ADDRESSES, ETC., RE INSURANCE BILL 1908.

Mr. MILLER moved:: That the clerk be requested to lay on the table of the House a printed copy of the addresses, representations and suggestions made during the session of 1907-8 to the Select Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce, on behalf of various insurance comf>anies, in connection with Bill (No. 42) of ast session, respecting insurance.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. SPEAKER.: I have the honour to state that the said report has now been laid on the table.
Mr. MILLER moved that the said addresses, representations and suggestions be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr.  J. A.@: CURRIE (North Simcoe)moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 107) to amend the Adulteration Act.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER Explain.


Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: The Bill first does away with the necessity of a deposit of money by the complainant in the case of goods being sold that are adulterated. The Adulteration Act provides that if anyone enters a complaint he must deposit with the officer sufficient money to cover the cost of purchasing a sample, and secondly, sufficient money to cover the cost of an analysis. _ I consider this a hardship on the public when parliament provides large sums of money for these officers and when, acording to the Auditor General's report, large sums are spent annually in purchasing samples for analysis.
The second clause is intended to simplify the prosecution. We have no prosecutions to speak of under this Act because the Act provides that the informant must deposit $25 with the officer as a guarantee of the costs of the prosecution; or, in other words, if anyone wishes to enforce this public Act he must first deposit $25 with the official. The Adulteration Act also provides that the complainant or informant shall receive a portion of the fine. The second clause of this Bill does away with this provision altogether and simply states that the officer shall prosecute in the same manner as under any other Act so that anyone may lay an information without making a deposit. Thus the law would be carried out and the offender fined but the informant would not receive a portion of the fine. Under this system there would be no inducement for anyone to become an informer beyond the desire to carry out the provisions of the Act. When this matter was under discussion in the House it was shown that whilst a great number of analyses had been made by the department, hardly any prosecutions had been made and if a firm or person were guilty of adulterating goods the only punishment suffered was the fact of their having sold adulterated goods was published in the pamphlets issued from time to time by the government. I think the time has come when the same course should be pursued in the enforcement of this Act as of any other Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

Mr.  E. N.@: LEWIS (West Huron) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 108) intituled the Daylight Saving Act.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Explain.


Mr. LEWIS.: I can best explain the provisions of this Act by, for two or three minutes, explaining the position of time in Great Britain and in Canada. On June 15. 1881, Mr. Sandford Fleming civil engineer, now Sir Sandford Fleming, made a report, which was really an essay, as to the time system then in use in Canada. We were then using the system which had been in vogue from time immemorial. On the 17th of June, 1882, Sir Sandford Fleming as chairman of the committee appointed for the purpose of looking into the question recommended a standard system of time for different parts of the country instead of the existing time system which changed with each degree of latitude, and in 1883 our present system was adopted in Canada. We have now in Canada four systems of time, namely, the eastern system, the central system, the mountain system, the Pacific system, not including the Atlantic system or the Yukon system, with regard to which there is special legislation in the Yukon territory. In the United K; igiom they have always been using mean time, namely Greenwich time or Dublin time. Some two or three years ago a gentleman named William Willets, who had been accustomed to early rising, began to realize that most of the people of England were lying in bed during the best hours of the day, that the best part of the sun-lit day was lost to the people and that the hours of recreation for workingmen were in twilight and dark when they might just as well be in the hours of daylight. Mr. Willets found that this condition of things affected adversely, more particularly the working men, the artizans, the agriculturalists, and the youth of the land. He agitated his scheme with the result that in March, 1908, the British parliament appointed a commission of nine members to investigate the subject and evidence was taken , the report of which may be found in the library. There was a majority report brought in by eight members of that commission and a minority report by one. The majority report contained this recommendation:.
The Select Committee to whom the Daylight Saving Bill was referred, have agreed to the following special report:-
1.	That the committee have met and considered the said Bill, and have examined numerous witnesses, records and papers and have directed the said Bill to he reported to the House with amendments.
2.	And the committee find that the Bill proposes the adoption of a local time in advance of Greenwich mean time in the case of Great Britain, and in advance of Dublin mean time


John Allister Currie: in the case of Ireland, during the summer months, viz.:	from April to September in
each year, with the object of promoting the earlier and more extended use and enjoyment of daylight during those months. And that such object is desirable and would benefit the community if it can be generally attained, and that the weight of the evidence submitted to the committee agrees with and supports this view, though there was divergence of opinion as to the best mode of accomplishing it.
The effect of the proposals of the Bill would be:-
(1)	To move the usual hours of work and
leisure nearer to sunrise.	_
(2)	To promote the greater use of daylight for recreative purposes of all kinds.
(3)	To benefit the physique, general health and ivelfare of all classes of the community.
(4)	To reduce the industrial, commercial and. domestic expenditure on artificial light.
A Bill founded on this report was introduced in the Imperial House of Commons and passed through its second reading last session. This year a similar Bill was introduced, read a second time, and submitted to a special committee for a report. The Bill which I propose submitting to the House is drafted on the same lines as the English Bill so far as the conditions in Canada will admit and is as follows:
An Act respecting the system of time now in
use in Canada.
This Act shall be known as the Daylight Saving Bill.
Whereas, the adoption of a local time in Canada in advance of the standard time now in use there during the summer months for the object of promoting the earlier and more extended use and enjoyment of daylight during said period is desirable.
Therefore, His Majesty by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:-
1.	From two o'clock in the morning of the last day of April in each year in Canada until two o'clock in the morning of the last day in October in each year in Canada the local time shall be one hour in advance of the standard time as now in use in Canada.
2.	The time hereby established shall be known as local time in Canada, and whenever any period of time is mentioned in any Act of parliament, deed, or other legal instrument, the time mentioned or referred to shall, unless it is otherwise specifically stated, be held in the case of Canada to be local time as prescribed by this Act.
3.	Greenwich mean time as used for the purposes of astronomy and navigation shall not be affected by this Act.
4.	This Act shall' apply to the Dominion of Canada, save and except the Yukon Territory, and may be cited as the Daylight Saving Act, and shall not come into force until one year from the date of passing of same.
I might state to the House that a number of localities in Canada have attempted to adopt some such system as is here outlined, but their efforts have not been successful as they could not legally alter the standard

time. The city of Nelson in British Columbia has been much agitated over the question for the last two or three months, and in Fort William and Port Arthur an unsuccessful attempt was made to deal with it. I would point out that after the first change is made there would be really no inconvenience to the people of Canada, and I feel they would soon become used to and highly pleased with the system which I propose. In Canada on April 30 the sun rises at 11 minutes past 5 o'clock and sets at 18 minutes past 7 o'clock; on October 31 the sun rises at 52 minutes past six o'clock and sets at 11 minutes past five o'clock. These are the dates set in the proposed Bill. I trust that Canada will not be backward in this movement, and I would ask the government to appoint a committee to investigate and to confer with the authorities in England, the United States, Australia and New Zealand, the latter countries having started legislation on these lines. I believe that if my idea is carried into legislation it will he conducive to the health and wealth of the labouring men, of the workingmen, and of the farmers of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I desire to state to the House that in the classification list of the staff of the House of Commons, laid by me on the table of the House yesterday, there was, through misapprehension, an error in the classification of one second-class clerk who was placed in the second division subdivision A, who should, under the Act, have been placed in the second division, subdivision B, and the classification is to be amended accordingly. And also that all classification references in the organization statement be amended to correspond throughout with the said classification list.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN.

Mr. FOSTER.: I want to ask again as to the reasons for delay in bringing down certain returns. We have been generous in passing estimates, but if these returns are not brought down, so far as I am concerned I shall not continue that generosity.


Mr. PUGSLEY.: As to the returns from my department my deputy has informed me that there were quite a number of other motions ahead of those of my hon. friend, but I have instructed him to push these ahead at once and let the others stand.


Mr. DANIEL.: What about the motion for papers which I referred to the other day?


William Pugsley: They will be brought down.


John Waterhouse Daniel: When?


William Pugsley: Very soon; in the course of a few days.


Mr. OLIVER.: The hon. member for North Toronto asked for a return in regard to the Grand Trunk Pacific terminal town sites. I am informed that that return was laid on the table about the I2th of February.


Mr. GRAHAM.: The hon. member for North Toronto asked for a return in reference to the persons appointed to office in connection with the Transcontinental Railway Commission, with their addresses. If it were not for the addresses, we could get the return very quickly; but it is likely to take weeks to ferret out the addresses of these men, and in many instances we have not their addresses at all.



INTERNATIONAL WATERWAYS TREATY.

Wilfrid Laurier: As inquiry
has been made in the House several times in regard to the Waterways Treaty, I have to inform the House that a despatch has been received, and the treaty will be laid on the table on Monday.


Mr.   R.@: I,. BORDEN. Will there be any announcement at an early date as to the acceptance by this government of the changes made in the treaty? I do not ask for any answer at this moment, but only whether or not there will be an announcement at an early date.


Wilfrid Laurier: I may say that we were prepared to accept the treaty as it was. The changes made in it have reference to St. Mary's river, and we require seme local information, which we are now trying to obtain before we make up our minds whether or not we can accept it.



SUPPLY-THE GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
["When I occupy the place the hon. gentleman occupies, I will have a policy, and when that time comes I won't be afraid to tell the people what my policy is. When I occupy a position of that kind ,1 will say:\t'Gentlemen, we are going in\nthere and we are going to occupy that field, but we will occupy it on terms profitable to the people that we represent as the government of Canada, and profitable to the people whom we are to serve in that region. We will have our feeders running into our trunk lines, and it will be a profitable enterprise.' But on the other hand, what the government are doing is this, they are going to build their railway, they are going to) let others build feeders from Prince Albert and Port Nelson; we will have the lean", 'part of it, and the others will have the rich part, and we will pay for both.\nProgress reported.']
Mr. OWEN.: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the Chair, I would like to ask the Minister of Railways and Canals if he is prepared to answer the question which I asked yesterday with regard to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. The reason I asked the question is that I have been told on good authority that that railway is costing this country in the neighbourhood of $100,000 a mile, including terminals and stations.


George Perry Graham: The estimate per mile which I gave my hon. friend yesterday still stands. This estimate includes the roadbed, ties,

rails and fastenings, trackage of sidings and yards (326 miles), section-houses, stations, engine-houses, and cost of surveys, right of way and bridges, and also includes 10 per cent for engineering and contingencies. It does not include the terminals at Quebec and Winnipeg and large shops at Winnipeg, but includes^ $90,000 for ordinary divisional point at Moncton.



[Stage Direction]
Mr! J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac). Mr. Speaker, before you submit the motion for the House to go into Committee of Supply,
I	desire to make a few observations in regard to moneys expended and moneys proposed to be expended on certain buildings in the neighbourhood of Kingston. When we were considering the estimates some time ago, I asked several questions of the hon. Minister of Public Works, desiring to obtain full information as to the amount of money proposed to be expended. The minister told me that if I would submit a memorandum of what I wanted, he would bring down the information at a convenient time, and place it in 'Hansard.' For the past two and a-half or three weeks I have been endeavouring to get that information. It is scattered over the pages of 'Hansard' at different places, and I must say that I am not satisfied with the answers I have received nor with the manner in which they have been given. Following the promises of the minister made to me on Febuary 23, I asked certain questions, which were answered on March 1, at page 1792 of 'Unrevised Hansard.' Let us look at these questions and the answers. I asked for the estimated total cost of the 16 cottages constructed for the accommodation of the civil subordinate staff at Kingston Royal Military College, including fittings and furnishings. The answer which I received to that question was that the original estimated cost was $96,000. Now, I did not ask for the original estimated cost. I asked for the estimated total cost at the time I asked the question. On the 10th of March the hon. minister answered a somewhat similar set of questions, which I felt called upon to ask, as I had not received the information which I desired in the first place. The first question related to the present estimated cost-that is the way I put it. The answer was:	$96,000, the same figure as
was given in answer to the question I put on March 1. It would not have been necessary to submit this question on the 10th of March had I received the information which I asked for on the 23rd of February, and which I was entitled to receive. A second question which I asked on the 1st of March was:
What portion of the work, in addition to the original contract, has been let by tender, to whom, and at what price?
George Perry Graham: I submit that that is a very plain question, and one that is entitled to a plain and distinct answer. The answer which I received to that question was this:
Alterations to main drain and lowering basement and inside
drain, M'. Sullivan.._	$1,777	00Change to pressed brick	
1,700	00
Electric wiring and fixtures,
Halliday Electric Company. 3,550 00 Outside connections, Halliday
Electric Company	
145	00Heating, Mr. Sullivan	
2,750	00Now, I want to call the minister's	attention to page 1562 of 'Unrevised Hansard', when we were discussing the estimates.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I may call the hon. gentleman's attention to the rule on that subject:
Members may discuss various questions on the motion for the Speaker to leave the Chair, without moving any amendments thereto- a great latitude being always allowed on such occasions; but they may not refer specifically to any vote which has passed or is about to be discussed in committee.
If this matter has been referred to in committee, it is irregular to discuss it at this time.


Mr. EDWARDS.: I am not aware that this matter has been referred to in committee.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I understood that the hon. member was quoting from 'Hansard a debate in committee.


William Cameron Edwards: I was going to quote from 'Hansard' an observation made by the Minister of Public Works which is very pertinent to the point I am discussing.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Until the committee has reported it would be irregular to discuss it.


William Cameron Edwards: I have no desire to transgress the rules of the House in any particular.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: This may be discussed in a committee but not at this stage.


William Cameron Edwards: The hon. the Minister of Public Works has said that tenders were received for the electric wiring and fixtures.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. gentleman had better wait until the House is in committee.


George Eulas Foster: Suppose that is an answer to a question and which is on the record?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: He cannot refer to anything done in committee.


George Eulas Foster: That was not done in committee. It was an answer given before the House went into committee.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: The discussion might be justified on another ground, that this relates to an expenditure of the previous year.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I understand there is an item in the estimates now on that point.


Robert Laird Borden: The fact that there is an item for a continuance of the expenditure would not be justification for preventing the discussion of the expenditure during a previous year and which is not before the committee.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I am quite prepared to hear argument on that point.


William Cameron Edwards: I want to show that I have endeavoured to -obtain information from the Minister of Public Works to which I was entitled but have not been able to get.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: So long as the hon. gentleman does not refer to what has taken place in committee, he may proceed.


William Cameron Edwards: In answer to a question which I put, We were told that tenders were called for in the case of the items I specified, namely, the lowering of the basement, the electric lighting and fittings, and so on. I am under the impression that tenders were not called for any of these except the electric wiring and fixtures. My reason is this. In answer to a question which I put to the minister, on the 10th of March, he said that tenders were received from three parties for the electric wiring and fixtures; but as regards the other work, the only person who seems to have been considered was Mr. Sullivan, the original contractor. Another question which I submitted, and to which I did not get a proper answer, was with regard to the work which was let without tender I was informed that only $1,230 of the work had been let without tender. A little later, on the 10th of March, in answer to a question of precisely the same import, I was informed by the minister that the amount of work let without tender was $3,034. I submit that this was not fair treatment. I submit that when I asked a question in relation to this large expenditure at Kingston, I was entitled to the fullest details, and the Minister of Public Works promised he would give me the fullest details if I submitted a memo of what I wanted. I took him at his word but regret to say he has not kept his word. It was strongly impressed on my mind that in answering questions on the estimates, the hon. gentleman is more actuated by expediency than by regard for the facts or the rights of this House. I had certain reasons for alluding to this matter. These buildings are in my own constituency where the people of my riding can
see them every day, and it is only natural that they should ask questions and that I should try to get the fullest information.
I	find that the amount appropriated for these cottages is $112,000, and that the estimate of the government's architect-a man referred to by the minister as an employee of thirty years' experience and undoubted ability-for the total work is $96,-
000.	I think therefore I may very properly ask why the minister should have asked for an appropriation of $112,000 when his chief architect said the work could have been done for $96,000, and what becomes of the other $16,000. Taking the amount expended on these buildings up to the present, I find that the sum of $90,695 has been expended, so that there is something over $5,000 to be expended before the government reach their architect's estimate of the cost, and that leaves some $23,000 to be expended before they reach the amount they have asked for. Why have they asked for something over $20,000 more for these buildings than their own architect estimates they would cost and which even then is an enormous amount. In referring to the cost of these buildings, I made comparison with certain buildings at Queen's University, and the Minister of Public Works took exception to my comparison, an exception'in which I think he was not justified.


William Pugsley: I would ask whether or not it is proper, Mr. Speaker, to discuss a debate which took place in Committee of Supply? It is very inconvenient, on a motion to go into supply to discuss harbours and rivers, that we should be called on to deal with a debate which took place on public buildings. The officials in my department are not present and I have not the information always with me. If the hon. gentleman will indicate what information has not been furnished to him, I shall be only too glad to get it for him.


Mr. SPROULE.: May I submit this point? If the House is deprived of information to which it is rightly entitled for an intelligent consideration of the votes it is asked to give, surely that ought to be a sufficient reason to submit before supplies are granted. If there is any one rule well understood, it is that before granting supplies grievances must be redressed, and this is a grievance the opposition have to contend with.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: My idea in calling the attention of the hon. member to the point is very evident: We are about to go into Supply, and, as the matter under discussion is before the Committee of Supply, I thought it would be better to know how the House intends to proceed. For, if this practice is followed, every item may be called up whenever the House is to go into Committee of Supply and the discussion

that has been had in Supply repeated. The rule laid down is that members ' may not refer specifically to any vote which has been passed, or is about to be discussed in committee.' In the estimates, this is one of the items still before the Committee of Supply. I think the older parliamentarians in the House will agree with me that it is a matter that the House might well determine in order that we may know what to do in the future.


George Eulas Foster: I understood the hon. gentleman (Mr. Edwards) only to incidentally mention the vote as evidence of his inability to get the information.


William Pugsley: No, he was referring to what took place in Supply, and to what he had said and what I had said.


George Eulas Foster: I think at the time particularly referred to, my hon. friend (Mr. Edwards) was referring directly to a discussion which had taken place between himself and the Minister of Public Works in Committee of Supply on this item. In that respect, I should be inclined to agree with the ruling of the chair that such a practice would be both inconvenient and against the rules. But in the main matter which is being discussed by my hon. friend, he has taken his material from answers to questions given by the Minister of Public Works not in Committee of Supply. Any information he has received in that way, I think he has a perfect right to refer to, and to read from the records if he sees fit.


Mr. HUGHES.: Or lack of information.


George Eulas Foster: Yes, or lack of information; he has a right to make his plea to the House that he has not been given the information to which he is entitled.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: If the hon. gentleman refers, not to the proceedings in the Committee of Supply but merely to answers of questions by the Minister of Public Works in the House, I think the discussion is in order. The hon. member will have an opportunity, when the House goes into Committee of Supply, of taking the matter up. I thought I would take the sense of the House on the subject, because the same question might come up again.


William Cameron Edwards: 
William Pugsley: In view of what the, hon. gentleman has said of his inexperience in the ways of this parliament, perhaps I should not complain of the somewhat unusual manner in which he has brought this 79i
subject up at the present time. The hon. gentleman ought to be aware, and I am sure when he gets some experience he will be aware, that it is the usual practice, when a member intends to discuss a matter of public interest, to notify the minister concerned, and who would be likely to give information upon the subject, of his intention to bring the matter before the House.


William Cameron Edwards: Right here I want to state to the House that I did send the hon. gentleman a letter of notification, this very day, that I was going to bring this.matter up. Although in a previous discussion he had declared that so far as he was concerned he had said all that could be said on the matter, nevertheless I sent him a notification.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman did send me to-day a letter stating that at some convenient time he would bring the matter up


William Cameron Edwards: I rise to a point of order. I did not say what the hon. gentleman alleges I said; I said I would bring it up at the first convenient opportunity, and this is the first convenient opportunity.


William Pugsley: I certainly did not assume for a moment that the hon. gentleman intended to bring the matter up today. I would certainly assume that if the hon. gentleman intended to discuss the necessity for these buildings at Kingston, he would have given the same intimation to the Minister of Militia, who is the minister best informed upon militia matters, so that he also might have been in his place to reply to the hon. gentleman. However, as the hon. gentleman has not chosen to do that, I will deal with the matter for a few moments. Now let me say that when I stated in Committee of Supply that if the hon. gentleman would furnish me with a memorandum of what he wanted I would be glad to give him all the information he desired, I indicated that the memorandum should go to the deputy minister, who would prepare the requisite information, but I am not aware whether the hon. gentleman gave any memorandum to the deputy minister or not. Certainly I have no recollection of his giving the memorandum to me which he intimated that he would do. I did give instructions, I remember, to the deputy minister to produce the tenders which were put in for these cottages, as I understood the hon. gentleman to desire them. I do not know whether he has received them or not, but I presume he has, because I gave the necessary directions. I want to say to the hon. gentleman that any information which he or any other member of this House desires from my department, if it is proper that the information should be furnished, will be pro-

duced at all times, whether the request comes from an hon. member sitting on this side of the House or on the other side. If I may be pardoned for making this observation, I may say that it ill becomes any member of this House, in the absence of any ground whatever, such as would appear to be the case with respect to the hon. gentleman, to insinuate with regard either to myself or any other member of the government, that information is being refused or withheld. Nothing has occurred since the hon. gentleman has been a member of this House to warrant him in suggesting any insinuation of that character.
Now the hon. gentleman asked questions with regard to these buildings upon two different occasions. I find upon page 2390 that the hon. gentleman asked some questions. He asked:
What is the present estimated total cost of the 16 cottages constructed for the civil subordinate staff at Kingston Royal Military College, including fittings, furnishings, &c.
That was the second question the hon. gentleman had asked. He had asked previously, page 1792, what was the original estimated cost, and the chief architect had given the original estimated cost at $96,000. But he had also been told, as the hon. gentleman will see if he chooses to read with any degree of care the answer which was given-


William Cameron Edwards: I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman has misquoted me, he has stated things that I did not say. I did not ask what was the original estimated cost, as the hon. gentleman 'says I did.


Some hon, MEMBERS: Order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: That is not a point of order. If there is a question of privilege, the hon. member can only give his explanation with the permission of the gentleman occupying the floor, otherwise he will have to wait until the speaker has concluded his remarks.


William Pugsley: There can be no doubt whatever as to the meaning of the question, and the answer thereto. The question was:
What is the estimated total cost of the 16 cottages constructed for the accommodation of the civil subordinate staff at Kingston Royal Military College, including fittings, furnishings, &c.
The answer was that the original estimated cost was $96,000. Then the next question was:
What portion of the work, in addition to the original contract, has been let by tender, to whom and at what price?
Showing that the hon. gentleman was asking for two things, first, as to the or-Mr. PUGSLEY.
iginal tender for the buildings, and secondly, as to the additional work which was required. The second question shows that the hon. gentleman was perfectly aware that there had been an original contract for the buildings, and that there had been additional work which would increase the price beyond the $96,000. The answer to the second question was as follows:
2.	Alterations to main drain and
lowering basement and inside drain, M. Sullivan.. . .$1,777 00
Change to pressed brick	 1,700 00
Electric wiring and fixtures,
Halliday Electric Company. 3,550 00 Outside connections, Halliday
Electric Company	
145	00Heating, Mr. Sullivan	
2,750	00
Then the hon. gentleman asked:
3.	Has any of the work been let without tender? If so, what, to whom and the amount in each case?
To which the reply was:
3. Hot water boilers purchased from Cluff Bros, for $1,230, regular market price.
Any one who understands the meaning of the English language would understand that the original estimate was for the buildings alone, $96,000, and this was additional work which had to be performed. The hon. gentleman apparently was not satisfied with that answer and he put another question in somewhat similar form which appears at page 2390. He repeated the question as to the cost. Evidently tha officials of my department, seeing the same question and having given the answer as to the original contract and additional work, repeated that the estimate w'as $96,000. It may be that the officials of my department should have repeated that that was the original estimated cost, but they took it for granted that my hon. friend was asking the same question because he followed it with other questions as to the hot water boilers, fittings, furnaces and other work for which fenders were not asked. There is another question as to the amount of any work, fittings, furnishings contracted for since the awarding of the original contract to Mr. Sullivan for which tenders were not asked. He also asked:
6. Will the sum of $57,000 voted this session complete the cottages, ready for use, or will a further sum be required?
To this the answ'er was:
fa) Yes; (b) No.
It may be that my hon. friend intended that that should not apply to the cost as estimated by the architect in the first instance, because you could understand that as this item was discussed in the Committee of Supply, without going into what took place there, there would be the

fullest opportunity to go into details and it would naturally be assumed that these details were gone into when the officers of my department were here in attendance on me as Minister of Public Works, consequently the estimate was repeated, being the original estimate of the chief architect. But then, in order that the hon. gentleman should have full information, detailed information is given in answer to his questions as to the boilers, printing and advertising, travelling expenses, architects' commission, photographs, and even a small charge by the Shedden Forwarding Company for cartage.


William Cameron Edwards: How do you reconcile the facts that on page 1792 in answer to a question as to the total amount of work let without tender, the answer is given, $1,230, and on page 2391, in answer to a similar question, you say $3,034.20?


William Pugsley: What are these items for?


William Cameron Edwards: These are boilers, printing and advertising, travelling expenses, architect's commission, photographs, and cartage.


William Pugsley: Does not my hon. friend see that when speaking of work being awarded without tender, the travelling expenses would not be included. How would you let a contract for travelling expenses? Does not my hon. friend see, if he will pardon me, how silly is the suggestion he makes?


William Cameron Edwards: Why did you answer in the second place?


William Pugsley: Does my hon. friend suppose that I would include the architect's commission when speaking of the work let after calling for public tenders? And then the photographs, $10? Does not my hon. friend understand that these photographs would be taken at the instance of the department? My hon. friend even complains of the payment to the Shedden Forwarding Company for cartage. Of course there were no tenders for these items.


William Cameron Edwards: Then why were they not left out the second time?


William Pugsley: My hon. friend is certainly cavilling in the matter, and I am quite unable to follow him.


William Cameron Edwards: That is not mv fault.


William Pugsley: The two answers are identical that so far as concerned the fittings for these buildings the boilers were purchased from Cluff Brothers without tender.
Notwithstanding the unusual and unexpected remarks of the hon. gentleman, even now if there is any further information
which he wishes, all he has to do is to make-a memorandum which I shall send to the deputy minister and any additional information will be sent to him. The department has nothing whatever to conceal so far as this building or any other public work is concerned. The hon. gentleman has said that these buildings cost more than they should have cost, and compares them with certain cottages which he said have been erected in Kingston. The answer I make is that when the plans and specifications for these buildings were prepared we did the proper and usual thing for us to do. we called for public tenders, and gave the advertisement as wide publicity as it was reasonable to give it. We received four tenders, including one by Mr. Sullivan, of Kingston, an experienced contractor. The highest tender was from an Ottawa firm, Doran & Devlin, also experienced contractors. Their tender was considerably higher than the lowest tender.


Samuel Hughes: I rise to a point of order, In case our good friend is going into such a lengthy discussion of this matter, the hon. member for Frontenac should be at liberty to state his side of the case, and not be limited to these questions.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: That confirms the stand I took, and I think the House will agree that a matter of this kind should have been discussed in committee, because we are clearly drifting away from the rules.


William Pugsley: I am merely replying to the hon. gentleman who


Mr. LENNOX.: I presume if the hon. gentleman is allowed to pursue this argument we will be allowed to discuss it. We want to discuss it if it is opened in that way.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The only justification for alluding to it now is that two questions were put to the minister by the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) and replied to. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), who spoke on the point, thought that with that view of it the question might now be discussed under other phases and certainly any discussion of that kind should take place in Committee of the Whole. While the question is on an item which I find in the estimates, _ it is clearly in violation of the rules to discuss it now.


William Pugsley: The motion having been made that the House go into Committee of Supply, I am now replying to the observations of the hon. gentleman and I trust I have not departed at all from the line of argument presented by him.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: The general rule applies of course that in the interest

of the despatch of public business, the House should hear any explanation a minister of the Crown may have to make.


William Pugsley: I frankly admit that buildings of a cheaper character might have been designed, but it was a fact that there was an area of some 330 feet by 30 feet, which had to be excavated from the solid rock. Of course, the buildings might have been erected without providing for fire proof brick partitions.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I rise to a point of order. I ask if the minister is in order in discussing this question beyond showing that his answers were correct. He is now leading the House into a general discussion and making a defence of his policy.


William Pugsley: Well, I feel we are only wasting time and I will cease my observations at once so as to close the matter.
Motion agreed to and the House went into Committee of Supply.


Charles Lewis Owen: I want to say a word or two, Mr. Chairman, before you proceed in committee.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: There is no business yet before the committee.


Charles Lewis Owen: But I want to speak on a matter before you bring up any business.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: That would not be in order.


Charles Lewis Owen: Then I move the committee rise, and I would ask the minister if he intends to follow the same policy this session as he announced last session when he stated that it was the policy of the government to erect public buildings in towns where they were most needed irrespective of the politics of the member.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. gentleman having moved that the committee rise, his remarks must be relevant to that motion.


Charles Lewis Owen: I move that the committee rise for the purpose of saying a few words to the Minister of Public Works. If I am out of order I will not proceed.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. gentleman will have opportunity to speak on another occasion.
Graham's pond, Prince Edward Island,


Mr. FRASER.: Is this work to be done by contract?


William Pugsley: No, by day's labour.
Harbours, rivers and bridges, generally- improvements, $8,000.


William Pugsley: This is the usual vote, it is the same as last year.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: 


Austin Levi Fraser: Is it the intention to bring down supplementary estimates for this same purpose?


William Pugsley: I am not aware of any such intention.


Austin Levi Fraser: Last year $85,000 was voted in the main estimates for public wharfs and public structures in Prince Edward Island, and $90,000 was voted in the supplementary estimates. This year the total vote is only $100,000 and some of the works for which there were appropriations last year are eliminated altogether this year. What is the explanation?


William Pugsley: The postponing of works provided for at the last sesion of parliament is in accordance with the policy of retrenchment which is being pursued. It must not be forgotten that the government has two dredges at work in the harbours of Prince Edward Island, and the colleagues of my hon. friend (Mr. Fraser) from the island have already seen me in regard to very important dredging operations to be carried on there during the coming season. I have strong hope that in this way we may be able to meet the reasonable expectations of the people of Prince Edward Island. I have had to postpone the work on some of the wharfs because I was obliged to curtail my estimates very considerably.


Austin Levi Fraser: Last year there was a sum of $8,000 for the construction of a breakwater at Long Point and that is eliminated this year. Is it the intention to go ahead with that work this year or next year.


William Pugsley: It is not the intention to proceed with the breakwater this year; I am unable to say what will be done next year.


William Cameron Edwards: How much would that breakwater cost?


William Pugsley: Between $30,000 and $40,000.


William Cameron Edwards: That is just about the sum you over-expended on the Kingston buildings.
Naufrage pond-protected entrance to channel, $14*500.


Austin Levi Fraser: I wish to call attention to either a contradiction or a mistake made by the Minister of Public Works in this matter. Some days ago, when the hon. member for North Toronto asked the Minister of Public Works if he was proceeding on any principle in dropping certain works and going on with certain other works, and asked him to give a concrete case in which any public works for which tenders were called had been dropped, he gave this very case.


William Pugsley: Would my hon. friend pardon me? I admit that that was a mis-

take. The name was given to me by one of my officials.


Austin Levi Fraser: I do not wish to object to the appropriation, but 'Hansard' has gone down to that part of the country, and people have told me that they had the minister's word that the work was not going on. I am glad to see that that is a mistake.


William Pugsley: The case of Naufrage pond was confounded with the Long Point work, which I decided to drop. I intend to proceed with the Naufrage pond work.


Austin Levi Fraser: I would like to ask the minister if tenders have been called, and, if so, the names of the tenderers and the amount of each tender.


William Pugsley: The work is under contract to F. S. Macdonald, of Souris, P.E.I., and the contract price is $12,995.


Austin Levi Fraser: Were any other tenders received?	a


William Pugsley: Yes. Three were received in response to public advertisment, and this gentleman's was the lowest tender.


Austin Levi Fraser: I would like to have the name and the amount of each tender?


William Pugsley: I haven't them here. The hon. gentleman can be furnished with them if he makes a motion.


George Eulas Foster: Surely the minister is not going to ask a member to give a notice of motion in the House for tenders for a work for which a vote is being taken?


William Pugsley: I merely wished the hon. member to call my attention to it or to ask a question in the House in case I should forget; but I think I can say that I shall have them this evening.


George Eulas Foster: Let the item stand.


William Pugsley: Oh, no.


George Eulas Foster: The primary thing for a minister to have, when he is asked for the name of the successful tenderer, is the names of the other tenderers, and the amounts of their tenders. That information is absolutely germane, and it raised my hair to hear this voung member asked to wait for a formal motion to be carried by the House for a return for this information.


William Pugsley: I am quite sure that the hon. member can take care of himself without the assistance of the hon. member for North Toronto. If the hon. member wishes this item to stand, I am willing that it should stand.


Austin Levi Fraser: I would ask that it stand until we get the information.


William Pugsley: Very well; perhaps we can get it in half an hour or twenty minutes.
Item allowed to stand.
Sturgeon pier - enlarging outer end and raising stem of pier, $4,500.


Austin Levi Fraser: I would ask the Minister of Public Works if this is sometimes called the Panmure wharf?


William Pugsley: I do not know. This is on the southern side of Cardigan bay, about six miles south of Georgetown.


Austin Levi Fraser: That is where Panmure Island is. Although the wharf was built two years ago, the right of way to it has not yet been opened to the public. I would like the minister to have that done as soon as possible.


William Pugsley: I will have it looked into and attended to at once.
Tignish-extension of harbour channel piers inwardly, $25,000.


George Eulas Foster: The minister had better give us some information as to the present condition of the work.


William Pugsley: The contract for this work has just been let. It has been pressed on the attention of the department for a good many years. Tignish is a very important point, particularly as a harbour of refuge for fishermen. I may say that there have been protection works built at Tignish, but they are not adequate to the protection of the harbour, and the present works include the extension of the northern and southern breakwater, 650 feet and 620 feet respectively, and the construction of a breastwork to extend 400 feet from either end of the breakwaters. Tenders were called by public advertisement in the ordinary way, and four tenders were received, ranging from $23,950 to $30,750, and the lowest tender was accepted.


Mr. BLAIN.: Do public tenders mean public advertisement in the newspapers?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Richard Blain: How many newspapers?


William Pugsley: I have not the number here, but at least a dozen.


Richard Blain: What is the policy down there?


William Pugsley: It is to give a sufficiently wide advertisement to assure a large number of contractors getting the notice.


Richard Blain: Is the advertisement inserted in any papers that are not friendly to the government?


William Pugsley: I am inclined to think so. I can name one at any rate.


Richard Blain: What one is that?


William Pugsley: I would not care to name it.
Vernon river bridge, Port Vernoxx-landing pier on west side of river, $8,f!flfl.


William Pugsley: This is to complete. It is under contract. Probable total cost $8,000.


Austin Levi Fraser: Is it the intention to buy the right of way ?


William Pugsley: The right of way is to cost us only $1.
To purchase ereosoted timber for worts in the maritime provinces generally, $20,000.


George Eulas Foster: What is the system followed ?


William Pugsley: The resident engineers in the lower provinces, in making provision for repairs to wharfs, where the teredo is likely to prove harmful to ordinary timber, estimate for ereosoted timber. That is obtained in the south. We have no creo-soting works in Eastern Canada. The wood is southern pine, and it is treated at Norfolk, Virginia. There are only two concerns engaged in the work.	*


George Eulas Foster: What kind of a contract do you make P


William Pugsley: We do not ask for public tenders but obtain prices and take the lowest provided the timber passes a certain test. We require that it shall pass the test of our inspector.


George Eulas Foster: How do you test it?


William Pugsley: I am not aware of the details, but there is a regular mode of testing the quantity of creosote which is forced into the timber.


Samuel Hughes: Why not have the timber ereosoted in Canada P


William Pugsley: It would require an expenditure of a quarter of a million dollars
to establish a plant.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand there are
two methods-one by forcing the creosote into the wood by pressure and the other by boiling the wood in creosote.


William Pugsley: The boiling is of no use. The oil must be forced in by pressure. The sap has to be drawn out by putting the timber in a vacum, and then the oil of creosote takes the place of the sap.


George Eulas Foster: What extra cost does this creosoting entail ?


William Pugsley: It trebles the cost, but more than trebles the life of the timber.


Mr. CROCKET.: Is the timber bought by the department direct ?


William Pugsley: No, through agents. The agents are Mr. Kirk of Nova Scotia and Mr. Pell of St. John.


Richard Blain: 


Oswald Smith Crocket: What price was paid last year ?


William Pugsley: I think about $65 per 1000 feet. It depends on the length of the sticks. Long sticks would be worth more.


Oswald Smith Crocket: How much was bought
last year ?


William Pugsley: Up to the 1st of February, we bought $9,711 worth.
Naufrage pond, Prince Edward Island- protecting entrance channel, $11,500.


William Pugsley: I have the information which my hon. friend from Kings county (Mr. Fraser) desired. The parties tendering were: F. S. Macdonald, Souris, Prince Edward Island, $12,995; R. N. Cox, Morell, Prince Edward Island, $13,800; Kimbell, Coffin, Calien McCarthy, H. D. McEwen, $14,925. The contract was given to F S. Macdonald at $12,995.
Public Works-Chargeable to income-harbours and rivers-Quebec-Anse & Beaufils- extension of we^ern pier and breakwater, $3,000.


William Pugsley: Of this, $1,000 is a revote, and the present vote is the amount required to complete the work.
Anse h la Barbe breakwater, $5,000.


William Pugsley: This is required to complete payment on the breakwater that has been constructed. This is under contract.


George Eulas Foster: Where is Anse a la Barbe?


William Pugsley: In Bonaventure.


George Eulas Foster: We had asked for a return relating to that county.


William Pugsley: It is being prepared as rapidly as possible.
Mr. Foster. It is hardly in order to take up the items to be included in that return until the return has been brought down.


William Pugsley: It is a lengthy return, covering thirteen years.


Haughton Lennox: I desire to discuss these matters when the return is brought down, and, in the absence of the return, we cannot possibly discuss these matters intelligently.


George Eulas Foster: Let the items relating to Bonaventure stand.


William Pugsley: There is a great deal of work about the return, and it cannot be ready for two weeks. I do not think the return would in any way affect the passing of these items. Could not we have it understood that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lennox) should have an opportunity, on some other item, of freely discussing these Bonaventure matters?


Haughton Lennox: I think what the minister has said, if I understood him rightly, will be satisfactory-that is, it is understood that I can bring the matter up again.


Mr. AMES.: Will this vote complete the contract on this breakwater?


William Pugsley: Yes.
Anse a l'llot landing pier, $2,500.


William Pugsley: This is a revote, to complete the work.


Herbert Brown Ames: It is done by day's work, is it not?


William Pugsley: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Not in reference particularly to this item, but generally, could the minister tell us how he proceeds when he undertakes a construction like this by day's work? What is the process?


William Pugsley: The process is to instruct the resident engineer to proceed with the work by day's labour. He is instructed to confer with the member for the county supporting the government as to the names of competent foremen, to begin with, to take charge of the work, and also to purchase material at the lowest price.


George Eulas Foster: From whom?


William Pugsley: He is to use his judgment.


George Eulas Foster: Whom does he consult as to that?


William Pugsley: He has no instructions on that point.


George Eulas Foster: What is the practice?


William Pugsley: I am not able to say. I suppose that in this also he would consult the member supporting the government.	-


George Eulas Foster: What price does he pay for labour?


William Pugsley: The ordinary price paid in the neighbourhood.


George Eulas Foster: And as to material?


William Pugsley: He buys that at fair market prices.


George Eulas Foster: Who buys it?


William Pugsley: The resident engineer.


George Eulas Foster: From whom does he buy?


William Pugsley: From dealers.


George Eulas Foster: Who keeps the pay-roll?


William Pugsley: The resident engineer.


George Eulas Foster: Can the resident engineer whose time is not entirely devoted to one of these little works, keep the weekly pay-roll?


William Pugsley: Oh, no, the foreman must do that. The foreman certifies to the resident engineer, and the resident engineer certifies to the chief engineer.


William Cameron Edwards: Does the engineer receive instructions to buy at the lowest prices?


William Pugsley: Yes.


William Cameron Edwards: Always?


William Pugsley: Always.


William Cameron Edwards: Very often they do not do it.


William Pugsley: I am very sorry to hear that.


George Eulas Foster: Now, as I brought this matter up, I may be permitted a remark. We have got a lot of information in a very short space of time. The system is a lovely system in theory-and it can be even more lovely in practice. Shorn of all verbiage, what does this mean? It means that the work, from beginning to end, is in the hands of the representative of the county supporting the government and is used for his party benefit, to go no further. When the work is decided upon, the resident engineer is told to go on and do the work by day labour. He applies first-and last and always-to the member who represents the county. He needs foremen to supervise the labouring men; the member for the county appoints them. He needs material for the work; the member for the county tells him where to go to get it. He needs to know the prices to pay for them; he consults the member of the county as to the prices.


William Pugsley: No.


George Eulas Foster: The pay-rolls are kept by the nominee of the member for the county, that is by the member for the county himself.


Mr. CROSBY.: Or the defeated government candidate.


George Eulas Foster: Yes, or the unsuccessful candidate in the interests of the government. It all inures to the party benefit, either to the member supporting the government or to the defeated candidate who wishes, next time, to be elected to support the government. These facts are sufficient condemnation of the system. The minister's power is absolutely nil, so far as any real effectiveness is concerned. No independent supervision is given over the matter, with the exception of what the resident engineer may give and he is not independent. The first thing he is told to do is to consult the member representing the county, if he is in favour of the government. Now under that svstem any one can understand wliat is going on in the public works of this country in the expenditure of millions of dollars, a very considerable portion of

which is done by day's work. It seems to me that this is a very bad system, both for the government and for the political life of the country.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: The remarks of the hon. member for North Toronto would certainly apply where the pier is a large work involving a large amount of money. But I lay it down as a general principle that when the amount to be expended is less than $5,000, it is better not to call for tenders. For instance, in the counties of Bon-aventure and Gasp6 several small works have been going on for the last ten or fifteen years. Now take a small pier which is being built, to cost less than $5,000; would it be wise on the part of the government to call for tenders over all portions of Canada, or the whole district of Quebec, for instance, for the construction of that work? We would have to expend considerable money in advertisements, we know that newspapers are not paid by prayers, and we would have to spend a large amount of money in notices, advertisements and so on. Now take the county of Gaspe where this particular work is being done. The resident engineer of course is supposed to be an honest man, he belongs to a profession which naturally makes of him an honest man. He has to supervise the work for which a certain sum of money has been voted by parliament. Well, what interest would the resident engineer have in spending that money in an unwise manner? Would he take the advice of any one, and pay for timber a higher price than the market value? All accounts have to come back to the Public Works Department, where they are carefully checked by Mr. Kingston, I believe, an expert, who has been there many years. I know as a matter of fact, having had some experience with works of this kind in that district, that accounts have been checked and payment has been refused when the price appeared to be above the market price. So we can take it for granted that the market price is the one paid by the Department of Public Works. As regards paying the men- well, I am always speaking for the district of Gaspe. I have received letter after letter from my electors complaining that they had not been paid what they were entitled to. There is in every contract a clause inserted by the Department of Labour called the fair wage clause, which governs the payment of wages, so that in each district only the market price is paid for labour. This is known and adopted in the particular district. So there is no possibility, unless the resident engineer is a thief, of the department being swindled by people who are employed on those works. The acounts for the timber, the accounts for the stone, the accounts for labour, are all checked by


George Eulas Foster: Mr. Kingston, the chief accountant of the Public Works Department, and I do not see : how the department can be swindled at all. My hon. friend says it is all a piece of partisanship, that only friends of the government are employed. Well, let me say this to my hon. friend: The county of GaspS has elected me by acclamation many times, or by large majorities, since 1896, and it would be folly on my part to say to the resident engineer: You will employ only so and so. He must not make any difference, he must employ his men irrespective of politics.


George Eulas Foster: Let us argue this question out in a common sense way.


William Pugsley: How was it about fifteen years ago?


George Eulas Foster: That doesn't amount to anything it all. We are trying now to see whether this is a good way to spend the people's money. What uoes the present system amount to? In the first place, the member representing the county, if he supports the government, obtains the work, and what is the next thing he does? There is a work to be carried on by the day's labour system as it has been portrayed by the minister. He goes down to his constiu-ency and he says, I have) got a work for the constituency. He wants foremen, and he says to his party friends, I am going to put you in as foreman, and I am going to get this other man employed in some other capacity. And so he selects the workers, all party men. He says to this foreman. We have to have so many cords of stone. He goes around amongst those who have supported him and whom he expects to support him again, and he says: All you who have stone, here is a chance to bring it in. From the moment you start to the moment you finish is it not a complete electioneering arrangement? The men who sell the stone are the recipients of what my hon. friend denominates the bounty of the government^-he remembers that phrase. They are told that the bounty of the government is being shared by virtue of the good will of the member whom they have elected, and whom they will be asked to elect again. From first to end, the work is confined to the party, is used to buttress up the members or the defeated candidate, and in all these things added expense is incurred. Here is an, example. Word goes out even when a contract is taken on. The contractor is informed that he must buy his lumber or stone within the constituency in which the work is situated. Instruction goes out from somebody. If it does not, what is the meaning of this letter?

Ottawa, February 10, 1908.
E. D. Lafleur, Esq.,
Chief Engineer,
Department of Publio Works,
City.
Dear sir,-With reference to our timber required for St. Alphonse work, Chicoutimi county, we find that to comply with the request of the member, Mr. Girard, to purchase all our timber in his constituency, we would have to take round timber from 12 inches up, as it is impossible to get 14 inch. We are very anxious to purchase everything in the constituency, and we trust that we will be allowed to take the round timber from 12 inches up to comply with the wishes of the member.
There may be no printed instructions sent to these men, but it works out; the member has it understood with the minister and knows exactly what his rights are and will insist on them and in the province of Quebec or in any other province he insists on his right and so the freedom of contract, the freedom of purchase, the freedom of wage, the freedom of the work from the beginning to the end is restricted by the party interests and the party advantages and the party privilege. That is not a way in which the country should do its business. I know that the Minister of Public Works believes that to be the case. But I never knew a proposition to be mentioned in this House in the way of criticism, affecting the minister's department, that he had not a defence for it. Why he even not very long ago


William Pugsley: I want no better defence than the course pursued by the hon. gentleman when he had a chance.
Mr. FOSTER, -set up the defence that
if there was a candidate running in the interest of the government it was a proper thing that he should interest himself in peddling post office sites just previous to the time of election. The minister knows in his heart that that is not a correct system. His answer will be: You did the same thing. He has that in the back of his head now; I see it coming out, even before it receives audible expression.


William Pugsley: And from one so perfect as my hon. friend it must have been correct.


George Eulas Foster: There is another nice little phase of my hon. friend. When he is in a bad corner and his conscience troubles him a little-what he has left of it, and I hope he has a lot-he wants to say something about the virtues or perfection of the hon. member for North Toronto.


William Pugsley: There is no harm in that.


George Eulas Foster: But the nice little way in which he does it, as if he was to say: Oh,
good Lord, you know I am sinful and weak and will reserve a large lot of favour for me; but you know that the hon. member for North Toronto is all straight, do not give him an inch of liberty. My hon. friend knows that this is a bad business system. Will he not acknowledge that?


William Pugsley: There is perhaps a little bit of human nature in my soul, and when I try to measure up as to whether my conduct is absolutely right or reasonably right,
I look to what other people have done who are at least as good as I am and who sometimes are thought by their friends and even by themselves to be a little better.


George Eulas Foster: That is another nice little
thing.


William Pugsley: How does that strike my hon. friend?


George Eulas Foster: You mean the Minister of Agriculture?


William Pugsley: As a new Minister of Public Works it certainly is not at all out of place in determining the course to be pursued by my department to look back and see what has been the course pursued for many years, even ever since confederation, and it certainly would not be out of place for me to ask the course pursued when my hon. friend had charge of the public affairs of this country to a very large degree, while occupying the very responsible position of Minister of Finance, and, apart altogether from that portfolio, when he filled a large place in the public affairs of this country. I did not and do not think it out of place for me to refer to the fact that during all the time he was in power and was a very important factor in the government of the country, the very same course was pursued that we are pursuing to-day. We ought to be reasonable about these things. I am satisfied that one of the things which has hurt my hon. friend as much as anything else in the opinion of the people of this country is that he pretends, if he will pardon me for saying it in a public way, that if he had the power he would pursue a different course politically from what he did when he was in power. When my hon. friend was in power his government and the Minister of Public Works in his government allowed the very thing to be done which is being done today. What is more reasonable than that the resident engineer, who has the carrying on of these small works in regard to which tenders are not called, which are not large enough to require calling for tenders, should be told to confer with the member for the county who is supposed to be certainly as intelligent as anybody else in the county, and whose interest it is to avoid any possibility of scandal and to see that the public work is done in the most economical manner possible?


George Eulas Foster: Roche & Carney, for instance, in Halifax?
_ Mr. PUGSLEY. And whose interest it is to see that the most capable foreman is chosen and that the material going into the public works is bought at the lowest possible price. I think it is not unreasonable that the member supporting the government should be consulted. My hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. J. D. Taylor), who is opposing the government, complained bitterly yesterday that I did not consult him and would not appoint a foreman whom he recommended. That hon. gentleman takes even a stronger view as to what should be done as to consulting representatives than we do on this side.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If you consult the member in one county it would be a good rule to apply in another county.


William Pugsley: I shall explain the difference. The member supporting the government is interested in seeing that government work is carried on in a thoroughly honest and proper manner. Without any disrespect to hon. gentlemen opposite, I am not able to say that they have any such interest as that. I have seen my hon. friends' faces beam with joy when they discovered that there had been any apparent maladministration of public affairs on the part of even the smallest official in the employ of the government. Therefore, I think it is only right, if we are to confer with anybody, that our resident engineer should confer with those whose desire it is, in the public interest, to see that the works are carried on in a proper and economical way.


Mr. LALOR.: In case the member representing the county is opposed to the government to whom does the resident engineer go?


William Pugsley: Then the resident engineer is instructed-we may as well be perfectly frank about it-to confer as a rule with the gentleman who had run as a candidate in support of the government. That _ has always been the practice, and that is the practice to-day; there is no use being hypocritical about these things; that is the way in which they are done.


George Eulas Foster: Then you have not abolished the patronage system in your department?


William Pugsley: Not so far as consulting for the selection of a foreman. We have the safeguard that even after the foreman is suggested by the member, the engineer is instructed not to employ him unless in his judgment he is a man who thoroughly understands the work and can '


William Pugsley: be relied upon to perform his duties. As to the labouring men, they are, as a rule, employed by the foreman who is given a free hand. It is difficult often to get labouring men, and I happen to know that labourers on both sides of politics are chosen. As to the pay-sheets, the foreman is obliged to swear to their correctness, and when this sworn return is certified to by the resident engineer it comes to the chief engineer. The instructions to the resident engineer are of a very peremptory character to purchase materials only at the market rates, and as to whether he confers with friends of the government I have no knowledge. His duty is to see that the prices of material are fair and reasonable. The chief engineer has a pretty accurate knowledge of what are fair and reasonable prices for materials in all sections of the country, and he has to certify to the correctness of the bills, which then have to go to the chief accountant of the department, who must also be satisfied they are correct, and then to the Auditor General whose duty it is to review them. I do not think the hon. gentleman has presented any strong argument against the existing practice.


Herbert Brown Ames: When the vote was taken last year it was promised the work would be completed, but only half the appropriation was spent.


William Pugsley: As my hon. friend knows -and I hope he may not be annoyed at my referring to it because it might suggest a hint that he and his friends were responsible for it-we did not get the Supply Bill through until the middle of July, and the summer was more than half gone when we were able to commence the work.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is it not a fact that in the case of pretty nearly every public work in Gaspe and Bonaventure the actual expenditure did not commence until about one month before the elections?


William Pugsley: I do not think that can be true because we tried to get the work commenced as quickly as we could after parliament prorogued.


Herbert Brown Ames: Will the minister have prepared a statement in respect to the expenditure in Gaspe and Bonaventure on harbours and rivers, showing at what date the several appropriations which were voted last parliament for these two counties commenced to be exipended? I mean the commencement of the expenditure, not in Ottawa, but on the works themselves.


William Pugsley: I will be glad to get that.


Herbert Brown Ames: I refer to the work done by day labour and not by contract.


William Pugsley: All right.


Mr. J. D. TAYLOR.: The Minister of Public Works does not appear to have gTasped the force of the remarks I made to the House last night. Perhaps it was because it was so late at night and that we were all so tired with the arduous labours of the day that we were not in a position to grasp an idea so clearly as we could this afternoon.


William Pugsley: Or to express it so clearly.


James Davis Taylor: That may be. In order that there may be no misunderstanding on the subject I shall now endeavour to make clear what I stated to the committee last night, and in passing I would like to refer to a remark made now by the Minister of Public Works to the effect that he has no confidence in the honesty of gentlemen on this side of the House.


William Pugsley: I did not surely go so far as that. I must have lost my head completely if I said that.


George Eulas Foster: That is the second time to-day you lost your head.


William Pugsley: Perhaps I said 'political' honesty.


James Davis Taylor: Let us take it thai way.


William Pugsley: I do not think I even went as far as that.


James Davis Taylor: At all events I would direct the attention of the minister to the fact that while in investigations before committees of this House there have been brought out no facts reflecting on the political honesty of the Conservative members, there have been brought out very material facts reflecting upon the honesty, political and otherwise-


Some Hon. MEMBERS.: Order.


James Davis Taylor: Let these hon. gentlemen opposite possess their souls in patience-reflecting upon the honesty, political and otherwise, of the gentlemen outside of this House to whom the Minister of Public Works has chosen to go for that advice which he might better have sought from the chosen representatives of the people. It was no member of the Conservative party who was concerned-only to mention one of the most glaring transactions brought to light-in the five cents a yard additional on the St. John dredging contract. The point I sought to make last night was that when the minister seeks for advice throughout this country as to the men to be employed, as to the persons from whom supplies should be purchased, as to all the details of the administration of his department, there can be no objection of course to his going to any official
source because then he goes to the man who is receiving pay for rendering the service which the minister requires of him. It is not surprising to me that in connection with the constituency of New Westminster the Minister of Public Works does not ask my advice as to whom he shall employ, although perhaps if he did it might save him trouble on some occasions. But it is surprising to me to hear him lay down the principle that in the constituency of New Westminster he should choose as the source of the inspiration of his official acts not the duly elected member for the constituency, not the late member who should possess the confidence of the government in every respect, but a man whose distinction is that he was rejected by the people by the largest majority they have ever given in an election. Here I give a concrete case of how this svstem works out, and one can speak more to the point in citing a concrete case than in dealing with generalities. The Minister of Public Works tells us he will continue this system in the face of the most solemn report of his own commissioners that the evil of the public life of this country has its origin in the patronage list. Notwithstanding the warning he has received from high official sources the Minister of Public Works has to-day declared it is his intention to perpetuate that evil and in each electoral district of this country enable some chosen instrument of his party to tithe all the contractors and to tithe all the employees in the service of the government; to make them contribute to a party political fund by the power he gives his instruments of having the final word as to who shall get this work, as to who shall be favoured with purchases by the government, and as to who shall be promoted to positions. I declare that system to be an abominable, one. In our part of the world-and other members can speak for their own districts-it has led to the most grave abuses. It has led to the contractors under the government and to the employees of the government being called upon for contributions of all kinds for purely party political work, and which contributions they are forced to make good at the expense of the people of Canada. That is the point I sought to make in the nro-test I registered here last night. That is the point which is bound to be discussed this session in view of the public announcement of the minister, and of other matters which have come to the knowledge of members of this House.
Cap. St. Tgnace wharf, $16,500.


Mr. NANTEL.: Is that a new work?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Last year $5,000 was voted for that work, but was not expended?


William Pugsley: No, nothing was expended last year.


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: What is the estimated cost of the work?


William Pugsley: 


Mr. GEO. TAYLOR.: What is the amount of the contract?


William Pugsley: 


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: Who has the contract?


William Pugsley: Clouthier and Goud-ron.


George Eulas Foster: What county is this in?


William Pugsley: Montmagny.
Chicoutimi harbour improvements, $30,000.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is that work by contract?


William Pugsley: The construction of the retaining wall is by contract, and there is dredging work as well.


George Eulas Foster: What is the total cost?


William Pugsley: 


George Eulas Foster: What will the minister have there?


William Pugsley: A good deep water wharf, with a frontage of about 500 feet and a basin for vessels to turn in. But if the work is to be satisfactorily completed, it will mean straightening the channel for some distance down the river, which will take some years.


George Eulas Foster: Wllat depth of water will you get in the harbour?


William Pugsley: Fifteen feet at the outer face of the wharf.


Herbert Brown Ames: Who has the contract for building the wharf extension?


William Pugsley: Thadee Desbiens.


Herbert Brown Ames: What is the amount of the contract?


William Pugsley: 


Herbert Brown Ames: When was the contract awarded?


William Pugsley: On the 27th of January, 1908.	I


Herbert Brown Ames: Since the contract was awarded have any changes been made which lessen the quantity of the work to be done?


William Pugsley: On the 29th of June there was a changei in location which added $2,955 to the contract, making the total contract $55,455.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is it not a fact that the change made the wharf a hundred feet shorter?


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: 


William Pugsley: I am not aware of that. Does my hon. friend state that? If so, I will have it looked into.


Herbert Brown Ames: I am so informed. Where is the dredging being done-in the immediate vicinity of the wharf?


William Pugsley: In front of the wharf, in the basin of the Chicoutimi harbour.


Herbert Brown Ames: What depth of water does the minister wish to secure in front of the wharf?


William Pugsley: Fifteen feet.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is he aware that the dredge is working to a depth of 25 feet ?


William Pugsley: I have heard that stated, but I have not been able to verify it.


Herbert Brown Ames: Can the minister state what the dredge is doing with the soil that is being dug up opposite the wharf?


William Pugsley: It is taken down to a part of the river where the water is deeper.


Herbert Brown Ames: That is in the contract?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Herbert Brown Ames: And the contractor is under contract to do that with all the soil he digs out?


William Pugsley: To deposit it wherever the resident engineer may direct. That is the usual specification.


Herbert Brown Ames: If the resident engineer should direct it to be deposited at a point which would save the contractor an enormous sum of money, would the department feel interested in the matter?


William Pugsley: That would depend entirely on circumstances. The department would not permit it to be deposited where it would interfere with navigation; but if it could be deposited in another place with equal advantage to the department without interfering with navigation, and the resident engineer allowed that to be done, I do not suppose the department would object.


Herbert Brown Ames: If after a contract has been let, under the condition that the soil shall be deposited at a distant point, the contractor finds a place near by where it can be deposited more conveniently, and the resident engineer allows him to deposit it there, is any allowance made?


William Pugsley: The dredged material has to be deposited at such place as the engineer in charge may direct.


Herbert Brown Ames: Then the engineer in charge has it in his power to make it possible for the dredging contractor to make either very little or a great deal of money?


William Pugsley: If the engineer insisted upon the contract taking the spoil an un-

reasonable distance, the contractor could protest to the chief engineer. In dredging contracts, the specifications are all alike in this respect, that the contractors must deposit the spoil at a specified place or at such other place as the resident engineer may-direct; and therefore if there is a place nearer at hand, where it could be deposited without interfering with navigation, I should think the contractor would have that in mind, and would ask the resident engineer to allow him to deposit it there. But ordinarily that question does not arise.


Herbert Brown Ames: I shall give the minister the information which has come to me and which will at least bear investigation as to its absolute veracity. There is at Chicoutimi a pier built at right angles with the south shore. It runs north and south. It was decided to very much enlarge the area, and in order to do so another pier is being built from the end at right angles, thus making a sort of L upside down. It is expected that at the far side of the L there will be a further construction, making three sides, the shore being the fourth, and that will be filled in and so make a solid wall. The contract was given to one Thad-dee Desbiens. Tenders were called for. A number of responsible parties tendered, all of whom asked a pretty high figure. But Mr. Desbiens, a hotel-keeper at Chicoutimi, put in his tender at a very low figure, $52,500, and when his tender was accepted it was said by the local people that at that price he could make no money. But at the same time there was a contract made by the government with the dredging construction company whereby the dredge 'Algonquin' was set at work in that neighborhood. Four or five miles down the river there is a shallow channel and the government have been dredging out the channel in order to get a total 15 feet in depth. Opposite the pier there is already a depth of 15 feet, but the dredge 'Algonquin', which had the contract for dredging, is located immediately opposite the wharf, and it dug to the depth of 25 feet. And all the spoil which the 'Algonquin' dredged out was quietly taken, with the permission of the resident engineer, and dumped behind the pier which Desbiens was building. That made it unnecessary for him to bring down any dump and made it possible for the dredging contractor to get all his spoil placed within a very few yards of the place where he was dredging. Both the dredging contractor and the wharf builder benefited, and had it not been for the complacency of the resident engineer, the wharf could not have been built at the price. The result is a lot of unnecessary dredging. The dredge should have been located where a channel is wanted. But located where it is, it has served a double purpose, that of enabling the contractor to
make some money and enabling the dredging company to increase their large profits.


William Pugsley: The wharf is built by Mr. Desbiens at a very much lower price than the work is fairly worth.


Herbert Brown Ames: The others cannot see how it was possible for him to make money at the price but now we see how it was possible. The local resident engineer was the arbiter of the whole matter. He said to the dredge-owner: Work opposite the wharf and deposit all your spoil behind Desbien's revetment.


William Pugsley: The contractor is doing a good thing for himself and for the country as well.


George Eulas Foster: But how about the other one who is digging down to 25 feet?


William Pugsley: I am afraid my hon. friend relies too much upon rumours. He does not know himself that the contractor has gone to a depth of 25 leet. He does not know that he has gone actually below 15 feet. It is the duty of the) resident engineer to keep very careful track of the dredging and he ought not to pay for a single yard of dredging below the specified depth. Until my hon. friend is able to state that the dredging has gone to a depth of 25 feet, I would not feel bound to accept that statement. There is a tide there of If. feet, and you might have to dredge 25 feet or 30 feet to get 15 feet below low water. I have no information on the point and am surprised to hear the statement or rather the suggestion of my hon. friend. If I had any evidence, I would feel it my duty to make careful inquiry.


Herbert Brown Ames: There is certain circumstantial evidence which supports the contention of my informant. The depth of water opposite the wharf has been recognized by all concerned as 32 feet and that was ample for any vessel expected there. But that dredge has been hard at work digging where there are 22 feet already and bringing up lots of mud, which would lead one to conclude that they were doing extra dredging for the purpose of accommodating the wharf contractor.
Clarke City, Seven Islands-wharf improvement, $4,600.


William Pugsley: This is to pay the balance due on the contract to the Messrs. Clark. The contractors are the North Shore Power Railway and Navigation Company. A contract was entered into with them on the 4th of January, 1907 for this wharf at $29,990. This company, of which the Messrs. Clark own the controlling interest, has expended a very much larger amount on this work, but all the department agreed to pay was $29,990. The actual

expenditure made would run up to nearly $75,000. The Messrs. Clark have inaugurated works of very large proportions at Clarke city and expended considerably more than a million dollars. They employ a great many hands, and the government felt that, under ordinary circumstances, they would have been justified, in the public interest, in paying the whole cost of this work. But it was undertaken in the first place by the company, and a compromise was made that the government should pay only $29,990, and that is all we asked the committee to vote. This amount $4,600 is to pay the balance due them under the contract.


Herbert Brown Ames: Has some dredging been done at Clark city close to the wharf?


William Pugsley: I am not at the moment aware, but I think some dredging was done there.


Herbert Brown Ames: This is one of the pieces of work that, I think, reflects less credit on the department than almost any other along that north shore. The minister did not tell us that, after the wharf was built and the mud was taken away from beside it, the greater portion of the wharf turned turtle, and a great deal of money had to be spent in taking down the old material and building up again. The wharf was built on a very soft, oozy mud flat. You could stick a pole down five or six inches anywhere.


William Pugsley: Was not the wharf that turned over the company's wharf, built before the government took hold of the matter?


Herbert Brown Ames: It was originally the company's wharf, but it was taken over by * the government and the government have had to make the damage good. The trouble seems to have been due to the foolishness of taking out this soft mud beside the wharf. The government took over a private enterprise, and the private enterprise was so handled that it became practically useless and cost many thousands of dollars to put it in shape again. And all this for one private company.


George Eulas Foster: How much money has the government put into the whole thing?


William Pugsley: Up to 30th November last the government had paid altogether $102,562.29.


Mr. BLONDIN.: Can the minister tell me the name of the insipector of the work from June 15 to September 15, 1907?


William Pugsley: There was a Mr. Charles Sweeny at one time-I do not know whether at the time the hon. member refers to or not.


William Pugsley: 


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I see it stated in the Auditor General's Report that Mr. L. P. Girard was the inspector. I understand that Mr. Girard was paid $2.50 per day. I would ask the minister if he knows that Mr. Girard was a law student at the time?


William Pugsley: There is a Mr. Girard who was on the engineering staff of the resident engineer, Mr. Michaud. He was at one time at Chicoutimi. He was engaged on this work in the summer for one or two summers.


Herbert Brown Ames: A son of the member?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Mr. J. D. REID.: Is it a fact that a young law student was put on as inspector of an important work like this?


William Pugsley: My information is that he is an engineering student.


Herbert Brown Ames: He is practising law in Chicoutimi now.


William Pugsley: That must be another man, because Mr. GiraTd is on the engineering staff of the department under Mr. Michaud at the present time. He was at Chicoutimi at one time on Mr. Tache's staff.


John Dowsley Reid: It is important that we should know the facts [DOT] in this matter, in view of the statement made by the hon. member (Mr. Blondin) that this man who was appointed inspector was a law student. If the minister cannot state the facts definitely now, he can learn them and give them to us later-say when we meet at eight o'clock.


William Pugsley: No, Mr. Tache, the resident engineer, would have to be communicated with. I will get the information as soon as possible. It should not be necessary to let the item stand. The amount is small and we should close up this matter.


John Dowsley Reid: The passing of this item is not important; we have a month or two to deal with it. The fact of nutting on a man as inspector who was not qualified may account for the loss. Of course, the present minister was not in charge, and may not be personally liable to censure. But someone in his department is. If we pass the item now, we shall never get the information. As far as I am concerned, I would like the item to stand, so that we may learn whether the statement made to the committee is correct or not. If the minister can show that this man was a competent inspector, of course, the item will pass.


William Pugsley: When I explain the case to the hon. member (Mr. J. D Reid)

I	am confident he will not press his request. The wharf which, it is alleged, fell down, was not built by the government, but by the company. Since the government rebuilt it, it has stood perfectly.


John Dowsley Reid: That is not the point. What we want to know is whether it is the policy of the government to have incompetent men as inspectors of important works. The minister must know that this is not the only case in which unqualified men have been appointed as inspectors of important public works. If the minister had been here a few years ago and had stood with me at the corner of this building and seen the new tower of the western block fall, he would realize more clearly the importance of having good inspectors. I understand that the inspector who had the supervision of the work on this tower had never seen stonework or brickwork in progress before. It cost the country many thousands of dollars to make good that mistake. We find that on dredging works the government have men who are not competent. They put on men who are mere labourers at $1.50 or $2.50 a day, and the running of the whole thing is left to the contractor. If, in order to give a law student a holiday with pay the government have caused serious loss to the country, this committee should know it.


Herbert Brown Ames: There is a little more in this than appears on the surface, and enough to make it necessary to discuss it for a few minutes at any rate. Here was a work of considerable difficulty, because the first wharf constructed there had collapsed, and it was found necessary to rebuild, removing the old wharf. The wharf was built on a very peculiar bottom, and consequently the construction required engineering management of considerable skill. Now what was done? A young man. who is the son, I understand, of the federal member, and who is a law student, was sent up there for his summer holidays. He got $2.50 a day while he stayed there, and all his expenses, as well as $116 for his board and travelling expenses. He spent a very pleasant vacation in the neighbourhood, and came back again, having had his whole summer at the expense of the government. He resumed the study of law, and has I believe just been admitted to the bar.


William Pugsley: If the facts are as the hon. gentleman alleges, I will get the information about it as soon as I reasonably can.


George Eulas Foster: Let the item stand in the meantime.
At six o'clock House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 62) to incorporate the Prince Albert and Hudson Bay Railway Company-Mr. Neely.
Haughton Lennox: Last session preliminary steps were taken by the government to build a railway to Hudson bay and surveyors have been put in the field at considerable expense to the country. The map exhibited in the Railway Committee shows this line cutting through what is supposed to be the government line, which apparently runs to Fort Churchill while this line apparently is projected to reach Fort Nelson. It is stated that Mr. Armstrong, government engineer, has reported in effect that a suitable harbour cannot be obtained at Fort Churchill, and that while Fort Nelson harbour was none too good it can be made suitable by a considerable expenditure. We have had a flood of oratory if not of reason within the last few days about the desirability of free trade in railways, but we have also had the matured wisdom of several members of the government in earlier days impelling them to point out the inadvisability of multiplying railways in suoh. a way that they may become an increased charge on the people. Every sane statesman recognizes that if you construct two lines of railway where there is only business for one, the charge in the end must fall on _ the people. There may be infinite possibilities for railway development in the direction of Hudson bay, but at present it is in the experimental stage, and if the country is to build a railway to Hudson bay there is no reason why we should encourage a competing line. We extended the Transcontinental Railway to Moncton and we were told by the government that we were forced into that position by the stupidity of the Tones in building the Intercolonial on its present location. The Minister of Railways has now a chance to prevent anything of that kind occurring in the future; he has the ! ball at his foot and I hope he will do the kicking on this occasion and see that these people do not get this charter if it is going to injuriously affect the government road. I see there is another charter sought for a railway to Hudson bay in addition to this one, and as the object of the government in building a line is to find a short route for our western grain to Liverpool, and not for the purpose of developing local traffic, it makes no difference whether these lines parallel each other or not, for so long as their destination is a port on the Hudson



bay they must be in competition. The minister did not refer to this matter in the Railway Committee.


George Perry Graham: It is hard to get a word in there.


Haughton Lennox: That is true, but I trust the hon. gentleman will now say there is a good deal of reason why we should hesitate to incorporate railway companies into that country at present. If the minister thinks it is all right I will not make a very big kick, but I hope it will not result in our having to buy out these charters as has been our experience in the past.


George Perry Graham: The giving of a large number of charters over any particular territory does not mean that there will be a large number of railways in that territory. The difficulty in Canada is, and I suppose it is not peculiar to us, that the number of railways constructed is small in proportion to the number of charters granted. As to the building of more than one railway through any particular territory, my hon. friend's observations may in some cases be correct, but generally speaking it is against the well established usage of Bndeavouring to get competition in railway lines. If two stores exist where there would be only a good living for one, the argument of the hon. gentleman is that the people would pay more for their goods because the two stores would have to be maintained, and while he is right in theory he is wrong in practice, because competition would compel them to sell their goods lower so as to allow one of them at all events to live, and in the end it would be the survival of the fittest. Mr. Armstrong is an engineer sent out by the government to survey the route from Pas Mission to Fort Churchill, and if I remember correctly, his report is not that Fort Churchill would not provide a suitable harbour but that he has been given information which leads him to believe that Nelson might provide a better harbour. There is a greater difference of opinion on that point than I had thought existed until I read this report. It is only to-day I had a conversation with a man well known in Canada who made an exploration through that part of the country some years ago on behalf of the then Ontario government' and he is confident that Nelson is the better harbour of the two.


Haughton Lennox: That coincides with Armstrong.


George Perry Graham: Yes, but it is fair to say that Mr. Armstrong says his report is only based on information he had received. I may say frankly that it is my intention to have Mr. Armstrong survey the route to Nelson as well as to Churchill so that we may have information obtained from an actual survey, and I have an item


Haughton Lennox: in the estimates to pay for that-. I think it would be wise to take what he has reported even if it is only hearsay information. The route to be taken by these roads is not the route of the government line. The government line starts at The Pas, and runs to Churchill or Nelson as the case may be. If it runs to Churchill, the distance is 497 miles. This road starts in the vicinity of Prince Albert, runs south to a certain point further east than our line, and then to Churchill. I am not sure that it would be wise to prevent these charters being granted, because I am a bit skeptical as to the number of railways that will be built to Hudson bay. My own opinion is that the country will be glad, and I shall be satisfied, if one railway is constructed at an early day. But I am not prepared to say that we ought not to grant a charter or two for a line to run from Prince Albert in the direction I have indicated, even if we should build a line of our own to Hudson bay. I may say to the committee that there was strong pressure brought to bear on the government to start our line from Prince Albert; a deputation waited upon the Minister of Railways and urged that view. I pointed out that they already had a charter for a line from Prince Albert, that that line was surveyed or would be surveyed, and that our idea was to give the most direct connection from the railways now in existence to Hudson bay. Conditions vary so much in different parts of the country that it is impossible to lay down a hard and fast rule as to railway charters. Under some conditions it is wise to give as many charters as are wanted in order to get a railway built, because there is the danger of refusing a charter to the people most apt to build it. There are circumstances when it would he unwise to grant new charters, as they might possibly injure a business enterprise about to be launched. We have to deal with the different projects on their merits. Personally I see no objection to giving charters for a dozen lines to Hudson bay.


Haughton Lennox: It is true that if you have two grocery stores on opposite corners, the prices of goods may be reduced by competition; but our railway board is not working in that way. We have established it at considerable expense, which is likely to increase as the years go by, and the theory on which it is based is this, that it shall see that the tariffs of the railways are so adjusted that they shall have a reasonable return on capital, working expenses, and _ so on, and that consistently with that object the rates shall be reduced to the people as much as possible. So that the minister's argument in that respect does not apply to this case. It is exactly the opposite, if our railway board does its duty, as I expect it will. If you put two roads where there is only a legitimate

amount of traffic for one, the railway board, when it comes to adjust the rates, will have to allow such rates as will pay ordinary working expenses and a reasonable return on the capital invested. If one railway can serve the needs of that country for the time being, and the government, as I assume, are going to build a railway, and you have another railway built to serve the same purpose, whether it is exactly parallel or not, you will diminish the profits of both roads, and each will have to charge the traffic a larger amount than it would otherwise do. The minister mentioned that the government were urged to start their road from Prince Albert. That is a very effective answer to the argument which we have often heard in the Railway Committee and sometimes in this House, that we do not interfere with freedom of action by granting a charter. The minister says tHat by reason of the fact that there was already a charter granted for a line from Prince Albert, he decided that the government would not begin their railway from that point.


George Perry Graham: I did not quite say that.
I stated as a fact that there was a charter for a road from Prince Albert, and that it was the object of the government to get the closest connection from the existing railways to the Hudson bay.


Haughton Lennox: As I undersood, the minister was influenced by that fact, as a wise minister would be, because he would not want to build a railway over the same line for which there was already a charter. Where, as the minister himself suggests, one railway would probably serve the purpose completely for the present, we are not acting in the interest of the people or with good judgment if we grant this charter while we are contemplating building a road ourselves.


Mr. T. CHISHOLM.: I have a letter in my hand from a gentleman of the name of Mr. Green. It is dated Fort Churchill, and I received it to-day. He gives some information in regard to this matter which I think it might not be out of place to state to the House. He has been there all summer. I saw him in Prince Albert before he left, and he told me that when he reached Fort Churchill he would send me a letter. I would point out to the House that Prince Albert bears very much the same relation to Hudson bay that Winnipeg does to Fort William. There was _ a time when people thought that_ one railway from Winnipeg to Fort William would be quite sufficient, but we shall very soon have three, and one of them will be double tracked. We need have no feaT whatever in granting charters for railways to Hudson bay. Hudson bay must ultimately be the outlet for the northern parts of both
801	:1 I ii '
Saskatchewan and Alberta, and no doubt before many years we shall see a railway running from Edmonton to Athabasca lake and thence to Depot harbour on Chesterfield inlet; another from Prince Albert to Fort Churchill, and probably another running east of Lake Winnipeg to York Factory. The probability is that York Factory is the best harbour, but Fort Churchill from what I have heard can be made an exceedingly good harbour, and it is considerably nearer to Europe. We will need all these harbours. Of course the traffic will require to go through Hudson straits after leaving Fort Churchill. It is considerably nearer to Europe than Port Nelson. It is not fair to the northern part of Saskatchewan and Alberta to ask them to send their trade away round to Nelson, nearly 150 miles out of the way from Prince Albert. There are settlers seventy-five miles north of Prince Albert and you ask them to send their produce to Prince Albert, then across the Northern Saskatchewan and then afterwards the southern Saskatchewan, and then go way down out of their way in a circle and come back to the crossing of those rivers at La Pau. From all I can hear there are no great difficulties to be encountered between the north part of Prince Albert and Fort Churchill. My correspondent tells me that there are great mistakes being made in locating railways in that country. In some places the moss between Split lake and Port Nelson is so exceedingly thick that it acts as a cover for the frost, just like straw in an ice-house, and prevents the ground from thawing out in the summer. But when a Tailway shall be constructed and this moss disturbed and gathered up the heat of the sun will penetrate into the ground and very often the bottom will be very apt to go out of the railway. More than that, my correspondent tells me that from Split lake to Port Nelson a great deal of the ground is simply muskeg. It would appear, therefore, to be almost impossible to continue the road the government have had surveyed from La Pau by way of Split lake to Fort Churchill, and it will be necessary to go to Port Nelson some other way. I see no reason why we should not have three or four railways, and even at my age I hope to live to see the day when there will be a double tracked railway running from Prince Albert to Fort Churchill. The government need have no fear to grant a charter. If we get plenty of charters, no doubt some of the companies chartered will undertake to build.
There is another thing. A few days ago the Minister of Railways, in answer to a question I put him, told us that the Nelson river might in time become navigable. If that be the case, why should not the two Saskatchewan rivers also become navig-

able? We all know that the difficulty in these rivers is that they're full of shifting sand. The sand bars form so rapidly that it is difficult to continue navigation. There is an item of $21,000 to clear the boulders out of the northern Saskatchewan this year which means that it is expected to make ft navigable. No doubt if we do not have navigation on these rivers, we will have two canals, one from Edmonton to Prince Albert, and the other following the course of the south Saskatchewan, and then we may expect that Prince Albert will grow to be a great deal larger than Winnipeg. The grain will be transhipped from these canals to the railway from Prince Albert to Fort Churchill. I desire also to draw attention to the fact that there is no doubt that Hudson bay is open for as long a period in the year, or nearly as long as Lake Superior. We must not forget that Lake Superior is frozen up for a great part of the year. And, from what I have read in history, and from what I know of Hudson bay, I am led to believe that the season of navigation there is as long as that on Lake Superior. I made reference before to the situation of Winnipeg in relation to Lake Superior being similar to that of Prince Albert in relation to Hudson bay. In 1811, we find, Lord Selkirk came into Hudson bay with old Edward and Anne,' an old worn out ship, and with another ship that was no better, and brought in his settlers, landing them at York Factory. At that time, there were no lighthouses, no wireless telegraphy-none of the advantages and aids to navigation that can easily be pro-vjded now. If we had lighthouses, signal stations and wireless telegraphy, I have no doubt that it would be quite possible to navigate Hudson bay for several months longer every year than at the present time. We know that the ice drifts south from Fury_ and Hecla ^straits and Fox channel, and if it comes in that direction, it must be driven to the south of Hudson strait. That being so, there must be open water near the northern shore of Hudson strait, even at a season when that strait is now supposed to be blocked with ice. With modern facilities, there can be no reasonable doubt, Hudson bay will be open to navigation for as many days of the year as Lake Superior is. I do not think that we should hesitate to grant all the charters that are required.


Mr. W. H. SHARPE.: Before that order is passed, I would like to get an expression from the minister on a very important point. It is stated by the government that the matter of assisting the railways to Hudson bay is under consideration and that money will be voted for the purpose of bonusing or building the road. I would like to have a statement from the Minister Mr. THOS. CHISHOLM.
of Railways on this point. If these charters are granted and the government should undertake to build a railway itself or assist a railway such as the Grand Trunk Pacific, will it undertake to compensate the holders of these charters for any expenditure they may have made or claim to have made while they were holding their charters. The moment the government steps in and proposes; to bonus one of the companies holding a charter, the others will make a claim for compensation. It would be well for the minister to announce that there will be no compensation whatever in such a case. He will recollect many occasions when claims, in similar circumstances, were made for compensation by the holders of charters who never did anything with them. If we are going to give free trade in charters, which virtually is the policy of the railway committee, there should be a declaration by the government that any expenditure made by the holders of these charters, unless they proceed to build the road, will not be considered in fixing any compensation when the matter of bonuses comes up or the matter of building a railway.


George Perry Graham: We are glad to grant these companies a privilege, and undertaking no obligation towards them whatever I could understand the situation when it would be fair that some compensation should be given a company holding a charter if this were the situation. Suppose a company had surveyed a certain route and the government stepped in and proposed to build on that route, it would be but right to compensate the company for the money it had spent in laying out that line. But except in such a case, the government has no intention whatever of giving any compensation.


Richard Blain: I think that the government and parliament will have to be more careful in future in granting railway charters. It is only fair that great corporations, engaged in railway construction, should be treated generously by the government, but where promoters secure charters for other purposes than constructing the road, the government should be more careful. It is only fair that the government should state whether any of these gentlemen who are the provisional directors and who are not well known in Canada as railway constructors are bona fide railway men. Either the minister or the promoter of the Bill should be in a position to state this. They should be able to state whether there is any hope of the road being constructed under these directors or whether this charter is being obtained for the purpose of selling it to some other company.


Mr. NEELY.: I have absolutely no personal interest in this Bill. I take charge of it because I believe the charter asked for is one that ought to be granted by this House. My hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) wants to know if the men whose names appear as provisional directors are, bona fide, seeking this charter for the purpose of building the road or seek it merely for speculative purposes. So far as I know, their intention is to build the road-not all of it right away, but a part of it. A part of this road is urgently needed at this time. From the city of Prince Albert north, east and west some sixty or seventy miles, there is a tract of country a considerable part of which is good farming laud, and some of which is very fine timber country. Settlers are loath to go into that district because there is no railway accommodation. Therefore, the first sixty or seventy miles of this road would be in the nature of a colonization road. As the committee are aware, the local government of Saskatchewan is assisting branch lines and colonization roads to a very considerable extent, and the promoters of this company have every reason to believe that, as soon as they are prepared to go on with the work, they will be able to secure aid from the provincial government. So, I think I can assure my hon. friend that the charter is being asked for in good faith, for the purpose of building the railway. While I am on my feet, I may say that it rather surprised me to hear the remarks of the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox). Surely he is not aware of the condition of affairs in western Canada, or he would not state that one road to Hudson bay should and would meet the needs of western Canada.


Haughton Lennox: The minister says that one railway will be enough at present.


David Bradley Neely: One railway may be enough by way of experiment-and we know that the value of the road to Hudson bay is somewhat experimental. But the people of western Canada believe that it is a feasible route and that, at no very distant day, a large part of the produce of western Canadian farms will be shipped by way of Hudson bay. Should that prove to be the case, the hon. gentleman, of course, will not ask us to believe that one railroad will be sufficient to carry the produce of our western Canadian prairies to the markets of the world. So far as the route of this road is concerned, it does not interfere, as I understand the matter, with the railway projected by the government. I was pleased to hear the remarks of the hon. member for East Huron (Mr. Chisholm) in relation to granting this and similar charters to Hudson bay, and I hope that, in the interests of the people who wish to settle in the country north of Prince Albert, and in the interest of all western Canada, this charter will be granted.


Mr. GEO. GORDON.: I ana sorry to have to disagree with my hon. friend from South Simcoe because I do not think the people of Canada care how many railroads run parallel to each other, provided they are built at the expense of the corporations who receive these charters. I do not see where any danger arises in this case. If this road were to be built right away, these people, of course, would never obtain any subsidies from the government. Except in the case of railways, which, to reach from point to point must go through some narrow pass which will not accommodate more than one road, I do not see why the government should exercise great care in giving charters as my hon. friend wants them to do. Where there is room for many roads, parliament may well charter these roads, to be built at the expense of those who receive the charter. Judging from the way the government have treated the province of Ontario in not subsidizing the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway, we may believe that the government will leave these other people to build the roads at their own expense.


Haughton Lennox: I want to make it plain that I do not oppose railways, but I want the people to have them on reasonable terms, that is, I want the government to do what is right. The government should either occupy this field or else give it up to others to occupy. If they are going to occupy that field, they should see that they serve it properly. We should not have the same thing happening that we had in reference to the Intercolonial, and after these roads are built be asked to buy the roads out. Would it not be better for the government to adopt a definite policy now and say:	We will occupy that territory and serve it; or else get out of the field and let an ordinary company in.


George Perry Graham: What policy would my hon. friend adopt, that the government should take hold, or get out and give it to a company?


Haughton Lennox: When I occupy the place the hon. gentleman occupies, I will have a policy, and when that time comes I won't be afraid to tell the people what my policy is. When I occupy a position of that kind ,1 will say:	'Gentlemen, we are going in
there and we are going to occupy that field, but we will occupy it on terms profitable to the people that we represent as the government of Canada, and profitable to the people whom we are to serve in that region. We will have our feeders running into our trunk lines, and it will be a profitable enterprise.' But on the other hand, what the government are doing is this, they are going to build their railway, they are going to) let others build feeders from Prince Albert and Port Nelson; we will have the lean

part of it, and the others will have the rich part, and we will pay for both.
Progress reported.


CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 49) respecting the Ottawa and Western Railway Company.-Mr. Devlin.
Bill (No. 50) to incorporate La Compagnie du chemin de fer international de Rimous-ki.-Mr. Ross.
Bill (No. 57) respecting the Vancouver, Fraser Valley and Southern Railway Company.-Mr. J. D. Taylor.
Bill (No. 59) to incorporate the Victoria and Barkley Sound Railway Company.- Mr. Ralph Smith.
Bill (No:. 61) respecting the Burrard, Westminster Boundary Railway and Navigation Company.-Mr. Ralph Smith.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
["The idea this engineer expressed was that if a dam was constructed near Rouse's Point the movement of the Mr. DEMERS.\nwater flowing out could be regulated during the summer so that the extreme low level would not be reached.\nSome resolutions reported."]
William Pugsley: Before we resume consideration of item 143 I would like to mention a matter for the information of my hon. friend the member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards). I am inclined to think that both he and I, when we spoke this afternoon, were acting upon a wrong interpretation which we had taken from the answer vhich I had given to the House, I was misled, and I think he was misled also, by the amount which was in the estimates when that matter was under consideration before the committee a few days ago. The amount printed in the estimates was $57,000; the amount which had been asked for by the chief architect was $37,000. My hon. friend knows that the figure 5 and the figure 3 very often look alike upon the carbon copy of typewritten paper. The amount should be $37,000 instead of $57,000. So the answer which was given by me on the 10th instant, and which appears upon page 2391 of ' Hansard,' was that the estimated cost of $96,000 covered the cost of the building, heating, fittings of all kinds and all those expenses which are set forth upon the same page. As a matter of fact, the information of the chief architect is that the total cost will be something under that, and may not exceed $94,000. I am very glad to be able to give that information to the committee. My hon. friend can look up the figures, and if he takes the memorandum which I gave and substitute $37,000 for $57,000, he will see how the error has occurred. I have no doubt he was misled by these figures, as I was myself. When we come finally to pass the item I will have the correction made. I regret that the error occurred, and I am very sorry if it was the means of causing any


Haughton Lennox: misunderstanding between my hon. friend and myself.


Mr. BARKER.: What was the number of the item?


William Pugsley: It is in Ontario Public Biddings, item 132, Kingston Royal Military College, additional accommodation. $55,000 was voted last year, and $37,000 will entirely complete the building, and provide for heating, electric wiring, furnishing and fittings of all kinds.


William Cameron Edwards: I am glad to hear the explanation given by the minister. I was seeking to ascertain where that money went. It seems to me the minister's explanation justifies the stand I took in endeavouring to find out. We discussed the item on the basis of $57,000 and on a total of $112,000, and dividing the $112,000 by 16 cottages we found that the total cost for each cottage was 7,000.
Of course if the item had been going through at $37,000 it would not have been necessary for me to ask so many questions.
Mr- PUGSLEY. What puzzled me was seeing the item at $57,000, and I had the memorandum of the chief architect that the total cost was $96,000. I am very glad I have been able to set the item right.


William Cameron Edwards: I presume this item will be reduced as well as the other item for veterinary hospital, $15,000.
Clarke city, Seven Islands, $4,000.


William Pugsley: I have telegraphed to Mr. Tache, the resident engineer, asking for information with regard to this young man, Mr. Girard, and may have it tonight. I find that Mr. Lamoureux was the engineer in charge, and it would be his duty to be constantly in attendance on the work. It has been the practice for a number of years for the resident engineers to take on young men, many of them students who are putting themselves through college and who wish to earn money for that purpose during the summer months by acting as rodmen or chain-men. I would be glad to have the item passed and would undertake to supply the information as soon as I receive it.


Herbert Brown Ames: It would hardly seem that this young man would come under that class as he received thq equivalent of $4 a day, $2.50 a day salary and his board and travelling expenses. '


William Pugsley: It is not fair to count the expenses in his wages.


Richard Blain: What amount has been expended at this point?


William Pugsley: A little over $102,000 altogether.


Richard Blain: And what is the population of this place?


William Pugsley: I do not know the population, but an exceedingly large industry has been established there, one _ of the largest manufacturing industries in Canada. The North Shore Power, Railway and Navigation Company have expended upwards of $2,000,000 and make daily freight shipments of 1,000 tons of pulp. The Quebec Steam Whaling Company have their headquarters there, with an investment of $200,000, and there are various other industries, so that altogether the investment of capital at Clarke City would be in the vicinity of $3,000,000. Several hundred hands are employed in these various industries.


Samuel Barker: I would appeal to the minister that it is not fair to hon. gentlemen on this side of _ the House who are endeavouring to criticise these items fairly and intelligently for him to ask to have items passed on his promise to bring down information asked for with reference to them. It is impossible for us to keep a check on the manner in which the minister carries out these promises so that we will know just what is being done.


William Pugsley: I am quite sure the hon. member would not object if he understood that the information asked for in this case is with reference to the employment of a rodman or a chainman two years ago. The certificates of the engineer show that the work has been thoroughly well done. No good purpose can be served by delaying the passage of this item, as there will be ample opportunity at another time to criticise the employment of this young man.


Samuel Barker: It is a frequent occurrence in this House for a minister to ask that an item be-passed on the promise of giving at a future date information which he should have in his possession at the time. It ig unbusinesslike and should not be allowed. If the minister says that the question has nothing to with the item let him say so, but if it has, then the item should not be passed until we get the information.


William Pugsley: Surely I cannot be expected to have with me the names of all the young men who were employed on that work some years ago?


John Dowsley Reid: There is no difficulty about finding out the name of this young man because his name, L. P. Girard, appears in the Auditor General's Report as having been paid for 92 days at $2.50 a day. The>
only other items in the Auditor General's Report in connection with this are for payments to Joseph Lamoureux, assistant engineer, and a payment to the North Shore Power Company for 500 feet of copper wire with 21 rings attaching pine
plugs. This young man must have been inspecting that copper wire.


William Pugsley: That was for making the survey.


John Dowsley Reid: You paid this young man Girard for every day in the week including Sunday. Was he inspecting anything on Sunday? The very fact that this item appears in such a form in the Auditor General's Report convinces me there is something wrong. It would appear that this young man was sent down there on his summer holidays to do nothing but sit around and draw his pay. It is said he is the son of one of the members of this House, and the minister can very soon get the information asked for.


William Pugsley: It has to be got from Chicoutimi.


John Dowsley Reid: Let the item stand then. The information will never be tendered to the House unless it is asked for again.


William Pugsley: It is so important you would not forget to ask.


John Dowsley Reid: You paid this young man for Sundays as well as week days?


William Pugsley: This young man was not paid out of this vote at all but out of the general vote for harbours and rivers and bridges, so that it is entirely possible he was engaged on the survey of the harbour at Clarke City. The practice in the past has been to pay inspectors for Sundays. Last session I said I would give directions that thev should not be paid for Sundays and I did so and the practice now is not to pay for Sundays.


Herbert Brown Ames: Mr. Lamoureux was the assistant engineer on the wharf and his name appears in this same item.	*


William Pugsley: He was in charge of the survey too.


John Dowsley Reid: Is it not the practice in the Public Works Department for the inspector to make out the pay-lists and send them to the department? That practice is followed in the Department of Railways and Canals, and if so, did Mr. Lamoureux put Mr. Girard on the list?


Samuel Barker: The minister says he has telegraphed for the information and that he will get it in the course of the evening and when he gets it the item can be discussed.


William Pugsley: Suppose we do not get a telegram to-night, will not the item be
passed?


Samuel Barker: We can consider that when the occasion arises.


William Pugsley: We will Jet the item stand for a little while.

'Doucet's Landing-pile wharf, $1,000.


Mr. BOYCE.: I should like to know what is the necessity for this wharf. It appears that there was a vote for it of $5,000 in 1906-7, which' was revoted in 1907-8. The main necessity for this vote seems to have been the exigencies of a byelection, and the consequent expenditure upon a wharf from which the public in the county of Nicolet get absolutely no benefit whatever. There is there already, I believe, a wharf owned by the Grand Trunk Railway Company, which, as the minister doubtless knows, is used by one small ferry, that is all; and yet when there comes a by-election and it is necessary in order to carry that election to practically buy the votes of the electorate, the Minister of Public Works does not hesitate to appropriate a further sum to carry on a work for which there appears to be absolutely no use. Let me remind the minister of the discussion which we had in this House only a few days ago, and of his pathetic expression of opinion as to the need of retrenchment in expenditure, and let me again emphasize what I then said, that the time had come, if he desired to appear before the people of Canada in an official capacity as being honest in his administration, when he should retrench where retrenchment was most desirable, and should not, in pursuance of a policy of pretended retrenchment, lavish public moneys foolishly and uselessly where they would not serve the public good. It is somewhat difficult to understand how the minister can persist in forcing through appropriations of this kind for works for which there appears to be absolutely no necessity, except the exigencies of the party to which he belongs, while he leaves the public service without the necessary buildings which the public service requires. I see by the Auditor General's Report of 1908, at page V-206, that $400 was paid for a right of way, that is, the approach to this wharf. Now, the minister will find in his department records of some correspondence that I had with him during the past two or three years with regard to payment for a right of way for a wharf he built at Echo bay in the district of West Algoma, and the minister there states that under no circumstances does the government pay for a right of way to a wharf.


William Pugsley: Has the hon. gentleman that letter to which he refers?


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I have not got the letter by me.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman would surprise me very greatly if he could produce a letter like that.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: That need not surprise the hon. gentleman. There are more surprising


William Pugsley: things than that which have been and will be brought to his attention. But what I want to emphasize is that, in my judgment and from the information I have, this wharf is not required in the public interest; that there is no shipping to use it; that the wharf there already is used only by a small ferry and answers all the purposes of the public, and that this expenditure is probably only for the purpose of assisting in the carrying of a by-election for this government.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I happen to know about this wharf, because for some months I was the member for the county of Nicolet, and it was during my tenure of that position that this wharf was initiated. My hon. friend is under a misapprehension as to that wharf not being needed for the traffic of the county of Nicolet, the tourist traffic and the lumber traffic. It is quite true, there is already one wharf at Doucet's landing or Ste. Angele in the county of Nicolet; but that wharf is the property of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, which is the proprietor of the lino, running from Athabaska, the terminus of which is at Doucet's landing. The trouble is that that v/harf is in a very poor condition, and is not fit for the ferry service between Three Rivers and the south shore. About four years ago the Delaware and Hudson Railway Company became the owner of the Quebec and South Shore Railway. The terminus of that railway at that time was Pierreville in the county of Yamaska; but when the Delaware and Hudson Railway Company became the proprietors of that road, they started to extend the railway, and at the present time it is constructed as far as Ste. Philomene, in the county of Lot-biniere. I might say that this is one of the most interesting districts in the province of Quebec; it is very rich and there is quite a trade in prospect for it with the construction of that new railway. The ferry service between Three Rivers and Doucet's landing could hardly use the Grand Trunk wharf, because it was in very poor condition, and the government were obliged every year to do some dredging at its extremity, and the Grand Trunk Company would contribute nothing towards the dredging or towards repairing the wharf. The government will not force the Grand Trunk Railway to make any repairs, but, since the Delaware and Hudson have bought the Quebec and Southern Railway, they have started quite a business with the lumbering district in the St. Maurice region. Doucet's landing is exactly opposite Three Rivers. This serves not only Doucet's landing but Gentilly and Becancourt, a very large parish between Doucet landing and Gentilly. There is quite a large firm from Berlin, United States, which intends building a large pulp mill at that place and

the timber is to come from the St .Maurice river where this company has acquired very extensive limits. That wharf will serve for the lumber trade which comes over the St. Maurice river and which will be sent to the United States by the Delaware and Hudson.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: When did the necessity arise for this?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The St. Maurice company has been in business quite a number of years but there was then no Delaware and Hudson. The old wharf is the property of the Grand Trunk Railway and any repairs done there would be for the benefit of the company. The government are pledged every year to do some dredging at the extremity of the wharf, while the present wharf although much shorter than the old one which is not our property, is in deeper water.


Herbert Brown Ames: Will this appropriation finish that work?


William Pugsley: Yes.
hon. minister to that correspondence, but do not want him to endeavour to trap me into an apparent deviation from the actual line of truth by putting into my mouth the statement that I had correspondence with him and that he had written me such a letter.


William Pugsley: 'Hansard1 will show to-jnorrow whether the hon. gentleman made the statement or not. I certainly understood him to say that he had received a communication from me. I think he used the expression 'the minister,' but possibly not, and that the minister said that under no circumstances would the department pay for the right of way to a wharf. If he did not say that, that puts a different phase on the matter altogether. I wish to say that the department does, in cases where it is necessary, make a practice of paying for the right of way to public wharfs. It is necessary to do that in order to enable the public to have that enjoyment of a public wharf which parliament intended they should have.


Herbert Brown Ames: Will the Postmaster General tell us that we shall not have that wharf up again, once every four years?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not suppose you shall hear of it again.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: How much has been spent?


William Pugsley: The original contract was $4,911.75 and the total expenditure $7,500. My hon. friend from West Algoma (Mr. Boyce) has made the statement that I wrote him that under no circumstances would my department pay for the right of way to a public wharf. In view of the fact that this is a vote for the right of way to this wharf and that I have asked for votes to pay for the rights of way to other wharfs,
I would ask my hon. friend to produce the letted to which he refers. If he lias any letter from me bearing on the subject of wharfs at West Algoma, I think he will find, if he will read over again, that it contains no such statement as the one he attributes to me.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: The hon. gentleman must not put words into my mouth which I did not say. No matter how exalted his position, he has no greater rights in this House than any other member, and I very strongly resent the attitude of the minister in endeavouring to thrust down my throat statements as having been made by me in this House which I did not make. I stated that I had communicated with his department and had received a communication from his department to the effect I mentioned. That is a communication upon which I think I can without difficulty lay my hands. I am quite willing to refer the


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Is that the principle, that the right of way shall be paid for?


William Pugsley: Certainly, where it is necessary for the public enjoyment.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Where a wharf is built, the approach, as a right of way, shall be paid by the government?


William Pugsley: Certainly.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: The hon. minister will find that his words are at variance with the correspondence from his department.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: In the riding I represent there is- a wharf at Grand Bay, and the entrance, which is not owned by the department, is the cause of considerable trouble I would like to know whether the minister intends taking any action to secure
."ho ricrVlt, nf W8.V?


William Pugsley: We have had considerable trouble with regard to that property, and are taking the necessary steps to expropriate with the view of vesting it m the Crown.
Douglastown pier-addition, $2,000.


Herbert Brown Ames: What is the estimate of the total cost when finally completed?


William Pugsley: Up to the 31st of March last, $22,528.52 was spent and we are requiring $2,000 more. I think that will complete the work.


Herbert Brown Ames: I do not think so.


William Pugsley: Yes, it will do all we purpose doing at the present.


Herbert Brown Ames: Then you will have something that is of no value.


William Pugsley: It is said this will enable steamers to stop safely at the wharf.


Herbert Brown Ames: It will not enable anybody to get ashore.


William Pugsley: It is an isolated pier, of course.


Herbert Brown Ames: 
Mr LEMIEUX.: My hon. friend (Mr. Ames) is at bay, if I may so speak, about this matter


Herbert Brown Ames: Six hundred people all told.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 
Herbert Brown Ames: What I want to know from the Minister of Public Works is how long it is going to take and what it is going to cost to have this Douglastown pier connected with the mainland, as, I suppose, is expected to be done?


William Pugsley: My department has no intention, and I have no intention, of connecting that pier with the shore. For reasons^ which the Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) has given, the pier is of very great service without being so connected. It is a breakwater and affords shelter for fishermen and others which entirely justifies its construction. Not having any present intention of connecting it with the shore, I have not prepared an estimate of the cost of doing so. It will be time enough to prepare such an estimate when we contemplate doing the work.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is it not -a fact that at present it is a danger to navigation with a considerable portion of it under water?


William Pugsley: I think not. Every breakwater must have a portion of it under water.
Father point-wharf repairs, $1,000.


Herbert Brown Ames: 
William Pugsley: The hon. member (Mr. Ames) is aware that we have dropped an amount from the estimates and are only asking for $1,000 for Father Point. The Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) I think, has in mind onlv a part of the cost of the works. The cost is estimated at a minimum of $250,000, and it may run to $750,000 before the work is finished. I regretted that I was obliged to drop the amount, but we had to do it in pursuance with our policy of retrenchment.
Garth by-wharf on Lake Aylmer, $500.


William Pugsley: This is to construct a roof over the -head block of the landing pier.	I


Richard Blain: Would the minister give us some information about this work?


William Pugsley: A landing pier has been built at Garthby, on Lake Aylmer, the total expenditure, including the amount now asked for, being $5,178.30. This is to put on a roof for the shelter of the people who come to take the steamer.


Richard Blain: Is there any revenue from that wharf?


William Pugsley: I am not sure whether it has been transferred to the Marine Department or not.


Richard Blain: What is the policy of the government with respect to transferring these wharfs? Are they transferred as soon as completed?


William Pugsley: Not always. The policy is, generally speaking, to make transfers to the Marine Department, but in quite a number of cases, ever since the government has been building wharfs, there has been an objection to transferring the wharfs to the Marine Department, for that would mean that tolls would be collected from the farmers and others, who would find it burdensome. Owing to the hardship involved and the pressure brought to bear, it has been urged on the department to delay making the transfer. That is true of all governments, ever since confederation. I know some cases where wharfs were built twenty years ago and have never been transferred to the Marine Department. I may say that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and myself have been conferring upon the subject, and endeavouring to arrive at some rule for the use of these wharfs_ at which small business is done. We think it would be well to take power to make an arrangement with the steamboat companies which
come to the wharfs that they should pay a small wharfage sufficient to keep the wharfs in repair, so that the department will be saved the necessity of exacting tolls from farmers and others in respect to top wharfage. The House may be asked to consider a Bill which will give power to the Department of Marine to enter into arrangements of that character. But it is only after the wharfs are transferred that wharfage can be collected.


Richard Blain: What is the population?


William Pugsley: Between 300 and 400.


Herbert Brown Ames: Can the minister tell us whether there is any steamer on this lake doing business?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Herbert Brown Ames: For how much of the year does the steam ferry service run?


William Pugsley: I know there is a ferry running between Stratford and Garthby, I presume during the ordinary season.


Herbert Brown Ames: It is built principally for summer residents, is it not?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Lake Aylmer is frequented by a large number of tourists.


Mr BLAIN.: Before this work was commenced, did the minister send his engineer to report upon the necessity of the wharf?


William Pugsley: It was undertaken before I became minister. But there was a report from the engineer on the 15th of January, 1907.
Gaspe-deep water wharf, $10,000.


Herbert Brown Ames: How much does the minister intend to expend at the terminus of the new railroad at Gaspe?


William Pugsley: I cannot give, with any degree of accuracy, an estimate of the cost. We propose to make a careful examination, and then see how much it will be necessary to build at first in order to give the needed accommodation to the railway. Just how much would be expended, evidently would depend upon the extent of shipping and the extent of accommodation which will be required.


Rodolphe Lemieux: A few days ago I met the 'engineer of the railroad company. He had prepared a plan and submitted it to the Department of Public Works, for a wharf which was going to be the terminus of the railway. According to that plan his estimate of the cost would be something like $75,000 to $80,000. I told the engineer that the railway company need not expect that the government would spend so large an amount of money for the terminus of the railway. I understand he has since had an interview with the engineer of the Public Works Department,

and they have so far modified the plan as to reduce the cost of the proposed wharf by something like $35,000. The wharf will be at the terminus of the railway company. Ths rails will be laid within 15 or 16 months. The railway has reached more than half way now, and next summer will reach Pabos. In 18 or 19 months the whole line should be in operation, and I can assure my hon. friend that they are building a splendid line. They intend to have steamers plying between England and Canada at Gaspe. As my hon. friend knows, the harbour of Gaspe is one of the finest in the Dominion. I have the authority of Commander Wakeham to say that the harbour is open for navigation for at least nine months of the year, some say ten months, and in some years during the whole year. When this railway is built and proper facilities are given to that steamship company, Gaspg will afford the shortest route between Canada and Europe.


Herbert Brown Ames: There is no question as to the importance of having proper terminal facilities when the railroad reaches Gaspe. But I would like to know what is the government's policy now in connection with the terminus of a railroad line. We have just had it enunciated that at Doucet's landing it was necessary to build a new wharf to be occupied by a railway company. Now we are starting with a new proposition. Is the government going to build a wharf that this railroad will occupy.


Mr LEMIEUX.: Not exclusively.
great deal depends upon circumstances. In the ease of the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Pacific Railway, we are doing the dredging work for their new harbours at Tiffin and Victoria, while the railway companies are building the wharfs and other terminal facilities. We do the dredging, yet we feel that these companies, having now been in operation a good many years, are well able to build the wharfs themselves. In the case of the Grand Trunk Pacific at Fort William, which we regard as a part of the great transportation system of the country, we are doing the dredging and we are also building certain revetement walls which will be used as a part of the system of wharfage and for an essential part of the terminal facilities. There we will control in the interests of the public the wharfs and will have the right to say what tolls will be charged, and to give equal privileges to all vessels which desire to use those facilities. We think in the public interest we should do this. In the city of St. John, up to quite recently, the government has only done the dredging. The city of St. John and the Canadian Pacific Railway, but principally the city of St. John, has provided the wharfage facilities. The government is now building a wharf there which will be used in connection with the Canadian Pacific Railway. In many smaller towns we are building wharfs which are used in connection with railroads, but which are built at the government expense. At the city of Quebec we are build-ding a new wharf upon the St. Lawrence and the St. Charles rivers in connection


Herbert Brown Ames: Are they going to make an arrangement between the railroad and the government whereby they will divide the cost?
tht^g LEMIEUX. That would be a proper


Herbert Brown Ames: 
William Pugsley: There is no hard and fast rule with regard to building wharfs for the use of railways. Of course, this wharf being built by the government owned and controlled by the government! will be open to the use of the public equally with the railroad company. The same facilities will be given to whoever wishes to use the wharf. Speaking generally, a Mr. LEMIEUX.
with the Canadian Pacific Railway, but the government is building that wharf at its own expense and will, subject possibly to an arrangement with the Quebec Harbour Commissioners, control the wharf tolls and the access of vessels to it in the public interest, so that there is no hard and fast rule, as I have said. In the case of Levis we have just bought a property with the approval of parliament for the purpose of constructing on the Carriere-Lane property a deep water wharf which will probably be used by all the railways centreing at Levis, the Delaware and Hudson, the Grand Trunk, the Intercolonial Railway and no doubt in a short time the Grand Trunk Pacific. We must be guided largely bv circumstances, and I do not think it would be possible to lay down a hard and fast rule which would apply to all cases.


Herbert Brown Ames: As we are always trying to do something in a better way than it has been done before, would not this be a good opportunity to test the best way in which there could be co-operation between the government and the railway company in the building of a wharf?


George Gordon: I have a lettter from the Board of Trade of New Liskeard asking me if anything has been done with regard to the building of a wharf in that town. It seems that the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway have agreed to build a track from the main line down to the bay as soon as this wharf is built.


William Pugsley: There is no amount in the estimates for a wharf at New Liskeard and therefore I am not able to give my hon. friend any assurance that a wharf will be built during the present year; but I would suggest to my hon. friend whether, in view of the fact that we are retrenching in connection with the building of wharfs as well as other public works, the Ontario government, as owners of the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway, which is hauling in enormous quantities of freight, vast numbers of passengers, and is receiving enormous revenues as royalties from the development of that country, should not build these wharfs needed there for the purpose of giving terminal facilities, in connection with their railroad. Instead of coming to this government and asking us to give these terminal facilities, let them do what this government is doing in connection with the Intercolonial Railway. It is building terminal facilities, building wharfs, dredging harbours and giving all the accommodation which is needed fo the Intercolonial Railway at the various harbours and various lakes touched by the Intercolonial Railway system. I recognize that in that northern country, upon Lake Temiskaming, the Montreal river and the Gowganda country, where thousands of people are going, the people should address themselves at this time to the Ontario government and get them to provide terminal facilities in connection with this railroad which is doing such an immense business as a result of the marvellous development taking place in that country.


George Gordon: Am I to understand that great sums of money should be spent by the federal government in places where comparatively little business is done, and that in Ontario when places require wharfs if they are doing a large business, the minister would like the people to put up their own money instead of federal money. I do not think it is fair or right.


William Pugsley: The province of Ontario is benefiting enormously in a financial way by this development.


George Gordon: Does not the Quebec government benefit from the development there?


William Pugsley: At all events there is nothing in the estimates for it.
Quebec harbours and rivers, and bridges- general repairs and improvements, $48,500.
Mr. PtlGSLEY. This is the general vote.


Mr. PRICE.: Will the minister give us some information about this?


William Pugsley: This is to make repairs to the various wharfs in the province of Quebec and improvements to rivers and harbours in respect of which there is no specific vote.


William Price: How about bridges?


William Pugsley: That expression is used generally all over the country but it applies more particularly, in fact entirely, to the repairs of bridges that would be called interprovincial bridges. There are several bridges across the Ottawa north of here. My deputy informs me that there is one bridge in Ontario, in Haldimand county, which was built by the government many years ago which we keep in repair.


Herbert Brown Ames: Does the minister affirm that the government have built no bridges in Quebec?


William Pugsley: Not that I am aware of.


Herbert Brown Ames: Would he ask his engineer to examine the bridge between St. Francois de Salle and Terrebonne? The government spent $20,000 in building concrete piers in a rapid running river upon which a bridge has been built.


William Pugsley: Would that not be a case where the municipality utilized the wharf as a foundation? The government did not build the bridge.


Herbert Brown Ames: The government built all the piers.
Lake St. Francis (Beauce)-wharfs, $5,000.


William Price: Is my information correct that there is no navigation on Lake St. Francis except for pleasure boats?


William Pugsley: I am informed that there is traffic in taking farm produce to market, but the principal passenger travel is in summer tourists.


William Price: Considering the small amount of navigation on this lake it seems to me that an expenditure of $8,000 for a wharf is a little too stiff.


Mr. BELAND.: It is for two wharfs, one at the upper end and one at the lower end of the lake. Lake St. Francis is twenty-one miles long and is situated in the counties of Beauce, Megantic and Wolfe. There are three boats plying on the lake.


William Price: What kind?


Henri Sévérin Béland: One steamer and two
gasolene.


William Price: Large or small?


Henri Sévérin Béland: The steamer is large
enough to carry the produce of the farmers

in the spring. The upper end of the lake is seven miles from a railway station, while the lower end is only one mile distant from the railway, and as the roads from the upper end to the lower end are impassable in the spring it is necessary to have crafts on the lake to carry the dairy products to where they can be transferred to the railway. There is an extensive lumber trade on Lake St. Francis. These wharfs have been petitioned for by every farmer in the vicinity.


George Gordon: The lumber trade on that lake is so extensive that one steamer and two gasolenes can accommodate it.


Henri Sévérin Béland: At present the steamers have to anchor in the lake as there is no wharf, and of course that is highly inconvenient. There is no strong current on the lake and the logs are towed by these small boats.


George Gordon: Well, just previous to the last election in my district, my opponent in the Liberal interest promised that a wharf would be built at Lisk-eard, which is a town of 3,000 inhabitants. There is a dredge doing considerable work there and that work is absolutely useless until a wharf is constructed. Also, previous to the election my opponent promised that a wharf would be built at the small town of Cache Bay where there is quite an extensive lumbering industry, but there is no appropriation in the estimates for it this year. The Minister of Public Works has laid down the principle tonight that in other provinces small places where little business is done are to have wharfs, but when I make an appeal on behalf of certain places in the province of Ontario he advises me to ask the Ontario government for help. That is neither right nor fair. I am young in this game, as some one called it to-day, but if that is the political game I don't think much of it.


William Pugsley: I laid down the principle which has influenced the Grand Trunk Eailway and other railway companies to give terminal facilities in connection with their railway without appealing to the government for every little wharf. Here is the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Eailway touching the Montreal river and Lake Temiskaming at different points, and expecting to reach Lake Gowganda, and I do not see why the Ontario government or these commissioners ought not to build wharfs to accommodate their traffic as other railways do.


George Taylor: Why didn't the Grand Trunk do that at Levis?


William Pugsley: The Grand Trunk has done it at various places, and the Eichelieu Mr. BELAND.
and Ontario Navigation Company have wharfs up and down the St. Lawrence. The hon. gentleman goes on the principle that notwithstanding all that the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Eailway i3 earning it should do absolutely nothing for the accommodation of the people to make connection between its railway and the water, but that it should come to this government, at a time when our revenues are not buoyant, and ask us to assist that railway which is amply able to give to the people the requisite accommodation. However, although I would be glad to have an appropriation in the estimates for a wharf at New Liskeard this year I am obliged to defer it for the present.


George Gordon: The minister knows that the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Eailway is about the only road in Canada that has not been heavily subsidized by the Dominion government. Not only has the federal government not contributed one cent to this road, but the minister now goes further and says that the railways should build, with the moneys of the province of Ontario, wharfs, which in other provinces are built by this government for railways that have been heavily subsidized. It is unfair and unjust to discriminate against Ontario in this way.
Lake St. John-dredging, $5,000.


William Pugsley: There is a government dredge there and this is to pay the expense.


Herbert Brown Ames: This is to keep the dredge in operation during the summer?


William Pugsley: Yes.
Lake St. John-piers, repairs, &c., $4,000.


Herbert Brown Ames: Are all the office charges of the engineer at Chicoutimi charged against this vote?


William Pugsley: Any services performed by the engineers or inspectors in connection with these different wharfs would be payable out of this vote.


Herbert Brown Ames: That is not my point. My point is whether the office staff expenses and all the charges of the local engineer at Chicoutimi are not charged to the Lake St. John wharfs?


William Pugsley: No, I think not. They would be paid out of the vote for the outside engineering staff.


Herbert Brown Ames: As a matter of book-keeping it is very confusing. If the hon. gentleman will consult the Auditor General's Eeport he will find that these are charged to the Lake St. John wharfs, although Lake St. John is fifty or sixty miles from where the engineer lives.
Magadalen Islands, break-waters and piers,


William Pugsley: This is for a number of improvements.


Herbert Brown Ames: Last year the minister told us that the $12,000 which was then voted would absolutely complete the work.


William Pugsley: The chief engineer, who was present last year, told me that that amount would complete the work which was then under construction or contemplated, but I am not quite sure whether further expenditure would not be required on new work. As there are a number of piers on the Magdalen islands there is work required there every year.


Herbert Brown Ames: What work is expected this year?


William Pugsley: This is to complete the works begun at Point Bass, Grindstone and Amherst piers, Basin Point-quite a number have to be constructed with a view to affording shelter and better harbour accommodation.
Mistook wharf, lake St. John-repairs, $1,-
000.


Herbert Brown Ames: I would like the minister to see if this information is not correct in respect to this work. Mistook is a little place on Lake St. John, a mile and a half from the main road. There is not a house in the locality, and the money spent last year, I am informed, was spent in building a road from the wharf to the main road, about a mile and a half through the woods. The question arises whether we have to build for the people of Saguenay county not only their wharfs, but their roads to connect the wharfs with the main arteries of commerce.


William Pugsley: This wharf was built in 1903-4. I do not know what representations were made or the exact location of the wharf; but I may say that it has been very badly damaged by the northwest storms which swept over Lake St. John during the unusually high spring floods of 1908. Whatever criticism there may have been for erecting the wharf in the first place, it being there and being damaged, it would hardly be right to allow it to be destroyed completely, and we are asking for this small sum for the purpose of repairing it.


Herbert Brown Ames: Will the minister give us his assurance that this money will be spent on the wharf, and will not be used in improving the roads?


William Pugsley: Yes, certainly.
Rimouski wharf-sheathing west side, $8,-
000.


Herbert Brown Ames: There is a great deal of public work going on at Rimouski which I think is open to criticism. There is an extremely large bill every year for dredging in the neighbourhood of this wharf. I am
quite familiar with the place, and it seems to me that the government are dredging to no purpose, but are simply wasting the money of the country at that point. The dredging channel is through soft, shifting sand, and the dredges are working on a line running north and south, while the current sweeps east and west, and the current of the river sweeps across the bay in the same direction, so that the sand is going back again, almost as fast as it is dug out. I think money should be spent in dredging at Rimouski, but not in the way most of it is being spent.


Rodolphe Lemieux: As Postmaster General, I am somewhat familiar with the condition of the Rimouski wharf. When the question of the repairs to the wharf at Father Point came up, I stated that forty or fifty years ago, when the landing pier for Atlantic passengers was selected, it was decided that it should be at Father Point and not at Rimouski. However, the government of the day selected Rimouski, and the wharf there is about a mile long. The river at Rimouski. as my hon. friend says, empties not very far from that wharf, and consequently drives the sand along the 'wharf. When two years ago we purchased a new tender for the service, the tender was for three or four months unable to reach Rimouski wharf, and that is how I happen to know about the dredging. Since that time some good work has been done by the	dredges of the
Department of Public Works, and the channel has been widened and deepened. I do not know how the government can stop dredging every two or three years at that wharf for the very reason given by my hon. friend a moment ago. The wharf was built too close to the river Rimouski and there is shifting sand at that point. Not only will dredging have to be continued near that long wharf, but there must be some dredging done in the river itself, because there are at the entrance to the river some very considerable lumbering establishments. I think that the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Price) is largely interested in that district. The Prices have-been interested there for years, and some dredging is needed for the lumber trade at the entrance to the river. Since ten or fifteen years that trade has developed considerably. It is the main trade of the district, and I do not see how the government can avoid spending some money on dredging at that point. But I admit it is very difficult on account of the sand which accumulates and is carried away by the river.


Herbert Brown Ames: Undoubtedly you continue the dredging which is being done by the General Construction Company.


William Pugsley: This is dredging for the accommodation of the mail steamers.

Last year we had our own dredge there and we purpose continuing the dredging this year. The present vote is for the purpose of building and driving a row of piles around the wharf so as to enable dredging to be done close up to the wharf for the accommodation of the mail steamers.
Riviere Bonaventure training pier, $9,000.


Herbert Brown Ames: This is an extremely absurd expenditure. There are many other ways in which we could invest that money better than by building a wharf at the Bonaventure river which cannot be reached by any steamer. There is not water enough at the far end, it is only used by four or five fishing boats, and the cost is entirely out of proportion to any benefit derived from it.


James Davis Taylor: Why is it called a training pier?


William Pugsley: Because it gives direction to the current so as to preserve navigation.


Herbert Brown Ames: It cannot be reached by any steamer. The farmers do not use it for taking out material and the railway1 runs right through the town. We have already spent $24,000, and are now going to spend $9,000 more on this useless wharf.


William Pugsley: This is to pay for the completion of the work. I must confess that I am not sufficiently familiar with the locality to give very aocurate information as to the necessity for the work. I find however, that the riviere Bonaventure was represented to the department as one of the largest streams in the Baie des Chaleurs district and that the harbour at the mouth is the most important lumbering point in Bonaventure county. The channel which leads to the inner harbour was being constantly filled in with sand and the building of this training pier will give a certain direction to the current which will scour out the channel and prevent the necessity of expensive dredging from year to year.


George Taylor: If there is no shipping what is the use of it?


William Pugsley: There is very considerable shipping done.


Herbert Brown Ames: If the minister investigates, he will find that it is a very much less important than a good many other items he struck out of his estimates.


William Pugsley: This was under contract and I have to pay for it.
River Richelieu improvements, $60,000.


Herbert Brown Ames: We shall want very full de tails in connection with that expenditure.


William Pugsley: The matter was brought to my notice shortly after I became minister and I found it had been under con-Mr. PUGSLEY.
sideration a considerable time before that. It appears that in the season of floods the Richelieu river overflows its banks with the result that about 30,000 acres of what would otherwise be most valuable farming land is annually flooded. The hon. gentleman can see that land situated as this is in a well settled district would be of very considerable value if it could be saved from this great damage occurring yearly. The object sought to be obtained by the improvements to the river is to give such vent to it during the season of flooding that this overflow will be prevented. Upon the recommendation of the engineers of the department the government have asked parliament for the authority to enter upon this work. As a result we have had the plans prepared, and we are engaged in doing what may be called dredging work-removing boulders and rocks from the bed of the river at the point where the obstruction exists. We propose following that up with the construction of a movable dam in the river, and we believe that the effect will be to somewhat improve the navigation of the river for some distance above the obstruction, and also to somewhat improve the navigation of the Chambly canal, and be of enormous benefit to the people living on either side of the Richelieu river. The cost is estimated at $185,000. We are asking this year for $60,000. We did a good deal of work last year. We first ask for tenders, but when these came in we thought they were too high. After careful consideration and consultation between the resident engineer, Mr. Michaud, who is a very competent man, a man of experience and of excellent judgment, and the chief engineer of the department, it was decided that we could get the work done cheaper by providing a dredge and doing the work with our own plant. I am happy to say that we have saved a considerable amount of money, because we get the work done more cheaply than if we had accepted the owest tender. I believe that the contrac-ors felt that' there was considerable risk in connection with the piers of the bridge, and they did not tender at the price that we can do the work for. The whole eoun-ry is interested in this work, and the people there believe that the results we hope or will be obtained, and their opinion is ortified by the opinion of engineering exerts.


Mr. JOS. DEMERS (St. John and Iberville).: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, as this vote interests particularly my county, I desire to say a few words on this important subject. I am somewhat surprised to see that we have yet to discuss this item to-night, an item which is not new to this House. During the years 1907 and 1908, this parliament voted different sums of money to improve the situation of the farmers of

that district. Last year the honourable Minister of Public Works has given very plain statements on this subject. However, as there are in the House this year many new members who might take an interest in this question, I will take the liberty to add a few explanations to those already given by the hon. minister.
For a" great many years, that is to say,
. since the construction of the Chambly canal, the farmers of the counties of St. John, Missisquoi, Iberville, have complained to the federal government about the grievous situation in which they were put by a construction of this canal. The lands in the vicinity are very low and their irrigation is naturally very difficult. A very small obstruction will sometimes prevent the flowing of the waters and will cause very disastrous floods. The natural difficulties of the irrigation of these lands have also been increased by the construction of the Chambly canal which had the effect of narrowing the width of the river by 200 to 300 feet. Since the deepening of this canal other obstructions have been added to those already existing: First, the construction of the two bridges, one by the Central Vermont and the other by the Canadian Pacific railway, two companies incorporated by this parliament. Secondly built on each side of the river, with the authorization of the federal parliament ; important fisheries were established, and this has necessitated the construction of new weirs which prevented the flowing of the water, so that we have opposite St. John a most complete dam.
For a very long time, as I have said, the farmers of the district have sent petitions signed by every inhabitant of the vicinity. Numerous deputations were sent to Ottawa year after year at large sacrifices. These representations were all unsuccessful up to 1900, when the federal government gave instructions to competent engineers to make a survey of the flooded lands and an estimate of the damages. These engineers were also asked to find the cause of the floods, and to indicate the means of stopping them.
Upon their report the government placed an item of $5,000 in the estimates to begin the works. But this sum being evidently too small, no money was expended. In 1907 another vote was granted, the government admitting thus, and for the second time, their responsibility in the matter. The vote at that time was $10,000. When the government was about to spend that money came another objection. We had to submit the question to the International Commission on Waterways, because the proposed works might affect the waters of Lake Champlain. The commission decided on the 24th of October, 1907, that this work could go on without any prejudice to the 81
rights of the United States on Lake Champlain.
Following this decision the government placed in the estimates of last year for the preliminary work to be done, an item of $30,000, out of which $18,000 have been spent up to the present. This year, besides the amount voted last year, the additional sum of $30,000 is asked to continue the deepening of the River Richelieu opposite St. John, on a length of 4,000 feet, a width of 700 feet and an average depth of 5 feet. As this dredging will hinder the navigation because it will open a wider passage for the waters, it will be necessary to build a movable dam that will be opened and closed whenever needed. For instance, in the spring, during the month of April, the dam might be opened so as to allow a rapid effusion of the water, but it will be closed gradually after that so as to have always in the river, for the needs of the navigation, during the low water season, more water than we have presently in that season.
These works will not only stop the floods, but will save the government the expenditure of $75,000 or $100,000, a sum which the dredging of the River Richelieu between St. John and Rouse's Point to supply the needs of the navigation would have come to. Besides that, these works will save to the government considerable expenditure which we would be obliged to make for the dredging of the Chambly canal, which is not deep enough for the needs of navigation because you will have then in the canal an additional foot and a half of water during the low waters. I take those figures from the calculations made by the engineers themselves.
The lands flooded are of considerable extent. These engineers estimate that there are 25,000 acres completely lost for agriculture. These lands are of first quality; they are alluvial soil of the best kind and of the most fertile that there! are in the country. I think I am not mistaken when saying that the farmers of that district are losing annually and since a very long time more than $125,000 by reason of the obstacles created by the different railway companies and other causes of which I have snoken a few minutes ago. The government three or four years ago, set itself to perform an act of justice which, I hope, it will have no difficulty in completing.


Herbert Brown Ames: (Translation.) I will ask the honourable member, who has so well explained the situation, if it is not to his knowledge that a plan has been submitted to the government for the construction of a dam at the mouth of Lake Champlain, in order to use the lake as a reservoir instead of the present plan.


Marie Joseph Demers: (Translation.) I have never heard of it.


Herbert Brown Ames: (Translation.) I had a talk the other day with an engineer who seemed to understand the question thoroughly; he told me that in his opinion this was the best solution. I desire simply to ask the Minister of Public Works to take the suggestion into consideration.
I may state for the benefit of the minister that in conversation recently with an eminent engineer who is familiar with all the circumstances, he suggested that it would be possible to erect a dam near Lake Champlain so that the lake could be used as a reservoir, somewhat ^ after the principle of the Assouan dam in Egypt, and the water could be permitted to go out more regularly throughout the season.


William Pugsley: I would approach the construction of a dam at Lake Champlain with great hesitation, because of the great value of the property which would be flooded upon the shores of the lake by the erection of a dam. The damages would be simply enormous; and it would have to be an international dam also.


Herbert Brown Ames: I did not mean a dam that would be high enough to flood the waters, but a dam that would prevent the lake from reaching the extreme low level in the summer, making of it a reservoir.


William Pugsley: All along the shores of Lake Champlain the water is high in the spring, but it recedes in summer, and people cultivate the land upon the shores of the lake. But the moment you hold the water back to a high level, you flood all the land in the dry season when it is capable of being put under cultivation. We had a little experience of that in Lake Nipissing. We thought we could hold the water back at high level, and we found enormous claims coming in, even there; and we have been obliged to alter the plan and give vent to the water so as not to retain it at the high level.


Herbert Brown Ames: In this case the root of the evil is a little further back than appears on the surface. In the early days when the Adirondacks and the Green Mountains were wooded, and before all the timber was off, the water came down gradually into the lake and went out gradually. Now that the timber has been cut off the result is heavy spring freshets that raise the lake and cause a large efflux of water.


Marie Joseph Demers: If we were to construct a dam near Bouses Point, what would happen to the navigation between St. John and Rouses Point?


Herbert Brown Ames: The idea this engineer expressed was that if a dam was constructed near Rouse's Point the movement of the Mr. DEMERS.
water flowing out could be regulated during the summer so that the extreme low level would not be reached.
Some resolutions reported.



[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved the second reading of Bill (No. 97) respecting insurance. He said: It was intimated when I introduced the Bill that we should send it quickly to the Committee on Banking and Commerce. I think the general disposition of the House is so to send it, with the understanding that no hon. member is committed to it in any respect, but that every one will have full opportunity for discussing it in committee.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 11.05 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 15, 1909.