Order in Council, he would find that it deals solely with public tenders and contracts. That is a view which has always been acted upon both by myself and by predecessors. It is no use trying to interpret an Order' in Council by quoting only a part of it. The hon. gentleman knows very well that there is no difficulty in any minister carrying on a work by day labour or by contract if he makes up his mind to go to his colleagues.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: He gets an Order in Council.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That has never been done.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Always.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Never in the Department of Public Works. At any rate in the present instance, the
work has been given by public tender and contract.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: What was the deposit ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Ten per cent.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Who was the successful contractor ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Mr. Harrington.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: How were tenders called for ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: By advertisement in the newspapers.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: In what newspapers ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot say now. If my hon. friend wants to know whether the advertisements were put in the Conservative newspapers, I can tell him they were not.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: No, what I want to know is what opportunity was given the public to know that tenders were called for ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We published all our advertisements in the Ottawa papers and in the North-west papers as well.


Edward Frederick Clarke: With regard to the Wilson's Beach breakwater, the hon. minister has said that he advertised for public tenders and could not get any. Where were these advertisements published ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In many of the newspapers of New Brunswick and also in Ottawa, I have no doubt.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: In ' La Patrie ' ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, I believe ' La Patrie ' has a very large circulation.


Edward Frederick Clarke: There has been $14,000 to $15,000 expended on that work already. Is it possible that for such a work the hon. minister could not get tenders ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I could not.


Edward Frederick Clarke: After advertising ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, it has happened to the department several times.


Mr. SMITH (Wentworth).: I would like to say a few words on this public tender and day labour question. We on this side claim that the healthiest way of doing the public work is to advertise for tenders. The Minister of Public Works, on the other hand says that the work will be done more cheaply, by day labour. No doubt there are cases where it is absolutely necessary to do the work by day labour. It seems to me there

are many cases In which it would be more economical to do the work by public tender than by day's labour, as it is done now. In five years there has been an increase of 810,000,000 iu the cost of the public service, and possibly this system of doing work may account for some of that increase. Let me give the minister a small example in my own county. In 189G, there was a ferry across the Burlington channel. It was operated by hand, one man being in charge. Another man was in charge of the lighthouse. They received, together, about 8900. In 1896 or 1897, a swing bridge was built. It now takes four men to operate that swing bridge, although the bridge is moved by power furnished by the Radial Railway, and all a man has to do is to touch a lever. These men are paid by the day. If the contract for working this bridge were let out, as the Postmaster General lets out contracts for carrying mail over short routes, the work could be done for 8300 or .$400 a year. The bridge is not operated at night, but only from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. The work of the bridge could be done by one man, while another could attend the lighthouse and might assist at the bridge, as the lighthouse requires not more than two hours labour a day. Yet, it now costs 81,900 to do this work, which is so much less laborious thau before, when it cost only $900. Of course, there is one gain to the hon. minister, for all the men employed there vote the hon. gentleman's ticket.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Years ago there was a ferry at Burlington channel. But before I came into office a swing bridge was placed there. I would have been glad to put it there, because there should be a swing bridge over the Burlington channel. But, as a matter of fact, I had nothing to do with putting it there. I suppose that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Smith, Wentworth) does not understand the work or he would not talk about it as he does. What is the use of talking about one man doing the work ? The bridge must be operated, and there are windy days and there are days when the strength of one man would not be sufficient. And, in any case, this has no bearing upon the question of day's labour.


Gilbert White Ganong: There is a phase of this question of day's labour which has not yet been spoken of. Take, for instance, the work at Wilson's Beach. I speak of that because it is in my own county. Though that work had not been going on for quite a year, there has been expended for tools and other articles necessary for the workmen between 8800 and $900. By the time it is completed probably $1,500 or $2,000 will have been expended in furnishing the necessary tools and other articles for carrying on the work. This will be added to the nominal cost of the work by, perhaps, from five to ten per cent. And the hon. minister knows that when the work is done these axes and Mr. SMITH (Wentworth).
i
adzes and manilla rope and other things will not be in sight.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Ganong) is a sound business man, and he will agree that the Department of Public Works cannot carry on works without tools. This work could not be let by tender, and it is not fair to charge to this work all the cost of these tools. We are in the position of a public contractor who has a plant. Though we buy tools for a certain work those tools are used elsewhere. These workmen are electors of my hon. friend (Mr. Ganong), and surely they are honest men and are not going to steal these tools.


Gilbert White Ganong: I can only say that the hon. gentleman will need to put up a larger building than he has ever put up yet, if he continues to do public work in this manner, because he will have more tools accumulated from works done from the Atlantic to the Pacific than could be stored in any public building so far constructed.


Mr. BLAIN.: I understood the hon. minister to say that the new additions to the parliament buildings cost $75,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief architect, who is within hearing of my hon. friend's (Mr. Blain's) voice, tells me that the cost will amount to about $50,000, and this includes the two elevators. There will be an item in the suplementary estimates for this addition, and when it comes up, I shall be glad to give the hon. gentleman all information.


Richard Blain: One thing I should like to learn is what proportion of this $50,000 will be wages and what proportion will be material ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: When this item is before us, I will have the information.


Gilbert White Ganong: There is another item to which I wish to call attention in connection with this work at Wilson's Beach. I notice there is an item for Foreman Ethelbert Savage-this is during the month of June-and also for Foreman James Johnston. The minister is probably not aware, but I can tell him why it was necessary to have two foremen in doing this work by day's labour. I am well advised that they carried the timber there, dumped it into the water, hauled it up on a lot rented by the government, fitted it, as well as one foreman was able to do it to go into position. Then it was hauled down to the pier, but it was found that it did not fit so that another foreman was needed to fit it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I can only say that the reason we employed two foremen was that there were two different works, the work of repairs and the construction of a new work. My hon. friend knows very well that two foremen would

be required, and he is only trying to make a little political capital.
Dominion Public Buildings-N. W. T. Court houses, police accommodation, &o., $1,000.


Sir CHARLES ILIBBERT TTJPPER.: Would the minister give us some information about this item of $1,000 for court-house, lock-up and police accommodation, &c.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: That is for all court-houses and lock-ups in the North-west Territories.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Then it ought to have been ' court-houses ' instead of ' court-house '.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, it means court-house accommodation.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: On what principle is that money expended ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: Caretakers write to the chief architect that such and such work needs to be done, and the chief architect authorizes it.
Dominion public buildings-Renewals, improvements, repairs, &e., $4,000.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: What did the hon. gentleman spend last year, and in what parts of the Territories ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We spent $1,639.41 up to the month of December.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: For what was the money used ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: A great number of items : Calgary courthouse, $5 ; Calgary land and registry office, $4.40 ; Calgary post office, $53.74 ; Edmonton post office, $24.25 ; Edmonton immigrant shed, $4.50 ; Edmonton registry office, $74.80; Lethbridge immigrant buildings, $1.57 ; Lethbridge post office, $90.33 ; Land office, $2.50 ; Macleod custom-house, $40 ; Moose-jaw court-house, $20 ; Moosomin, $7.50 ; Moosomin barracks, $6 ; Prince Albert courthouse $61 ; Prince Albert land office, $75 ; Regina court-house, $416.70 ; Dominion land office, $2 ; Rossland immigrant house, $149.60 ; North-west Territories, generally, $288.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: What instructions are given to the officers there ? Do they make just such repairs as they see lit ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: No, they always make requisitions, which are approved by the chief architect.
Edmonton Jail, $10,000.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: I have now before Council a report asking to be authorized to purchase a site, and the site has been chosen by the Department of Justice. They see that they will be obliged in the future to have a penitentiary, and they have found a site of 150 acres. It was intended at first to have both a jail and a courthouse, but after considering the circumstances the government has concluded to build only a jail. It is badly needed. It will provide accommodation for 40 male prisoners and 10 or 15 female prisoners. I do not intend to spend more than $20,000 or $25,000 on the jail. My officers tell me that we cannot build a jail for that money, exclusive of the site. Of course I do not want to bind myself against the opinion of my chief architect, but it seems to me that with $25,000 we can build a jail.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: I
understand it was originally proposed to build a court-house, and there was a report as to what that would cost. What was the amount ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot remember. I am informed that no estimate was made of the cost of both a jail and court-house.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: But a vote was taken a few years ago.


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: When was the land bought ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The land was negotiated for during last August, I think, from Mr. T. McDougall and Mr. Kenneth McDonald.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: How was the value of it settled ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: The late Minister of Justice conducted all the negotiations for the purchase of the site. He sent me a report telling me that he had taken an option upon this property.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: What did you pay ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: $8,950. The late Minister of Justice with whom I discussed the question told me that he thought he had made a great bargain.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: That the vendor had made a great bargain ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: No, he, the Minister of Justice.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand the hon. minister to say that in purchasing the site he purchased 150 acres. [DOT]


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes. The Department of Justice seeing that they would be obliged to erect a penitentiary and finding a suitable site took an option upon it. It will be for the time being a kind of penitentiary because there will be prisoners incarcerated there.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I presume the Minister of Justice intends to start a model farm out there.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I suppose they will do the same thing there as at other penitentiaries. They will make the prisoners work, and it is a good thing too.


Mr. MORIN.: What is the population of Edmonton ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot give the exact population-1| think 5,000 or 6,000.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: I will tell you the population. It is 2,626.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is the centre of a large district.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me that the hon. minister has paid a very high price for that site if he has paid '$9,000. From whom did he purchase it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have just said' that the site was bought by the late Minister of Justice from Mr. McDougall and Mr. Kenneth McDonald.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Of Edmonton ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I suppose so. I do not know them. I only know the Minister of Justice in this case.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I suppose the building is to be put up by contract ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS By contract.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There were- no tenders asked for the site, I presume ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, if we must advertise for sites, I give it up. I cannot do it.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


SECOND READINGS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 16) respecting the Manitoba and North-western Railway Company of Canada.-Mr. Douglas.
Bill (No. 20) to incorporate the Battleford and Lake Lenore Railway Company.-Mr. Calvert.
Bill (No. 21) respecting the Port Dover, Brantford, Berlin and Goderich Railway Company and to change its name to 'The Grand Valley Traction Company.'-Mr. Heyd.
Bill (No. 22) to incorporate the Board of the Presbyterian College, Halifax-Mr. Fraser.
Bill (No. 23) respecting the Ontario, Hudson's Bay and Western Railways Company.-Mr. Dyment.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Bill (No. 24) respecting the Windsor and Detroit Union Bridge Company.-Mr. Cowan.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Maeleod-Court-house and jail, $12,000.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have selected a site there on government property so that we did not have to buy it. We have decided to erect a building of the same nature as that at Medicine Hat which has cost $10,000. The people of the town would like something more expensive but we will not go beyond that.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Has the contract been let ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why are you asking $12,000 for a $10,000 building ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The $2,000 extra will be for heating and fittings and so on. I intend to ask for tenders this summer for a $10,000 building and I do not intend to spend more than $12,000. [DOT]
Red Deer-Court-house, lock-up and land office, $2,300.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have bought a site for $840. The lot is 250 x 178 feet.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: From whom did you buy that land ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My officers have not given me the name but I will get It if the hon. gentleman wishes it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Last year the vote was $6,700 and the revote now is $5,700, and you are now asking $2,300. There must be something wrong about that. Do you expect to spend that $5,700 before the first of July ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have spent $840 for a site. We have simply made a mistake in addition.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: What is the estimate for that building ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WOK its. Just the amount voted-$8,000.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: No advertisements have been published ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, but it will be advertised, and will be given by tender.


Red Deer Valley Immigrant building, $1,000.


Mr. GILMOUR.: Where is that building to be situated ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: On lot 20, block 4, section 16-17, township 30, range 27. That is all I know about it.


James Gilmour: Is it in the neighbourhood of Red Deer village ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I must plead a certain amount of ignorance. The site has been chosen after consultation with the Minister of the Interior, who has charge of immigration.


Mr. HENDERSON.: Where is the Minister of the Interior ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: He is ill, I am sorry to say.


Mr. INGRAM.: Too much election.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It makes a fellow sick at times.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Surely this building is in the same place as the court-house and jail ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The court-house is in the town.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Have you purchased the site ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What has it cost ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have paid $75 for it. It was bought from Messrs. Nanton & Munson.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the size 1


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The size is not indicated.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Did the Department of Public Works negotiate the purchase ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, I think so. Sites are bought in this way, since I am asked. The Department of Justice is our agent for "all these purchases. We choose a site ; the Department of -Justice is then applied to, and they negotiate, examine the title, and pass the deed.


James Gilmour: Perhaps the non. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) will be able to tell us where this immigrant building is ?


Mr. OLIVER.: The site of the proposed building is in the village of Red Deer, in the southern part of the village, on the east bide of the railway track.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: In regard to this purchasing of sites, the explanation of the hon. minister did not seem to be altogether satisfactory. This afternoon the hon. gentleman was good enough
to state that the late Minister of Justice had undertaken to negotiate the purchase of the site for the Edmonton court-house and jail, which cost $9,000, and the hon. minister could give us no facts on which we might reach a conclusion as to whether that was an exorbitant price or otherwise. Now the hon. gentleman says that the practice is that the Department of Justice is concerned only to search the title and pass the conveyance. That is the ordinary rule. Can the hon. gentleman say how it is that this exceptional course seems to have been adopted of entrusting the Department of Justice with the work of arranging the purchase of the property ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have no objection to state what has taken place. Before that purchase was made I had been in consultation with the hon. member for Alberta, and we had come to the conclusion to purchase another site. The late Minister of Justice came before council with another project. He stated that it was his intention, and he thought it was good policy, to prepare for a penitentiary later on. He represented to us that he had found a site that was a very suitable one. He was an experienced gentleman, seventy years old, long in public life, and his [DOT] ol-leagues entrusted him with the matter. In point of fact the report of council by which I was authorized to purchase this site was his own. All I had to. do in connection with the purchase of the site was to ratify his action.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: I think the statement of the minister is unsatisfactory. He says the transaction is the work of his late colleague, and he washes his hands of it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is nothing to wash.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: There may be a satisfactory explanation of what at first blush seems to be an exorbitant price, $9,000, for a site of this kind.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: One hundred and fifty acres of land.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: I know, an enormous piece of land. There were reasons for that, no doubt, whether good or bad. We have no explanation as to why such a tract of land was required or what the intention of the department is in regard to it.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The purpose of the late Minister of Justice was to provide for the penitentiary. No doubt one will soon be required there, and in the meantime the jail will serve for that purpose. The Prince Albert jail is a kind of penitentiary-so much so that I have nothing to do with its administration. Before preparing a report under my own



signature, I had a consultation with the hon. gentleman who sits for that riding, and he told me that the transaction was in every way advisable.


Hr. TAYLOR.: Where is it located 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: A little out of the town. The hon. member for Alberta knows the place and can describe it.


Frank Oliver: At the request of the hon. Minister of Public Works, I can only say that the facts are exactly as he has stated them. The Department of Justice sent its trusted official to Edmonton and he decided that the needs for the present and the future were such as to require the purchase of a much larger piece of ground than the minister contemplated. He looked over the ground, and without any assistance from me in that part of the transaction, decided, on his own judgment, that this particular river claim-lot 20, I think-would answer the purpose exactly. He desired to secure a property closer to the town, but I objected because I did not think it desirable to have a penitentiary located too close to the town. He then decided that this property, which was the third river lot to the east of the boundary of the town, was just what was required. There are two coal mines on the property in operation at present. It has a river frontage, and is bounded by the lake in the rear. It belonged to two different parties, and is one of the oldest claims in the settlement. This official purchased the river frontage from the owner who had occupied it some twenty-five or thirty years at the rate of $75 per acre.


George Taylor: What is his name ?


Frank Oliver: Terence Macdonald. He purchased the rear portion, which was not in occupation, from David McDougal for $50 per acre. Or rather, he secured options on the property1 at that price. The transfer has not yet been made and the options have expired, and I am not at all sure that the department could get the property at the money now.


James Gilmour: Does it front on the Saskatchewan river 7


Frank Oliver: Yes, east of the town.


James Gilmour: How far from the town ?


Frank Oliver: About twenty or thirty chains.


James Gilmour: Did that option secure the coal mine 7


Frank Oliver: Yes, subject to the present lessees holding. There are two lessees operating the coal mines, but their leases terminate in one or two years and the coal goes with the land.


Joseph Israël Tarte: 


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is land selling at in that vicinity 7


Frank Oliver: In some cases it goes from $7 to $10 an acre, at a distance from the town, and up to $100 per foot frontage on the main street.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: I suppose the department contemplates utilizing this large acreage for farming purposes 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: For ordinary penitentiary purposes.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: And also operating the coal mine 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Well, the prisoners must be employed in some way.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems a very large piece of ground for a penitentiary, if we take the quantity of land devoted to other penitentiaries. It would appear as if the minister contemplated something out of the ordinary there.
Saskatoon immigrant building, $2,500.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That work is under contract for the amount of $3,300. It was let by public tender) on the 27th of October, 1901.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Why does the department not give it by day labour 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The labour market at Saskatoon is not very large.
Yorkton-Court-house and jail, $4,000.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Will the hon. minister please explain this item 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is a mistake there. A mistake of the Department of Finance, I suppose.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Oh, no.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There has been a clerical error. I am blamed so often that I want to blame somebody else now.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: What is the amount 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The amount should be $9,000.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: How has that been spent 7


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have bought the land. Lots 7, 8, 11 and 12 on Front Street, and lots 42 and 44 on Argyle Avenue have been bought from the Canadian Pacific Railway for $279, and lots 5, 6, 9 and 10 on Front Street, and 42 and 43 on Argyle Avenue from Mr. J. J. Smith, for $279-a total of $588 for the site.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Tenders have not been asked for, I suppose ? But this *will be done by tender ?


The MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS.: It will be by tender, but tenders have not been asked for.
Public Works-chargeable to income-British Columbia-Dominion public buildings-renewal, removeiuents, repairs, &c., $6,000.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: What was spent of last year's vote ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We seem to have spent $114 more than the appropriations.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Where were the expenditures made ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Nanaimo, custom-house; New Westminster, Dominion land's office, fisheries' office; Vancouver, examining warehouse; Victoria, drill hall, Marine hospital, post office, clerk of works' office, old custom-house; Kamloops, post office; William's Head, quarantine building; and general repairs; total $0,114.03.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Concerning the Vancouver public building, which is occupied by the post office and custom-house, has the hon. minister considered any improvement in that building ?
I believe there is no question but that the building is not large enough. In fact, I understand customs officers have to occupy a different building.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have received a petition stating the facts which my hon. friend has just stated. In this, I am bound to acknowledge that the hon. gentleman is right and that there is not enough accommodation, as in the case of other cities. But he must not lose sight of the fact that we have just completed an armoury and drill hall at Vancouver, a large and extensive building. I do not think I can extend any hope for this year, hut I am convinced that either I or whoever may be the minister next year will be in a position to adopt a more progressive policy, not only toward Vancouver, but towards other cities as welj.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Has the hon. minister caused any report to be made as to the accommodation there ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The only report I have is that the accommodation is inadequate.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Yet, nothing is to be done.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Not this year. A new building at Vancouver would involve a very large expenditure The hon. gentleman lives there, and perhaps could suggest something. I should be glad to have his views.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: I can only speak generally of the condition of things, which, I believe is really disgraceful. I have had no communication with any of the officials, but one has only to be there a short time to see that the building is quite inadequate for such a large and growing and busy community. The expression is everywhere among business men that the accommodation is very poor indeed. And, as the trade is increasing at a very rapid rate and the revenues of the country drawn from the community are growing, "the people there have been in hopes-pressure, I think, was brought to bear by the board of trade on the department-that the condition of things would be improved. I think there will be universal disappointment, if not surprise, that the minister has not found the means of improving the condition of affairs.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend was a minister for more years than I have been. He knows that a minister cannot do everything. It Is a question of policy, a question for the Council. There are demands from all parts of the country for increased accommodation. It takes a great deal of money to carry out all these improvements. In the meantime, if my hon. friend should, later on, have any suggestions to offer, I shall be glad to receive them.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: It struck me that if we could look so far into the future-and I have nothing to say against it-as to acquire an enormous tract of land that we did not immediately need, a community which gives so much into the general revenue would have a right to expect immediate action with regard to the demands which have been so long standing.
I believe that this want of better accommodation in Vancouver began to be felt in the days of the old government when our revenues were not as buoyant as they are to-dav The need to-day is all the greater aud the ground for dissatisfaction increased by the growth of the business of the city. Seeing that moneys are being voted to provide post office accommodation for communities that at present, whatever may be the hope of the future, are not paying so much into the exchequer as Vancouver is, the matter might well be brought to the attention of the minister.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am thankful to my hon. friend for calling my attention to the case; but he should not forget that we must be prudent-we are a prudent government. At the same time, by looking at the figures, he will be convinced that we have not done so badly tor the province that he has adopted as his
home-there are pretty iarge amounts of
money in the estimates for public buildi g in British Columbia. I have already reminded him that we have just built a laige

and expensive building in Vancouver. The government will not lose sight of the requirements of Vancouver, and I think the hon. gentleman will agree that we must not spend too much, especially when we have done so well for British Columbia.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: The hon. gentleman must know very well from official communications from the government of that province that they complain that this government is not doing well by British Columbia. This government is receiving enormous contributions from that province, out of all proportion to the expenditure made in it, and out of all proportion to the relative expenditure and receipts in the other provinces. That is a standing grievance in the province of British Columbia to-day, as represented by formal memorial from the local government. But it was not from that point of view that I rose to speak ; it was from a knowledge I had that one of the most enterprising portions of the province was not being well treated in the matter of public institutions. I think there is reason for great complaint. Several times the hon. gentleman has referred to the large expenditures being made, I think, in connection with the drill shed ; but I do not suppose it was ever pretended that the concession of that public building to the community of Burrard, or Vancouver, was meant to delay the accommodation they had long expressed a desire to have for a custom-house and post office.


The MINISTER OE PUBLIC WORKS.: My hon. friend may rest assured that I will not delay obtaining any necessary information a prudent minister should have before starting an important work. British Columbia has not failed to recognize lately that we have not done badly by that province. My hon. friend must admit that public opinion has demonstrated that British Columbia appreciates the efforts we have made on her behalf.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: I happen to have a lively recollection of the manner in which that question was dealt with. I do not think the gentleman who was successful in the late election in Victoria would altogether endorse the position the Minister of Public Works takes. It is true that the opponents of the government complained against the niggardly treatment the province received at the hands of this government, considering the circumstances, and considering the amount of public money at then disposal. It is true also that the victorious candidate resorted to this method ot reasoning : What can you expect if you send to parliament a gentleman who is opposed to the ministers who dole out the public funds ?-that is to say, according to .the principles enunciated the other flayT
r The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. They have not read my speech.


Joseph Israël Tarte: 


Charles Hibbert Tupper: The argument that sent that gentleman here was I think not to the credit of the government, but it was one that prevailed, namely, that this crying injustice to the province might be remedied by sending a gentleman here in accord with the government of the day, and by that means they might obtain justice where justice would be denied to a free and independent member of the House who was not giving them a slavish support. That was the argument. It was not that the government had treated Victoria handsomely in the past; on the contrary, the gentleman who won the election said that practically all that had been given to that constituency was the result of his private conferences with the ministers of the day, though he had not been clothed with authority as a representative. Of course the argument was pressed home that if he were a representative he would obtain a great deal more at the hands of this government than could a free and independent member of the House, and particularly more than a man who did not see eye to eye with them on all public questions. I do not think that any member from the province of British Columbia, judging from what I have heard there, will rise in his place and say that that province is being treated at all fairly or at all generously by the government of the day, in connection with the vast expenditures that are being made in other parts of Canada. They do not complain of these expenditures, but I think the complaint is universal that there has been and there is a shameful neglect of the very pressing interests of the province.
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS My last argument then is to ask my hon. friend to be kind enough to wait until next year.
Nelson public building, $25,006.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That work is under contract for the amount of $49,900. The contract is dated January 31st, 1901. Viau & Lemoine are the contractors. Mr. Viau is from Hull, and Mr. Lemoine from Pembroke. Public tenders were asked and they were the lowest.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Did you ask for tenders in the press of the province ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: How far has the work proceeded ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The chief architect tells me there is another story to be put up. They have got till the month of November to complete the work. Mr. J. A. McDonald, of Nelson, is superintending the work.

Rossland public building, $12,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The contractor for this work is Mr. Thos. Bradbury, of Vancouver. That was also advertised in the press, and the tender accepted was for $44,050. The inspector is Mr. R. W. Gregor. It is a general public building to accommodate the post office, customs and inland revenue.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: How does that compare with the New Westminster public building in price ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: A little higher, I am told.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Does the hon. gentleman include in these contracts made in British Columbia a clause in regard to the employment of oriental labour ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, there has never been any complaint.
Public buildings generally-construction of armouries, $37,000.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: Would the hon. minister give an explanation in detail of the armouries he proposes building and state what the plan for each may be ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The armouries that we are building now and for the completion of which this $37,000 is asked, are these : Baddeck, Victoria county, N.S., cost $4,222, by contract; Sussex, N.B., $7,095; Duudas, Out., $3,854; Kaslo, B.C., $9,700 ; Kamloops. B.C.,	$9,700 ; Nelson
B.C.,	$9,700; Revelstoke, B.C.,	$9,700.
The contracts for the armouries at Kaslo, Kamloops and Revelstoke have not yet been given out, but the tenders are in, so my officers tell me, so that the figures I have given in connection with these buildings are estimates and not the actual prices of the contracts. I may give some explanation in regard to the buildings if my hon. friend (Mr. Hughes, Victoria) wants it. The armoury at Baddeck is going to be a wooden, one-storey building, on a stone foundation.


Gilbert White Ganong: May I ask the hon. minister if this is to be built by day labour?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, the contract for the work has been given out. Mr. J. Treen, of North Sydney, is the contractor. The contract is for $2,250, but there are fittings, and so on, and that is the reason why we are asking for more money.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: That will be a very poor affair. What kind of a building is it ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is a wooden building. These plans are prepared by the Militia Department and by my own department, the architects of both departments approving of them.


Samuel Hughes: What is the size of the building ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Fifty-eight by thirty-four, containing four armouries each 20 x 8, and each having a room for the quartermaster's stores. For the armoury in Sussex the contractors are the Messrs. Wallace Bros. The contract is practically completed there.


Samuel Hughes: What military buildings are there already at Sussex ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot say. That I do not know at all. All I know is that this has been applied for and granted and is under contract.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. F. W. Borden).: There are no buildings at Sussex of any consequence. Thp military property at Sussex had certain farm buildings on it. It was a farm which was purchased some ten or twelve years ago and there was a house and some outbuildings upon it, but there was no building suitable for an armoury such as is being constructed now. This armoury is for the infantry and for the cavalry, a very large cavalry regiment, one of the largest in New Brunswick, and the headquarters of it is at Sussex. The rifle ranges are located there, and the annual training takes place there. It is really the important centre of military affairs in New Brunswick.


Samuel Hughes: What troops are there at Baddeck ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not know ; I am only the builder, let the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence answer for the military side of it.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: The armoury at Baddeck is the central armoury for Cape Breton Island. The regiment there has six companies and is to be increased to an eight company battalion. It was necessary to have some place to take care of the arms and the colonel of the regiment decided, with the approval of the district officer comanding at Halifax, that that was the proper place to have it.


Samuel Hughes: Is it the policy of the minister to erect armouries for each battalion in every regimental district in Canada ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: That is really a question that would be better discussed on the militia estimates. However, I have no hesitation in saying at once that although that policy was decided upon when the new rifle was purchased recently, owing to the very great delay in getting suitable armouries and because the issue of the arms was kept back, it has been decided now, at once, to issue to all the rural battalions the new arms, whether they have central armouries or not.


Samuel Hughes: I presume rural officers will be allowed to keep the new' arms at the company headquarters ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: Has the minister had under consideration the propriety of erecting company armouries, small, inexpensive buildings, for the care and storage of these arms at the various company headquarters ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: No, but I am bound to say that in a great many cases I think it would be a desirable thing to do if it could be done at reasonable expense.


Mr. PRINGLE.: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Public Works if this item includes the cost of the armoury, which, I understand, has been promised to the town of Cornwall ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: There has been no provision made for an armoury in Cornwall ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.


Samuel Hughes: Are there any troops at Sydney, or is there any armoury at Sydney ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: No.
The MINISTER OB1 PUBLIC WORKS. A contract has been let to Messrs. J. Bowman & Company for $8,870. The building is 60 x 37 feet, two stories, basement, brick on stone foundation. Dundas is the headquarters of the 77th Wentworth Regiment.


Samuel Hughes: Is it the purpose to spend as large a sum as this on a headquarters armoury for each rural regiment in Canada ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: No.


Samuel Hughes: Why is the Wentworth battalion selected for such an expensive armoury as this ?


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: There is no doubt that the cost of this building is beyond what was estimated. Dundas is a very enterprising town and no doubt the battalion there will grow and may in time become a city battalion. It is necessary for us to anticipate the future to some extent and while we are about it, to build an armoury which will be capable of accommodating more companies than it will be necessary to accommodate at the time of erection. I was led to understand that in this section of the country there was some development, Hon. Mr. BORDEN (King's).
which is likely to become greater in military sentiment, and that it would be proper to exceed to some extent the real needs of the moment.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Now that we are discussing this point, I would like to know the views of the House. My hon. friend (Mr. Hughes, Victoria) with his experience in military matters, tells us that we are erecting a too expensive building.


Samuel Hughes: I have not said so.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The hon. gentleman has hinted that $8,000 is too much for an armoury at Dundas. The Minister of Militia and myself are met with constant demands for expensive buildings from military people and when we suggest that $5,000 or $8,000 is sufficient why they are ready to fly to arms. They want not only buildings, but expensive buildings, and on that score the province of Ontario does not come last.


Samuel Hughes: I am not opposing the item. I am glad to see Wentworth get the best armoury it can. It will be the largest building in the little village of Dundas. But great as the boom has been in the past, if the government go on for the next one thousand years, Dundas will probably not be entitled to a city battalion. It is toying with the House to talk that way. There are six companies in the Wentworth battalion and this $8,000 armoury will probably be used by perhaps two of these companies. Of course the arms may be stored there, but the armoury will only serve one or two of the companies. Why not give each company an armoury in the different villages throughout the county at a cost of $200 or $300 each. I will undertake to put nice little armouries at a cost of $250 each to hold the arms of each company in the Dominion of Canada. You do not want a parade ground. As a rule the arms are now kept in the captain's bedroom which may be 8 x 10 feet.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Who would take care of these small buildings ?


Samuel Hughes: The captain of each company is bound to take care of them under the law.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: And heat them ?


Samuel Hughes: They do not need to be heated.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That would not do at all.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: The hon. gentleman is mistaken in saying that this armoury will only ac-

commodate one or two companies of the Wentworth battalion. The whole battalion will be accommodated at this armoury and this was arranged before the construction of this building was undertaken.


Samuel Hughes: X do not say that this armoury will not accommodate the whole battalion, but there are not more than two companies in Dundas, and I think there Is only one. Only the local company in Dundas can use the armoury except when the battalion is marching into camp.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: Each company will have a room.


Samuel Hughes: How can they use the rooms when they are twenty or thirty miles from the armoury.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: I wish to ask the minister if the question of erecting an armoury at Cornwall is under the consideration of the government. I understand from the local military authorities that there is a great necessity for an armoury in Cornwall, and during last session a very important delegation interviewed the minister and came away strongly under the impression that an armoury would be erected in that town. The military men of Cornwall are still under that impression. I understand that they even went so far as to select the site, and have been in communication with the minister on the subject. Is the matter under the consideration of the government ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The question is certainly under consideration. We have received petitions and representations. As to the choice of a site I did not do anything of the kind.


Robert Abercrombie Pringle: I do not say that the minister has selected a site, but I understand that the local authorities have recommended certain sites.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Nothing has been done towards the choice of a site. Representations have been made, but I do not know what fate they will meet with. I do not extend any promise.


Mr. BENNETT.: I agree with the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Hughes) that it is highly desirable to have these armoury buildings in different parts of the counties. Take, for instance, the county of Simcoe, more particularly the east riding. The headquarters of the battalion are at the town of Barrie. I am not able to say who erected the building there, but I assume that it was the Department of Militia and Defence. It is a capacious brick building, and in it are stored the arms not only of the two companies of Barrie, but that of the adjoining township. At a distance of thirty miles is the town of Orillia. It would be unfair to ask that the arms of the Orillia company should be kept at Barrie, and as a matter of 28
fact they are kept at Orillia. Then, at the village of Coldwater, fifteen or sixteen miles from Orillia, I know at one time the arms were stored over a store, a very poor and inaccessible place in case of fire. Further on, at a distance of twenty-five miles, is Pene-tang, which also has a company. Now, if there is one thing which to my mind tends to make the militia force of Ontario something of a success-and it is not as successful, I say with all due deference to military men, as it might be-it is the fact that a healthy rivalry is engendered in rifle competitions. In order to have successful marksmen it is necessary that they should have access at all times to their arms; but this is impossible if those arms are at a distance, in some cases of fifteen or twenty miles; and I quite agree with the hon. member for North Victoria that it would be desirable to have small armouries built at different parts of the counties. I am not quite so sanguine as to the cost of these buildings as he is, for I fear they would run considerably beyond the figure he has mentioned.
I think each of these companies should be made more or less of a social club. Gentlemen who are conversant with the regiments in the cities know that the great success attained by them is due to the fact that to a certain extent they are social clubs. [DOT] The armoury at the town of Barrie is fitted up as a gymnasium, and during the winter months the two companies of the town make it a place of resort; and if there were provided at the different towns headquarters not only for the storing of the arms of these companies, but with a fairly large sized room which could be. used in the winter months for drilling and also as a gymnasium, I believe the success of our military organization would be very much promoted; and I hope the minister will make provision in the supplementary estimates for the establishment in East Simcoe of such armouries as I have mentioned.


Mr. FOWLER.: I would like to ask the minister if the architect who designed the Sussex armoury had any previous experience in designing armouries 1


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The plans of these armouries are prepared by both the architect of the Militia Department and by my architect.


George William Fowler: The gentleman who designed the Sussex armoury did not understand his business very well, because he made no distinction between the rooms set apart for the infantry company and those for the cavalry squadrons. A cavalry squadron requires a room double the size an infantry company does, because in addition to the clothing and equipment of the men there is the clothing and equipment of the horses to be provided for. I want to bring this to the attention of the minister, so that the necessary changes will be made.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I can only say that we never go on with work of that kind without the plan being approved by the Militia Department; and, as a rule, the military people in a place where the armoury is to be built, see the plans before they are carried out. If there has been a mistake there, it has not been represented to us.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I am very glad the hon. gentleman has mentioned the fact. I will make inquiries to-morrow, and see who is responsible for my part of the matter.


George Taylor: I would like to inquire of the hon. minister if in this vote any provision is made for building an armoury at Gananoque. We have a battery of artillery as well as an infantry company there, and I understand that a few years ago the government purchased a site there, and paid a very large price for it 1


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Will the hon. gentleman tell me when it was bought ? I never bought one.


George Taylor: Ask the Minister of Militia. You had a drill shed there, but you tore it down and purchased a site to build a new one, but went no further; and to-day the guns belonging to the battery and the arms belonging to the infantry are stored in a lumber yard down near the railway track. I think some provision should be made for taking better care of the government property than you are doing there.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: All I know is that my department did not pay for a site. The Minister of Militia and Defence thinks that perhaps a site was bought there.


Samuel Hughes: I would be very pleased to see battalion armouries built as well as company armouries. When I made the estimate of $200 for a company armoury,
I had taken the precaution of consulting a good Liberal contractor. I furnished him with the sizes of what I thought would be suitable for a country armoury for forty-two men, in which to store their rifles and equipment, and he said he would undertake to put up nice little brick buildings all over the country for less than $200 each. All that is required is one room, though I would be glad to see the companies provided with such a room as the hon. member for East Simeoe (Mr. Bennett) suggests. My object is to get the whole country equipped with armouries as soon as possible; but if it were to cost $8,000 or $9,000 for each battalion, I am afraid that long as the hon. Minister of Public Works is likely to hold his job, some one else will be occupying that place before all the buildings will be completed. Reference has been made to the 77th Battalion getting this $8,000 armoury. That battalion has six companies. No. 1 company is at


George William Fowler: Dundas; No. 2 company is at Waterdown, to the east; No. 3 company is at Binbrook; No. 4 company is at Ancaster, on the other side of Hamilton; No. 5 company is at Stony Creek, between that and Niagara Falls, and No. G company is at Glanford. In other words it was simply a large public building for the town of Dundas. I am not objecting to the expenditure if the country can afford it. I am not opposed to any expenditure on behalf of the militia, but what I do say is that the rural companies should also have their armouries.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I really do not believe, speaking as a layman, that a $200 building would be suitable.


Samuel Hughes: Make it $500.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I could not believe that the country would entertain the idea of erecting $200 buildings and I would not encourage it at all.


Samuel Hughes: I venture to say that more than half the arms in the maritime provinces and Ontario are stored today in buildings, the entire cost of which is not $500. I refer to the whole buildiug in which the caretaker and his family live.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That does not prove anything.


Samuel Hughes: It proves that the arms are kept in the back rooms of such buildings and kept in very good condition. We require the armouries, let the cost be what it may, and do not want the battalions to have to wait ten or twenty years for this accommodation.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: As the hon. minister has invited an expression of opinion regarding the desirability of expensive armouries or the incurring of heavy expenditure to erect expensive buildings for the purpose of storing arms, personally my feeling has always been against such expenditure. While I would be disposed to vote any reasonable amount to keep up the efficiency of our militia, I have never felt that it is wise to spend such large sums in building these large armouries and drill halls in different towns and villages. I can understand, of course, the ambition of towns and villages to have fine and expensive buildings. Every town, if it gets a public building, wants to have it as expensive and showy as possible. That may be a praiseworthy ambition, but is it the part of wisdom for us to give way to it ? My opinion always has been that while we should provide suitable accommodation, we should provide it at the least possible outlay to the country, and that while we should do all that is required in the interest of the militia, we should be careful not to be carried away by too great a desire for display.


Edward Frederick Clarke: 
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We are just now engaged in re-building one of the walls of that drill shed. The wall to which my hon. friend called attention last year is being rebuilt.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Will that give any additional accommodation ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That question is under discussion now. When the supplementary estimates come down we will know more.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: I think it would be a great mistake to construct very expensive buildings, in very elaborate style, for the accommodation of the arms and accoutrements of the militia. If that plan were adopted, it would be a long time before we could obtain homes for our different militia battalions. I may be permitted to say that I have endeavoured to set a good example myself in my own county for my own battalion, by having an armoury erected there at an expense of less than $1,000, which is ample to accommodate a battalion of ten companies.


Samuel Hughes: That is only $100 a company, and I have suggested $200.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I do not want to occupy the time of the committee more than is absolutely necessary, but I feel bound to impress again on the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Militia the absolute necessity of giving additional accommodation to the military forces of Toronto in the drill shed. This is not the first time that matter has been drawn to the attention of the hon. minister. I shall not dilate on the subject, but will content myself with reading half a dozen lines from the report of the proceedings of this House on April 16th last. In that report, I quoted a letter from the commanding officer of military district No. 2, Colonel Otter, to the corporation of the city of Toronto. On the 22nd March last, Colonel Otter wrote from Stanley barracks to the chairman of the property committee.
Sir,-I have the honour to make application, on behalf of a portion of the local militia force, for the temporary use of the 'Arcade,' St. Andrew's market, for the purpose of storing guns, wagons and harness.
With the present strength of the city corps, it is impossible to find enough accommodation in the armouries, and pending the providing of such, I am compelled to appeal to the municipal authorities as no place adapted for the purpose in view can be obtained.
I cannot make a stronger appeal to the hon. minister than to read this request from the district officer commanding to the municipal authorities in Toronto for temporary 281
accommodation of guns, stores and ammunition in one of the municipal buildings. Of course the municipal corporation are always very pleased to give accommodation, if they can, to the militia forces and meet the wishes of the officer commanding in that respect, but when I remind the hon. minister that the city of Toronto gave $140,000 for the site, upon which the present drill shed stands, I think it is not unreasonable to ask that the accommodation which has been so loudly demanded by the militia force be provided as soon as possible. I have not sufficient military training to know of the relative value of small armouries erected throughout the country or of a few large ones in cities ; but I do know that in Toronto we have provided a very fine site, as the Minister of Militia knows, and there is a very substantial building on that site, and surely it would be the policy of wisdom, when you have a splendid military organization which is no discredit to the military forces of the Dominion, to provide for it reasonable accommodation. I do not desire to take up the time of the committee pressing this matter. I have done so again and again, but I appeal once more to the Minister of Militia and the Minister of Public Works that, if it be not intended to devote any part of this item, for the purpose of enlarging the drill shed and providing additional accommodation, that a reasonable sum should be provided for that purpose in the supplementaries. I make this appeal as earnestly as I can on behalf of the militia forces in Toronto.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have already given the names of the places where this money is to be spent. The hou. gentleman has stated that the military forces in Toronto would be very glad to have more accommodation. That is the case, not only in Toronto, but elsewhere. In Montreal the militia require a good deal more accommodation. But all that is a question of money, and my hon. friends often complain that our budget is large, that the public works is a spending department, and spends too much. The facts which my hon. friend has stated to the House are not new. Under the late administration, the position of affairs was just about the same.


Edward Frederick Clarke: No.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: The military strength in Toronto is not much greater to-day than it was then, and the demand that is made by my hon. friend was made then. But governments must not spend too much money, even though some of us may be in sympathy with a more expansive policy, the financial position must be considered. The brakes must be applied, and they are often applied by the Finance Minister to-day as they were in the past. The Finance Minister is right, of course, and I cannot complain.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Before all the money of the country is voted to hon. gentlemen opposite, I would like to put in a word on behalf of the best regiment in Canada, the 78th Highlanders.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The 48th.
Mr. FRASER, No, the 78th. The Minister of Militia knows all about that regiment. They are recruited from the counties of Cumberland, Colchester and Pictou. They have not a public building and never had.


Mr. McISAAC.: They have trenches.
Mi-. FRASER. But I am willing to come next to the hon. and gallant Colonel (Mr. Hughes, Victoria) who has just spoken. I would commend to the Minister of Militia what the hon. gentleman says, that arms have to be stored in bedrooms. How can one sleep in a room where arms are stored ? But seriously, I hope the hon. minister would take into consideration this splendid regiment and that before all the rnoney for building is voted away, he will do something for this corps, who would be the first in the fray and the last out of it.


Samuel Hughes: I shall not attempt to reply to the jocular remarks of my hon. friend from Guysborough, but I want to say that the 78th is a good regiment, and, in that respect it is like 99 per cent of the rural regiments of Canada. I will appeal to those who saw the review in Toronto, where the 'hay-seed' regiments, without an hour's drill from; the month of June until they paraded in front of their Royal Highnesses, held their own with the regiments of the city who have fine drill halls in which they can drill every evening. When I point out that these rural regiments who keep their arms in bedrooms and over driving sheds, and do not cost the country a dollar for armouries can hold their own on an occasion such as that, they are entitled to some consideration from the people. I have always supported the claim for armouries for the large cities, believing that the city battalions should have a place not only for the storage of arms but for drilling the men. But I do again suggest to the minister whether it is advisable to give these large sums of money for the headquarters of rural battalions, when, as the minister properly points out-I am afraid the hon. Minister of Public Works does not hear what I say. I wish to catch the ear of the hon. gentleman, for I have great faith in him, and always had. I hope he will convert the whole ministry.


George Taylor: Make them protectionists.


Samuel Hughes: Certainly. He is educating them right along. The Minister of Finance himself will come around in time. I would like to impress upon the Minister of Public Works the policy which


Joseph Israël Tarte: the Minister of Militia has outlined, of having inexpensive headquarters and armouries which can be provided at half the cost of these large buildings he proposes.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In some of our public buildings in Quebec, we have adopted the plan of having a room for the storage of arms. For instance, in Victoriaville, we have an arrangement of that kind, and it is received with great favour.


Samuel Hughes: I do not wish to take up time, but merely to say that the hon. minister was good enough to grant the regiment which I have the honour to command a room in the public building in Lindsay. I do not think it is larger than ten by twelve, and it contains the arms of the entire regiment. That is the only room which we have in the whole county.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Carried.


Samuel Hughes: No, I find that the minister has given us items making a total of $53,800, and he is asking for only $37,000.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: We have $27,000 in the estimates of last year.


Samuel Hughes: What regiment is represented by this British Columbia armoury ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot say; I am only the builder.


Samuel Hughes: Who made the request for the armoury ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: So many requests are sent in-I cannot tell all.


Mr. GALLIHER.: I may say to the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Hughes) that these four armouries are in my district. I made the request for them, and made it pretty strongly too. You must npt forget that the district I represent is nearly equal in area to the province of Ontario. So, if I have four armouries in my district, it does not necessarily follow that they are very close together. We in British Columbia are in a different position from the people of Ontario. A great part of our country is mountainous and we require not only armouries, but places where we can drill summer and winter. I do not think that any hon. gentlemen who have been in British Columbia will say that money spent in armouries in that province is not well invested. We are pretty well in the wilds, but we have a few citizens in that province who like to have reasonable accommodation as well as the people in the east. And the hon. gentleman, (Mr. Hughes) who is a colonel in the militia well knows that we sent from British Columbia to the South African war quite

a number of men-probably a larger number in proportion to our population than any other part of Canada.


Samuel Hughes: Good men, too.


William Alfred Galliher: And good men too. And we want to keep up our credit. When we have men enterprising enough to band together, we want to encourage them to do so. 1 have been associated with the militia myself for a number of years, and I can speak feelingly in the matter. I know that is necessary, and I agree with the suggestion thrown out by the hon. member for Simcoe that they not only want a place in which to store arms, but a place to drill in, and also a place in which to meet for social intercourse. A place of this latter kind is very taking in a western city, because we have not many places in those little western towns where the men can meet together to read the newspapers and magazines, and have a little social chat after their drill. Now, I am pleased indeed with the generosity of the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Militia and Defence in giving us a drill shed in that community. True, we pay very heavily into the Dominion treasury from the province of British Columbia, and we feel in the past that we have not been getting what we were entitled to. I do not know that I would go so far as to say with one member from British Columbia that we are still complaining. We are, however, still saying that in proportion to the revenue we pay into the Federal treasury the expenditure made by the Dominion in that province is very small. However, I have nothing to complain of in connection with these drill halls that are being established in my district. I thank the minister for meeting my request in this matter. I will say this, now while I am on the subject, that in the town of Nelson where I live, the appropriation will not build a drill hall there, even according to the specifications, and I call the special attention of the minister to the fact, because I mean to approach him again for more money in connection with the Nelson drill hall. We have given in the town of Nelson two lots within the fire limits, and you all know there is a law against building a certain class of building within the fire limits. We have given two lots worth $4,000 to $5,000 as a free site to the government for a drill hall. The hall cannot be built of wood, as I believe is the present intention, for the reason that the city will not permit it to be built of wood. I am merely throwing out the suggestion, so that the minister may be prepared to see me come to him again to ask for a sum in the supplementary -estimates which will be sufficient to allow us to put up such a building as the city by-laws will require within the fire limits.
Mr. HUGHES (King's, P.E.I.) While this item is under consideration, I wish to call the attention of the Minister of Militia and Defence and the Minister of Public Works to the fact that in the town from which I come, Souris, P.E.X., we have no armoury, and yet we have there a very efficient company of artillery. I wish to say to the Minister of Militia and Defence that I think he can build an armoury in connection with the drill shed there for $200 or $250, though it would have to be a wooden building. The minister knows that the Fourth Regiment to which this company belongs has an excellent record, and I hope, now that I have drawn the matter to his attention, he will take the application into consideration and if possible provide us with an armoury. It is a moderate amount, and comes very near the amount mentioned by the member for North Victoria (Mr. Hughes). Of course it would be a wooden building, and built as an annex to the present drill shed.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.: AVhat my hon. friend says about the artillery regiment there I know to be absolutely true. Certainly his request is a very modest one, and even if it were not as modest as it is, I should think it was one we might deal with promptly. And as there is in the militia vote a sum for repairs and additions of this kind, if my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works is not particularly anxious to do this work, I think I may undertake to say that the Militia Department will look after it in the near future.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: If my hon. friend is short of money I will do it.


Samuel Hughes: Why is it that there is no sum brought down for an armoury for this Rossland company ?


William Alfred Galliher: I suppose the reason is that apparently in the east the government have been buying sites for armouries, while in the west all these sites are being provided free to the government. If no selection has been made in Rossland, it is the fault of the people and not the fault of the minister; but I can promise that will be attended to.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: What is the reason for the distinction between the tvest and the east in supplying sites ?


William Alfred Galliher: I do not know whether that distinction is general or not, but in listening to the discussion to-night I understood that sites in the east had been purchased by the government. If that is not the case, then I withdraw that remark. But I know that in British Columbia we are furnishing the sites free, and I may say that we are very glad to do so if we can

only get a decent class of buildings put up on tliem. The only reason Rossland is not mentioned is simply because they have not yet furnished the government that site, although I have requested them to do so. But that will be attended to, and then I shall come to the minister for a grant.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: May I ask what is the rule with regard to sites ? Are they only purchased in certain parts of Canada, and have they to be given free in other parts ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There has never been any fixed rule. It is very far from being the rule in British Columbia that all sites are furnished free, because I have been obliged to pay large sums of money for sites for public buildings.


Samuel Hughes: I trust that the minister, now that the matter has been brought to his attention, will consider this question of company and battalion drill sheds, and if it is possible, to give each company headquarters a room in which the arms may be kept, and also a recreation room where the boys can meet for social intercourse after going through their drill. I would be pleased if the minister were to furnish us with such a building, although I am satisfied the regiment will not even ask that much, but will follow the example which the Minister of Militia and Defence says he has set in his own county.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I would be only too glad, if the militiamen will change their mind in the direction indicated by my hon. friend, because I am stating gospel truth when I say that these militiamen want very expensive buildings. Every time they come on a deputation, I am frightened, because they want so much money.
Experimental farms-New buildings and renewals, improvements, repairs, &c., in connection with existing buildings, fences, &c., $10,000.


Samuel Hughes: I do not want to discuss this item farther than to urge upon the hon. Minister of Agriculture to look into the advisability of establishing an experimental farm in southern Alberta and one in the vicinity of Edmonton.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That would be a question of the extension of the experimental farm system which should not be lightly undertaken. It has been discussed several times in the House and has nothing to do with this vote which is simply for repairs.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What repairs do you intend to make ? Is this just a general vote ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, this is a general vote for repairs on all the farms.


William Alfred Galliher: 


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There are some important questions in connection with experimental farms which must be dealt with, but, I presume, they will more properly come up on some other items, on the agricultural vote, or the vote for cold storage. Perhaps the hon. minister will not be prepared to answer questions now on that subject.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: This vote has nothing to do with the experimental farms. There is a vote for that purpose. When we take up the vote in connection with experimental farms these questions may be discussed.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: This is simply for repairs at all the farms.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It must be for repairs ta buildings on the experimental farms. It is not properly stated here.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It is for general maintenance.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I must be right, or I must be wrong. If I am right this is a general vote for repairs to buildings, fences and other things on the experimental farms.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Quite true.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And has no connection with the work carried on at these farms, for instance in the dairy ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No.
Public buildings generally, $5,000.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Public Works if he can state whether the Vancouver drill shed has been taken off the contractor's hands ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Not yet.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Could the. hon. gentleman state the amount of the contract and the amount paid to the contractor ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I have not the information, but I will bring it down on Monday.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Showing the extras, the amount for which the contract was taken and the amount that will be paid when the building is complete.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: My officers will take a note of the question and I will bring the information down.
Salaries to resident clerks of works, assistants, &c., $10,500.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Where are these resident clerks of works ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: There is one in New Brunswick, one in Mont-

real, one in Quebec, one in Ottawa, Mr. Adams, tlie man wbo has supervised tbe work in connection with this building, one in Manitoba, and one in th'e North-west Territories.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Who is the one in Manitoba ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Mr. Cyr. There is one in the North-west Territories and one in British Columbia.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We will take, for example, a building going on in Manitoba; I notice that Mr. Cyr is clerk of the work there. Is he not paid out of the estimate for that work ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: These clerks of works, for whom this sum of money is asked, are the general officers who supervise the works of the department in all of the provinces. They have special work in cities. For instance, Mr. Desjardins superintends the works in Montreal. Mr. Cyr lives in Winnipeg and supervises the works in Winnipeg and has his eyes open also to any works around Winnipeg. Sometimes we send him into the territories. These are general officers from whom we expect service all around.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: They get a salary, I presume '!


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That comes out of this $10,500 ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Quite so.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then how is it they get their $3 a day over and above that for superintending works ? I will take in Winnipeg, for instance, the repairs going on there :
Some carpets and wall paper, also a flag Etaff,
and ensign were supplied	Works
carried out under the supervision of J. Ernest Cyr, clerk of works, Winnipeg, Manitoba.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Then he has been paid out of this appropriation.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Take the next : Examining warehouse; he is the clerk of works there. Is his pay taken out of this vote ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes, he supervised the whole of the work.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I see that he is employed on the post office as well.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood that in these cases the pay of the clerks of the works came out of the vote for the particular work.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, not in these cases.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It does in regard to harbour works.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In that case, we have no general officers. If we build a harbour at Port Hope, for instance, we employ an officer, who is not in the department. In this case Mr. Cyr is a permanent employee just as Mr. Desjardins is in Montreal. That is the reason why the hon. member for East Gray (Mr. Sproule) finds their names where he does find them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I know, but you set a man over the building of a post office and he is paid out of the vote for that post office.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: He is employed for that purpose.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If he is paid out of the vote for that building how can you pay him out of this sum ? Will you be paying him a double salary ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, Mr. Cyr is paid only one salary, and that salary is paid out of this appropriation. He is not paid out of any other appropriation. He will supervise three or four works but he is paid his ordinary salary out of this appropriation.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me that it is possible to pay them sometimes double salaries. I have had brought to my notice only a short time ago the fact, in regard to which I asked a question and got a reply, that clerks employed in a certain department are employed in another department at the same time and draw pay there also. The answer was that the government has no knowledge of this. I am informed that it is a fact, and that it has been going on during the last few months. I give that as a justification for endeavouring to find out whether such a thing could happen or not without the knowledge of the minister.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In this case it cannot happen.


George William Fowler: I understood the hon. minister to say that there was a clerk of works for New Brunswick. I would like to ask if this is the gentleman who superintended the armoury at Sussex ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, .there is a local man at Sussex. Mr. Waterbury is at St. John. He has general supervision over the works in St. John, but at times we send him elsewhere.


George William Fowler: The superintendent at Sussex is a local man ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Yes.
Mr. FOWLER, Does the minister know the occupation of this man ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am very glad this question is asked. Since

I have been in office I have taken very great care to secure the services of a practical man in each case. I may have been deceived on some occasions, but I think I have not been. Every time that a clerk of works is to be appointed I inquire whether he is a practical man or not. When the contract for the Sussex armoury was awarded, the name of a gentleman was suggested to me, and before I apopinted him I wrote to Colonel Domville, ex-M.P. for the riding, who replied that the gentleman he recommended was a practical man. On the strength of Mr. Domville's letter, which is in my office and can be brought down if necessary, that this gentleman was well fitted to be foreman of works and a practical man, I appointed him. No complaint has been made so far as to his competency.


George William Fowler: 1 may say to the minister that the gentleman in question is a practical man in one sense, as he is a practical tailor, and a good tailor too. But so far as being a carpenter or builder, he is nothing of the sort, and has had no experience whatever along that line. He lives in the town in which I lived for a great many years, and I know whereof I speak when I say that he has no building experience whatever, except that he had a house built for him, and he may have superintended the erecting of that house. It is a very modest though respectable building, but it is not a very extensive one. That is his sole experience in the building line.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I am sorry that my hon. friend (Mr. Fowler) did not call my attention to this state of affairs before now. I express my deep regret that a practical tailor has been recommended to me as a practical builder of an armoury. I remember distinctly having written to Mr. Domville-I have a copy of my letter and his reply in which he states that the gentleman he recommended to me was a practical man in building-


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Building suits of clothes.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: What more could I do than appoint him. My hon. friend (Mr. Fowler) should have warned me before. He is guilty and not I. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Fowler) knew all about the practical tailor and he should have warned me. In future I suppose I will have to write Mr. Domville twice.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: What will you do with the tailor now?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I will not make him a present of a suit; I think I shall certainly change him. Before making such appointments I have always taken the greatest care to insure that a practical man gets the position, and my officers have received most positive instructions on that point. I am sorry that I have Hon. Mr. TARTB.
been deceived by a man.from the maritime provinces from whom good things are always expected. My hon. friend (Mr. Fowler) should have warned me, and although he is not so much to blame as Mr. Domville, still lie is somewhat to blame.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister must be deceived in all parts of the country, because last year he employed a painter from Toronto to do dredging.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: But dredging is not made by the hand. I would hire a dredge from a medical man or a tailor provided the dredge does good work. That is different from a foreman of works. The profession of a man who owns a horse does not alter the colour of the horse.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: That is a horse of another colour.


George William Fowler: The Minister of Public Works was to some extent not to blame in this matter. As a matter of fact, I know that the minister did write, Inquiring as to the occupation cf the person who had been Recommended to him as clerk of works. However, I am not to blame in the matter-, because I was so satisfied of the honesty and integrity of the contractors, that I knew they would not go wrong whether there was a clerk of works over them or not, and it was for that reason I did not interfere, because I knew that the public interests would be well protected by the contractors, even though the clerk of works knew absolutely nothing about the business for which he was selected. I beleive the minister did his duty in the premises, but he was deceived by the gentleman who made the recommendation. In order to relieve the maritime provinces from any blame in the matter, I may say that that gentleman is not a native of the maritime provinces.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I shall inquire further into the matter, and if the man is not competent I will dispense with his services, not because of any ill-will I have towards him, but a minister cannot stand being deceived in that way.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: What will you do with Mr. Domville ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I cannot dismiss him now.


George William Fowler: The building is finished, so that the work of the clerk of works is completed. What pay did he receive ?
The MINISTER OF PUBLIC W'ORKS. Three dollars a day, which is the ordinary pay to a foreman of work.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of the Minister of Finance, the House adjourned at 10.15 p.m.


Monday, March 10, 1902.