[Stage Direction]
Report of the Auditor General, 1908, Vol.
II.-Hon. Mr. Paterson.

Mr. HONORE GERVAIS (Montreal, St. James) moved:: That the first report of the Select Standing committee on debates be amended by striking out of the third part the words * deferred until the close of the session,' to be replaced by the following words, ' to be printed and published as usual * and that the said report as amended be concurred in.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the object of this report which is being made by the Debates Committee is to do away with the criticism which has been made against the committee with regard to the delay in the publication of the French edition of our ' Hansard.' Complaints have been made since 1893 against the delay in the publication of the French * Hansard.' One of the causes of the delay arises from the fact that the



French edition of the ' Hansard ' has to be made up from the revised English edition. The consequence was that nobody could obtain a copy of the French edition of the ' Hansard ' until fifteen days after the unrevised edition of the English ' Hansard ' had been issued. These complaints were well grounded because, as a matter of fact, the newspaper men in the province of Quebec, as well'as the French speaking citizens of Canada, have been deprived of what they are entitled to, that is, the French edition of the * Hansard ' at the same time that the English edition is issued. More especially have the members of the House of Commons complained of this delay. The object of this report is to go back to the condition of affairs that was in existence in 1893 when the French version of the * Hansard ' was made from the daily or unrevised edition of the English * Hansard.' By adopting this report the result will be that, within twenty-four hours after the issue of the English edition of the ' Hansard,' everybody who wishes to have the French edition will be able to have it because the French ' Hansard ' will then be out. The revised edition both of the English and French ' Hansards ' will be published as usual at the end of the session and everybody will receive bound volumes. By the adoption of this report the House of Commons will get rid of many of the criticisms and complaints that have been made against the Debates Committee. I might assign as another cause of the delay some unwillingness on the part of certain officials of the Printing Bureau to facilitate the publication of the French edition of the ' Hansard,' an unwillingness which has proved to be, as regards one portion of the population of Canada, offensive and sometimes oppressive. It is to do away with that condition of affairs that this report is presented to the House. Now, let us examine the question of expenditure. There will be practically no increase of expenditure, except, perhaps, that the committee will have to appoint another translator, involving an expenditure of $2,100 a year. That is the total expenditure which will have to be incurred should this report be adopted by the House. The translators will have to work from 8.30 a.m. until late in the evening, as they do now. The two proof-readers now employed will be quite sufficient to do the proof-reading and extra assistance will not be necessary. The daily unrevised edition will be published every morning as usual and the translators will make their translation from that edition so that the printing of the French edition can be done during the next day or during the night. Therefore, twenty-four hours after the issue of the English 'Hansard' the French edition will be circulated and the French speaking members of the House will be quite satisfied with that. It is proposed to increase the issue of both Mr. GEEVAIS.
the French and English edition of the unrevised ' Hansard ' and no extra expenditure properly speaking will be entailed by that. The King's Printer and Mr. Shipman, the able foreman of printing, as well as the very clever chief translator, Mr. Larose, attended the last meeting of the Debates Committee and they assured us that work will be carried out as I have explained, that the present printing machinery is sufficient, and that satisfaction would be given to the French-speaking community in this respect. I trust the House will adopt this report without any further delay, and when it is adopted there will be no further complaints against the Debates Committee.


Mr. J. A. C. ETHIER (Two Mountains).: I see that it is proposed to amend the report by substituting the words ' be printed and published as usual,' for the words 'deferred until after the close of the session.' I was not aware that any meeting of the Debates Committee had been called since the adoption of the report at which this amendment was agreed to, and this is the first intimation I have had of this amendment. I would ask my hon. friend ("Mr. Gervais) what is the real meaning of the words ' be printed and published as usual.' If I understand it aright it means that we will have an issue of the unrevised French ' Hansard ' and also of the revised French ' Hansard.' If that is so I have nothing to complain of, but I do not think it was the intention of the committee to impose that burden upon the Printing Bureau, or upon the translators, or upon the finances of the country. If the idea is to publish an unrevised edition of the French ' Hansard ' as well as a revised edition, as at present, I will concur in it notwithstanding that the amendment has been somewhat of a surprise to me.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: When the report of the committee was presented, some of the English speaking members said that it might cause a delay in the publication of the revised English edition of the ' Hansard.' I admit that was the case, and in consequence of their representations the report of the committee was amended in the direction I have indicated. The amendment will remove any cause of fear on the part of the English-speaking members that there will not be an expeditious publication of both editions of ' Hansard.'


Mr. SPROULE.: There are serious objections to the proposals contained in this report and I do not think it should be concurred in by the House. One proposal is that instead of the English revised edition being distributed to the public and the press as at present, a sufficient number of copies of the daily unrevised edition should be circulated. To this I take exception. It is not proper to hold members responsible for what appears in the unrevised edition of

'Hansard' when they have had no opportunity of correcting any errors which may have crept in from one cause or another. This proposal means that the unrevised edition uneorrected will be circulated and published in the press of the country, and that members may be held responsible for statements which were never made by them. That is an injustice to the members and it is misleading to the public. That system has been found in the past not to work well, and I do not believe it should be resorted to again. The report also says that the debates be translated into French from the daily unrevised edition which means that the errors in the unrevised English edition will be translated into the French edition. That would be very unfair to the French members, and it would be unfair to the English members.	>


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: I may assure the hon. gentleman that the French members will be quite safe and satisfied with the adoption of the report. Let the French-speaking members manage their own business. They are ready to relieve him from the care and trouble of protecting their own interests.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If they are satisfied the English-speaking members still have a very strong objection to it because if the unrevised edition is translated they might be made to say in the French edition many things which they did not say, but which would be used against them in the country. It is bad enough to hold a man responsible for what he did say, but let him have an opportunity of confirming the record of his utterance and do not attribute to him something he never said. It would mean the translation of an incorrect copy and that would be bad for both parties, bad for the House, bad for parliament and misleading to the country. As to the proposal to defer the publication of the revised version in English and French until after the close of the session-


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: I am doing away with that objection by the amendment I am now proposing to this report.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That amendment I now see omits the provision deferring publication and declares that a revised edition shall be printed and published as usual. That does away with the objection I raised to that part of the report, so of course I have nothing further to say upon it. I understand there is another proposal in it to appoint another translator.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: As I understand we may create an office, but neither the committee nor the House has any right to report in favour of any particular person to fill an office because that will be the duty 47i	- i
of the Civil Service Commission in the future. Therefore it seems to me it would be quite out of place to recommend it here.


Mr. G. TAYLOR.: The committee were induced to make this report owing to the continued cry from our French friends that they were not in possession of the debates for a week or ten days after the occurrence of a debate in the House, and after consulting with the officials of the translating staff and the King's Printer, we came to the conclusion that we could not provide them with a daily ' Hansard ' without adopting the course recommended, and by adopting this course our French friends will get the speeches within twenty-four hours after the English edition is delivered to the English-speaking members. To meet that view of the ease we decided to report as we have done.
Then the revised edition is what now goes out to the public press. I consider this simply a waste of money because there is not a newspaper that makes any use of it; they get the revised edition when it is a week or ten days old, and if you go into any newspaper office in the country you will find the 'Hansards' in the waste basket. If they are supplied with any report of the debates let them have it fresh from the House, the day after it is published. That was the view I took and the view taken by the committee generally. The revision of speeches will go on as usual, the members will make corrections inside of twenty-four hours; the revised edition will then be printed, but the bound volume will not be printed until the close of the session. I think the course adopted is the best in the interests of the House and the country.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: So far as the unrevised edition is concerned, it is perfectly clear that up to the present time there has been practically no French edition whatever. As both languages are used in the House it seems to be a fairly reasonable proposition that there should be a French unrevised ' Hansard ' as well as an English, and from that standpoint I would be inclined to concur in the report of the committee. So far as distribution to the press is concerned there is something in what my hon. friend from Grey (Mr. Sproule) has urged, that some hon. member may occasionally be put in an unfortunate position through the inadvertant alteration by the 'Hansard' reporters of something that he has said. For example, he may have used the word * not.' It may happen in the hurry of debate, in the confusion that very often arises in the House, that word may escape the attention of the reporter and in that way _ he may be made to say precisely the onnosite to that which he did say. However, I would think difficulties of that kind would be only very oc-

casional and I would suggest to the Committee on Debates that when the unrevised 'Hansard' goes out to the press and the country-as a matter of fact it goes out to the press and the country to-day because every enterprising newspaper gets a copy of the unrevised-but when it goes out in this formal way it might be worth while to put a note at the commencement of each day's 'Hansard' explaining that it is subject to correction and has not been revised by the different members who have spoken. If that were done it would probably minimize the objection of the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule).


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 75) respecting the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Company.-Mr. Pardee.
Bill (No. 76) to incorporate the Imperial Fire Insurance Company.-Mr. A. Hag-gart.
Bill (No. 77) respecting a patent of the Submarine Company. Mr. Proulx.
Bill (No. 78) to incorporate the Superior and Western Ontario Railway Company.- Mr. Conmee.

Mr. A. H.: CLARKE moved that the Public Accounts and Volumes 1 and 3 and section O of the report of the Auditor General for the fiscal year ended 31st March, 1908, be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public Acccounts.


George Taylor: I understand that Volume 2 of the Auditor General's Report was laid on the table of the House to-day and I would suggest that the motion be amended so as to include it.


Mr. A. H. CLARKE.: I would be very glad to include everything that is before the House.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.



ILLICIT OR SECRET COMMISSIONS.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 31) to prevent the payment or acceptance of illicit or secret commissions or other like practices.-Mr. Aylesworth.
On section 3,
Hon.  A. B.@: AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice.) When this Bill was in committee, a week ago, its various provisions were considered, and the question now remains of the preamble. Since then I have had the opportunity of giving some consideration to the views that were expressed by various members, and I must say that my ideas with regard to the procedure under this Bill, should it become law in its present shape, are entirely in accord with those expressed by my hon. friend from North Mr. E. L. BORDEN
Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie). I think that the provisions of our Criminal Code, as regards the procedure of all criminal cases, would apply to the procedure under this measure, without any necessity for special mention; but there can be no objection to that being made abundantly clear if, in the opinion of the committee, or of any hon. member, that is desirable. That can be accomplished by adding to the Bill a section providing that this Act shall be read as if its provisions formed part of the Criminal Code.
With regard to the responsibility which the Bill casts upon a single magistrate in case a prosecution for an infraction of it were to be disposed of summarily, my hon. friend from West Elgin (Mr. Crothers) seemed to think it would be an anomaly to give power to a single magistrate, on summary conviction, to sentence for even six months. But if reference is had to our Criminal Code, it will be seen that there are many offences, specifically mentioned in that Code, as it has stood now for nearly seventeen years, of at least equal importance to minor offences under this Bill; and some of the offences that I have in mind in the Code are of even greater importance than perhaps a serious infraction of this measure would be, with respect to which the same provision is made as to the method of trial, namely, either upon indictment or upon summary conviction. Let me refer to one or two, and there are at least a dozen, as showing what important matters have been dealt with and what serious punishments have been, in some instances, imposed under these provisions, without, so far as I am aware, any one considering that any danger has been incurred. Under section 409 of the Criminal Code, any one who is guilty of personation at an examination for the Civil Service is liable, either on indictment or summary conviction, to one year's imprisonment or a fine of $100. There you have power given to a single magistrate anywhere in Canada, on summary conviction, to sentence an offender to one year's imprisonment. My hon. friend from West Elgin (Mr. Crothers) was under the impression that in no case had a single magistrate the power to inflict imprisonment for a longer term than six months, but I have cited one instance in which he may, in his discretion, impose imprisonment for twice six months. Then there are several instances in the Criminal Code in which offences, such as in this Bill may be punished on summary conviction, may be tried before one magistrate only. For instance, section 208, prohibits the production upon the stage of immoral performances, and every one guilty of such an offence is liable to punishment on indictment or summary conviction; and if convicted on indictment is liable to one year's imprisonment, with or without hard

labour, or a fine of $500 or both; and if on summary conviction, to six months' imprisonment or a fine of $50 or both. That is an offence against public morals at least as serious as a minor offence would be under this Bill. Section 440 is another instance of several in which the punishment is prescribed, in the same language as in this Bill, upon indictment or conviction, and where one magistrate may try the case and has power to impose six months' imprisonment- with or without hard labour. That is the section which makes it an offence to buy or deal in seaman's property, where the danger, I suppose, is that it may not be the property pf the seaman himself, so that these are at all events, two instances in which for years past we have had legislation in identical words with those in this Bill, and with regard to which I have not heard any complaint or suggestion of amendment. 1 would think therefore that we could adopt this Bill as drawn, but I am not wedded to the exact language used; and if in the opinion of hon. gentlemen it would be better that we should not allow a summary conviction under this measure to be proceeded with before a single magistrate, it is easy, by inserting two or three words, to secure that there shall always be two magistrates sitting on a prosecution under this Bill.
I have no objection to that being done n it is preferred. But with regard to the difficulties which were felt by my hon friend from Carleton, New Brunswick (Mr! Carvell), I must say that I do not see how we could properly upon the face of any legislation undertake to discriminate between magistrates. The fear that my hon. friend expressed was that a prosecution under this statute might be brought before some magistrate who was not really qualified, who ought not to have been appointed and that the interests of the person charged might therefore suffer. Well, I am afraid that that might be the case with any other charge levelled against a man under the Code as we have it. It is not the function of the central government to appoint magistrates throughout the Dominion, and we must, I think, give credit to the local authorities that they will only appoint as magistrates men who are qualified for the discharge of their important duties. As I said a week ago, a judge is a judge, and a magistrate is a magistrate; and if he has been placed upon His Majesty's commission of the peace, and has qualified himself to act in accordance with the requirements of the local laws, I do not see how it is nos-sible for us to discriminate between individuals or to place upon the statute-book of the Dominion any legislation which would seem to imply that there may be magistrates acting in the country who are not properly qualified by education or by common sense to discharge the important
duties of their office. If we require that a prosecution under this statute be heard before two justices of the peace, we have at least the additional guaranty that two would give, and the chance that one of them at least may not labour under the disqualification which my hon. friend from Carleton is afraid of.


Mr. PORTER.: I would like to inquire from the hon. minister whether he has considered the suggestion made to him of amending this Bill in such a way as to give the accused the right to select the form of his trial-whether before a justice of the peace, or upon an indictment before a jury?


Mr. AYLESWORTH.: I expressed my views as to that when the Bill was last in Committee. I would not think it desirable that the accused person should have any greater right of election as to the manner of trial upon a charge under this Act than he would have under the general law. Under the general law he has certain rights, and, if he prefers to go before a jury, he would have identically the same rights under this statute.


Mr. CROTHERS.: When this matter was before us last week, some of us had not looked carefully into it, and amongst that number seems to have been the Minister of Justice himself. I was speaking at that time from memory, and I think now that the sections to which my hon. friend has reference, to illustrate cases that could be tried by a single justice of the peace, are modified by other sections in the Act. Perhaps my hon. friend has not looked at section 707, which provides:
Every complaint and information should he heard, tried, determined and adjudged by one justice or two or more justices as directed by the Act or law upon which the complaint or information is framed or by any other Act or law in that behalf.
So that if this Bill were left as first presented to us, one justice of the peace under that section would have jurisdiction to determine the question. However, if my hon. friend is right, that under these other sections one justice of the peace could dispose of the matter, I submit that we should not extend such cases. I do not approve at all of giving an ordinary justice of the peace the right to determine a matter of so much importance as this, involving a sentence of six months' imprisonment. If the committee will allow me, I would like to say a word or two on the general principles of the Bill. I understood my hon. friend the Minister of Justice to say the other day that this Bill was not at all necessary for the protection of the government; and I think he was quite right in that. As long ago as the year 1891, very extensive provisions were made in the Criminal Code for the protection of the government in such transactions. Then, is the Bill neces-

sary in any transaction? I do not suppose my hon. friend would claim that this section ought to be applied in a case where a vendor of goods induced an agent of a purchaser to purchase from him at regular prices and of as good quality as he could get from any one else, the bread, say, that he might need for a year, and gave him a present of five or ten dollars at the end of the year. That would not be corruptly done, I fancy, because the employer would not in any way be defrauded or lose anything. The only case that occurs to me in which this Bill might be applied in private transactions would be where the agent entered into an arrangement with the vendor to pay him say a cent a pound more for bread or meat or any other articles than he could buy it for elsewhere, agreeing to pay him a certain sum of money if he would carry the arrangement out. But this Bill is not necessary at all in a case of that kind, because that would be a conspiracy between the agent and the vendor, for which there are ample provisions in the Criminal Code today. So that, as this Bill is not at all necessary for the protection of the government, and as it meets no case between private individuals which is not already met by the provisions of the Code, this Bill is absolutely unnecessary.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: Of course, whatever effect section 707 of the Code has upon other sections of the Code, exactly the same and the like effect it would have upon the provisions of this Bill, because this Bill is to be read as a part of the criminal law. The subsection of section 707 to which the hon. gentleman has referred is simply a provision that if there is no special direction in any Act requiring a complaint to be heard before more than one justice, then it shall be heard before one justice. That is what I have been pointing out. I am quite content, if my hon. friend from Elgin thinks it would better this legislation, to insert in the Bill a provision that a summary prosecution under the Act shall be heard only before two justices. That can be secured at once by inserting the words ' before two justices ' after the word * conviction,' in the fourth line of section 3. All one has to do is to add the words ' before two justices ' and he accomplishes that purpose. Otherwise, certainly one justice would have juris, diction. I do not see any danger myself in allowing one justice of the peace to try an information under this Bill, but I am quite content that it should be limited to two.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: What would my hon. friend say as to the necessity of the Bill at all ?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: As to the necessity for this legislation, I had thought that every one in the House and out of it was well agreed, and I suppose the fact that it has passed its second Mr. CROTHERS.
reading is a very clear intimation that this House considered the principle of the Bill unobjectionable, if not necessary.
I might say to my hon. friend, since the question has been raised, that I have had,
I think, at least half a dozen applications from wholesale manufacturers and wholesale firms of long standing in the business community of this country, since the Bill was under discussion here a week ago, asking for copies of the Bill, and expressing in every instance their strong approbation of the principle of the measure, and their hope that its language might be made wide enough to extend to cases of commercial immorality or dishonesty which, in their view, tended to lower the standard of ethics, if that word is not inappropriate, in the trade of the wholesale dealer or manufacturer. I think there is every necessity for legislation of this character, and that the insidious effects of secret commissions are permeating every business and every trade and calling in this country. I can only say to my hon. friend that even the honourable profession to which he and I have the pride to belong, is not entirely free from the effects of just this sort of thing. I have in memory at the present time a case where a man to whom a little advertising had been given for a client, in the course of the legal business with which I had been for a good many years connected, came to the office with two bills for his advertisement, one substantially larger than the other, and offered to take payment of the smaller, producing the other as the one that should be shown to the client and charged up against him. I think any man guilty of that sort of thing was simply offering a bribe, and that the man who would be willing to accept such an offer to the disadvantage of his client, ought to be punishable under the criminal law.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Would not that case be fully covered by section 444 ?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: My hon. friend refers to a section making it an indictible offence to conspire to defraud. I think my hon. friend's experience will agree with mine that a charge of conspiracy is a flexible kind of charge which sometimes it may be convenient enough to bring, but which, generally speaking, is difficult enough to establish. I would not be willing to leave to a prosecution under a general section relating to conspiracy to defraud, the kind of thing I have just been referring to.


Mr. MADDIN.: I commend the object of this Bill in every particular. But I would like to draw to the attention of the hon. Minister of Justice the fact that in 1892 the criminal law of this country was consolidated and codified. Under the present administration in 1906 all the amendments to the criminal law of this country were revised and brought down to date. This is

only as it should be, in order that the whole criminal law of the country may be found in one volume. I would like to ask the Minister of Justice if he could not find it convenient, instead of introducing a Bill such as he has here, and in regard to the operation of which some members of the committee anticipate some difficulty as to whether a case should be tried before one justice of the peace or two-could not the minister, instead of introducing this Bill, attain his object by adding one single section, namely, section 3 of this Bill ? If that were done, the Criminal Code would be complete with regard to the machinery for administering the law, and there could be little uncertainty with regard to it which would be a preferable course to taking one section, and putting it in the statutes apart from the Code, where magistrates and justices of the peace whose duty it would be to administer this law, might have some difficulty in finding it. For instance, if the Minister of Justice will look at section 158 of the Code, under part 4 'offences against the administration of law and justice ' subsections (e) and (f) of that section provide for the punishment of this identical offence where it is committed against the government of the country. Now, if the Minister of Justice would add this section 3 to that section, or would put it in as section 158a of the Code, then it would serve the purpose while still preserving the consolidation of the criminal law, and we would have the machinery in that identical volume for its administration. There is another aspect of the matter. It seems to me that there is an element of uncertainty in regard to the enforcement of this Act as it is now proposed. Section 3 says :
Every one is guilty of an offence and liable, upon conviction on indictment, to two years' imprisonment.
It does not say that the offence is an in-dictible offence, but is an offence, and the person is liable. Further on it says ' and on summary conviction.' Now if the minister will look at section 707 which was read by the hon. member for Elgin, where power is vested in one justice of the peace to try under summary conviction, and if he will then look at part 16 of the Code which is entitled ' Summary trial of indictable offences,' there may be some difficulty for a justice to determine whether he should proceed under part 15 pf the Code or under part 16, whether the summary conviction referred to in section 3 of this Act would have reference to summary conviction under part 15 or to summary conviction under part 16. I submit that a conviction made under either one of these conditions would be a summary conviction-one a summary conviction, of that which would not be an indictable offence, and the other a summary conviction of what would be an indictable offence. Under section 16 of
the Code the jurisdiction is vested in the court absolutely in certain cases which are outlined there. This may be made one of those cases so that the accused would not have the privilege of electing as he has the privilege of electing under that section if, in the opinion of the Minister of Justice, the prisoner should not have the right of electing. Unless such a provision were made he could, under section 778, have the right to elect if they were proceeding against him by indictment.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that it would be wisdom on the part of this committee to add a section to the Criminal Code instead of having a small Bill of this kind stuck into the statutes of 1909, and which will not find its way into the Criminal Code until the next revision. It will mean that every time a prosecution is brought under this Act every justice of the peace will be obliged to have a copy of the statutes of 1909. As the matter stands now, when amendments are made to the Code, notice of the amendments is sent to justices of the peace and stipendiary magistrates in different parts of Canada. If this were put in as an amendment to the Code it would preserve the consolidation and solidarity of the criminal law and it would be incorporated in one volume so that the tribunal which had the administering of it would know where to put its finger upon it when the occasion arose. With regard to the objects of the Bill, I think, with the Minister of Justice, it is wise that the provisions of it should go through. Section 444, as quoted by the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Crothers), would not cover the case outlined by the Minister of Justice, because there would have to be two persons charged with the offence in order to convict of a conspiracy and unless both were convicted you could not convict either. I think that is a matter of law that is well recognized.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I have no doubt that if this legislation had been a part of our law at the time of the revision of the statutes it would have been placed by the revisers in the Criminal Code as an additional subsection to section 158. When considering the shape which it would seem best to give to this legislation before introducing the Bill that view presented itself and was one of the things to be taken into account. There would have been no harm certainly, and I think identically the same legal effect would have been accomplished, if this Bill had been introduced as an amendment to the Criminal Code by inserting in it the provisions of section 3 immediately after the present section 158. But, in my own mind, I thought the course which I have adopted was the better. This was a measure which was passed in England a few years ago after long discussion and after attracting a great deal of public attention. It was considered there

so important as not only to be the subject of a special or a separate Act but also to receive rather extended notice in the speech from the Throne. I thought it certainly would do no harm to follow the same course in this country and that it would have at least this good effect that it would attract more general public attention to the legislation than possibly it would have received had it been introduced amongst a number of other amendments to the Criminal Code. If the Bill is to be read as part of the Code, as I think should be the case, and as I am proposing now as a special enactment, the legal effect will be precisely the same as if it had been introduced by way of amendment, and when the law comes next to be revised this Act will no doubt be incorporated in the Code by those who are revising it.	'


Mr. DOHERTY.: I understand that even with the additional clause providing that this Act is to be read as forming part of the Criminal Code, and that all the provisions of the Criminal Code as to the trial shall apply, still there would be nothing in the provisions of the Criminal Code that would operate to give to the accused any option under any circumstances as to the tribunal which would try him. He may be proceeded against under the provisions here by summary conviction. I understand that he may be tried undeT part XV of the Criminal Code by one magistrate. It would be only in the event of the magistrates determining to treat the matter as an indictable offence that it would then possibly come under the operation of part XVI of the Code and, if I understand it rightly, the only effect of that would be that if the magistrate were proceeding to treat it as an indictable offence the accused would be entitled to the option of being tried before the magistrate by his own consent. I am speaking subject to correction, of course, not claiming to have carefully examined the whole Criminal Code, but it appears to me that if this Bill passes in its present form there will be no option given to the accused by which he may avoid trial by the magistrate or a justice of the peace, or by two justices of the peace, if the Bill be amended to make two justices of the peace to be necessary. I might say that I do not feel that there is any great improvement in providing for a trial by two justices of the peace, because if the state of mind of this House is that one justice of the peace is not a person to be trusted to conduct this trial I do not think there is very much more guarantee in getting two gentlemen neither of whom is to be trusted to try the offence. But even assuming that to be an improvement, it does not seem to me that you are getting a situation where the accused will ever have any option by which he will secure a trial before a superior court of criminal juris-Mr. AYLESWORTH.
diction, but that the matter will rest with the magistrate or justices of the peace and with them only. While I understand that the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Ayles-worth) says that the passing of the second reading of the Bill implies the approval of the principle of it, it does seem to me that there are some considerations bearing directly on the desirability of the legislation, which should move us to be particularly careful in securing to the person charged under this novel legislation the advantages of a trial by a superior court. It is to be pointed out that the effect of this legislation is to make a criminal offence something which, in itself, is a violation of a contractual obligation, and therefore something which in its nature is a proper matter to be dealt with by a civil court.
I do not want to be understood as saying that there are never cases in which the violation of contractual obligations may take such form or be accompanied by such circumstances as to make them proper to be constituted criminal offences by legislation. But what I desire to point out is that when we take this thing which in itself is only a violation of a contractual obligation and consequently in its nature proper to be dealt with under civil legislation and by civil courts, and make it a criminal offence, we should at least be particularly careful to see that we entrust the trial of it to a tribunal which we can be absolutely satisfied will be competent to deal with the questions which may arise. I do not know that I need justify my proposition that the act itself, dealt with by this Bill is a violation of a civil obligation. If so, it were only necessary to point out that the reason the taking of the commission under the circumstances provided by this Act is objectionable at ail, is because there exists between the person taking the commission and the person for whom he is acting the contractual relation of principal and agent. If that relation does not exist there is no offence under this Act. Therefore, as a first essential of this being a criminal offence there must exist a contractual obligation between the person taking the commission and the person in connection with whose business he takes the commission. Now, whether or not such a relation does in reality exist may become in any trial of this kind a very doubtful question. Those of us who have had occasion to know something of the litigation in civil courts, know that very frequently it is an exceedingly delicate question to decide whether or not the relation of agent and principal does or does not exist between two persons. Whatever the court that may be called upon to try an offence under this Act, it will have as a first question to decide whether or not the relation of agent and principal existed between the accused and the person in con-

nection with whose business the accused received the commission. I do not at all dispute that in the great majority of cases that may be a very simple question, but cases may arise in which it may become a very delicate matter to decide, and in view of that we should take particular pains to make sure that if the accused and his advisers should feel that justice will not be done unless they are enabled to have that question passed upon by a court of superior jurisdiction, it should be within the power of the accused to secure that right. Personally I feel so very strongly impressed with the idea that such things should more properly be dealt with by civil law and by civil courts, that I am inclined to very seriously doubt the desirability of transferring them to the criminal courts at all. It seems to me that even though there may be a considerable evil existing in this connection, the providing of an adequate remedy might very well be left to the provincial legislatures which are charged with legislation on civil matters. Under the civil law the agent who takes a commission of this sort is already liable to his principal for the amount he receives, and I would think you would find an adequate remedy for this abuse by a provision of the civil law that would make the person giving the commission jointly and severally liable with the agent of the principal. Nor do I think you would be going beyond the scope of the civil law if you provided that as a penalty, or as a species of liquidated damages he should be made liable for a larger sum than the amount of the commission, say the double. If the civil legislation can find an adequate remedy it would seem to me that it is much more desirable that the matter should be left to be so dealt with. As a general principle it is not desirable to create or to invent new crimes. No doubt practices which up to a certain date have not been looked upon as criminal may very properly be made the object of criminal legislation when they become more prevalent and when they constitute a danger to society. I am not disputing that proposition, and I am ready to assume that the Minister of Justice has information which justifies him in considering that this particular offence may have reached that stage. But admitting that to be the case, when we come to create this new crime and when there are involved questions of the contractual relations of the parties towards each other, then I think that when we are transferring offences of this class over to the Criminal Code we should at least be careful to see that the persons accused under this legislation shall have an opportunity of having the matter passed upon by a tribunal which this parliament feels confident would be competent to deal with the very complicated questions which may arise.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I certainly entertain the .most, sincere respect for any opinion, especially upon a legal question, which the hon. gentleman from St. Anns (Mr. Doherty) would express. But I cannot agree with his view that the civil remedy which now exists, and which I suppose has always existed, would be adequate for an offence such as is struck at by this Bill. If my agent for the purpose of negotiating any business arrangement with another man receives from that other man a secret bribe, it is the law now, and I suppose it always was the law, that on my discovering that fact I would have by civil proceeding the right to compel my agent to hand over to me the amount he had so received as a bribe. Tt was always an illegal thing on the part of the agent to do such an act at the expense of his principal. But surely it cannot be seriously contended that recovery by the principal of the amount which his agent may have received as a bribe is any adequate punishment upon the faithless agent, or any adequate redress to the man whose agent has been bought and whose interests may have been sacrificed by that agent to many times the amount of the bribe. The whole purpose and intent certainly of this legislation is to make such conduct on the part of both briber and bribed a criminal offence. It seems to mo very necessary that that should be done, and I can only say that I have assumed the House had unanimously concurred in that necessity in affirming the principle of the Bill by the passing of the motion for its second reading.
Bill reported, read the third time, and agreed to.



SUPPLY-TREATY WITH THE UNITED STATES.

[Stage Direction]
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
['The motion for supply will be made, and, in supply, my hon. friend the Minister of Eailways and Canals (Mr. Graham) will ask the attention of the House to his canal estimates. If these be disposed of my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) will follow.']
Mr. J. A. CURRIE (North Simcoe).: Before the motion for supply is adopted, I wish to make a few remarks on a subject of great importance and as a young member would crave the indulgence of the House in what I am about to say. The subject which I wish to discuss is the boundary treaty between Canada and the United States. It is not necessary for me to go at any great length into this question of treaties between this country and the United States. All students of history and the children in the public schools are well aware of the fact that since the War of Independence Canada . has lost territory and ground continually. After that war Canada contained an area which is now a portion of the United States, consisting of the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan. By treaty we lost this, the richest portion of the United

States. It is unnecessary for me to discuss the various means and methods by which we have lost at various periods portions of this country by treaties. The result has been that there is a spirit of antagonism amongst Canadians against the negotiation of treaties on our behalf by Great Britain. Recently the treaty-making power has been vested in the Canadian government which has been consulted in the preparation of our various treaties. As soon as the treatymaking power was vested in the Canadian government that government proceeded to carry on and make treaties with other nations. One of the first treaties made was the Japanese treaty and it strikes me that this treaty was made rather hurriedly and that Canada suffered by its terms.
Another treaty that was concluded was the boundary treaty between Canada and the United States. There are still two treaties hanging in the air, the French treaty and the waterways treaty with the United States. My reference will be particularly to the treaty concluded with the United States with reference to the boundaries. I had an idea that possibly our government would be as shrewd and as wide awake in treaty making as the American government. We all know how we have been ' euchred ' in respect to these various treaties, how by tricks of phraseology and terms and the substitution of maps in the making of treaties, we have lost territory. It struck me as very strange indeed if on this occasion the same thing had not occurred if we had not been gold-bricked in some way. A close perusal of the drafts of the treaty discloses to me the fact that we have been gold-bricked. The first draft, November 26, 1907, in article 5. contains a reference to the boundary between Canada and the United States from the mouth of the Pigeon river to the Lake of the Woods. You will find there that the boundary shall be a water line and shall not intersect islands along its course. That is identical with the wording of the Ashburton treaty. Wherii the Ashburton maps were prepared, a line was drawn on the map by the commissioners of the two powers. One side of this line was shaded red and the other blue, and there was a matter of give and take in regard to the islands along this boundary line. The first draft of this treaty of 1908 followed the idea and spirit of the Ashburton treaty. The second draft treaty was prepared on March 9, 1908, and that second draft is identical in wording with the first draft in providing that-
The line shall not intersect islands lying along its course.
The reason for the provision that the line should not intersect the islands was that there is one very large island, probably twice the size of the county of Carleton, which occurs in the river along this boundary line, Hunter's island. About fifteen Mr. J. A. CURRIE.
years ago the state of Minnesota set up a claim to this island. Prospectors and diamond drill operators had ascertained that it is very rich in iron ore, being a continuation of the Vermilion range, one of the richest in the United States, and it is also rich in timber. Minnesota claimed that as the river ran around this large territory the island or at least a portion of it should belong to that state. At that time the public discussion went as far as Washington and the Washington authorities, on consulting the Ashburton maps, ascertained that the boundary line was south of Hunter's island. Now we find in the last draft of the treaty, a copy of which I have here printed by order of this House, that the word 'not' has been dropped from that clause of the treaty which now reads:
The line shall intersect islands.
The result is that about one county of this province will be given to the state of Minnesota or to the United States. The consequence will undoubtedly be dissension and trouble. I do not see why there should be this wild rush to negotiate a treaty with the United States about the boundary. The Ashburton treaty should have been the last word on that question. As far as we are concerned, we should have as little to do with the United States in the making of treaties as possible, because any loss we have made has been incurred by virtue of such agreements. What I would like to find out from the right hon. the leader of the House is whether the intention of this treaty id to be found in the exact wording of it as published in the sessional papers, and whether it is the intention to change by this treaty the Ashburton line, to make the boundary line intersect these islands, and give a vast and valuable portion- of the province of Ontario to the state of Minnesota and the United States?
I am not in favour of treaties being made by this government for the reason that when we enter into diplomatic negotiations with other countries, we must do so without having at our disposition men who are trained in the highest art of diplomacy. Had we men who knew their business, had we men fitted to conduct these negotiations, such deceptions, as we have been forced to submit to, would not have risen, and we would not have found this country rushing madly into trouble as it has been doing during the past four or five years. We all regret the' treaty we made with Japan, but we forgave the government for that because we felt that they were inexperienced or would do better the next time. But now we have a treaty under which this country is going to lose a vast amount of territory, if the wording of that treaty, as published in the sessional papers, be accurate. I have nothing further to say except to express the hope that the published version of that treaty is not correct. In my opinion, when the treaty

lines are drawn, we will have no difficulty with the United States whatever. We do not wish to have any difficulty with the United States or Japan, because those of _us, who watch the current of public affairs, know that the mother country has at present the shadow of a great war hanging over her, and we, as loyal Canadians and sons of the empire, should do everything in our power to facilitate peace between Great Britain and every other nation for the next four or five years at least.


Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister).: My hon. friend will permit me to express my regret that he did not give us any notice of his intention to bring this question before the House. He will readily understand that when no member of the government has had the opportunity of looking at this treaty for the last six or seven months, it will not be possible to give an answer to the question he has put, but I shall have an opportunity of refreshing my memory and looking over the documents on another occasion and then be able to give him the information he seeks. But let me tell him that I think his criticisms are not warranted by the facts. Had he been here last session he would have remembered that when we made the treaty with Japan we had an understanding about immigration, which was for the moment forgotten, but which, when brought to the attention of the Japanese government, was at once accepted and has been lived up to ever _ since. Under the circumstances his criticisms are hardly warranted, and no one regrets our treaty with Japan supplemented by this understanding. That treaty has preserved to us the trade of the countries and has given to our friends on the Pacific coast what they are looking for, namely, a restriction of Japanese immigration. With regard to the waterways treaty, that treaty has to a certain extent leaked out, and the public is now pretty familiar with its main provisions, and it will be found, I believe, in the opinion of all impartial men, that it is a fair and reasonable treaty, not an agreement in which one party has tried to take advantage over the other, but in which each has endeavoured, as far as possible, to give even justice to both. On a later occasion I shall endeavour to give my hon. friend the' information he has sought.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Ottawa buildings for testing of fuel by Department of Mines.
["My hon. friend will permit me to express my regret that he did not give us any notice of his intention to bring this question before the House. He will readily understand that when no member of the government has had the opportunity of looking at this treaty for the last six or seven months, it will not be possible to give an answer to the question he has put, but I shall have an opportunity of refreshing my memory and looking over the documents on another occasion and then be able to give him the information he seeks. But let me tell him that I think his criticisms are not warranted by the facts. Had he been here last session he would have remembered that when we made the treaty with Japan we had an understanding about immigration, which was for the moment forgotten, but which, when brought to the attention of the Japanese government, was at once accepted and has been lived up to ever _ since. Under the circumstances his criticisms are hardly warranted, and no one regrets our treaty with Japan supplemented by this understanding. That treaty has preserved to us the trade of the countries and has given to our friends on the Pacific coast what they are looking for, namely, a restriction of Japanese immigration. With regard to the waterways treaty, that treaty has to a certain extent leaked out, and the public is now pretty familiar with its main provisions, and it will be found, I believe, in the opinion of all impartial men, that it is a fair and reasonable treaty, not an agreement in which one party has tried to take advantage over the other, but in which each has endeavoured, as far as possible, to give even justice to both. On a later occasion I shall endeavour to give my hon. friend the' information he has sought."]
Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works).: I have some information furnished me by the department which is rather interesting. It is a memorandum re fuel testing plant, by Dr. Haanel, and which, with the permission of the Committee, I shall have published in ' Hansard.' The memorandum is as follows:
Ottawa, December 9, 1907.
Memorandum re Fuel Testing Plant.
The high prices of imported coal in the middle provinces of Canada, the depletion of our forests together with the increasing value of the forests for other purposes and the suffering induced on account of scarcity of fuel in recent years consequent upon labour conditions, are causes which have again prominently brought forward the question of utilizing our peat bogs and lignite deposits for the production of marketable fuel and other purposes.
The estimated area so far reported distributed over the different provinces of the Dominion is 37,000 square miles. The following table shows the areas covered by peat bogs in the different provinces:
Square Depth.
	miles.	feet.		
Nova Scotia		, 050	8	to	10


Prince Edward Island ..: 10	8	to	10New Brunswick	250	8	to	10Quebec	. 500	8	to	10Ontario	. 10,450	5	to	8Manitoba	. 500	6	to	10Alberta and Saskatche-	wan	. 25,000	5	to	10
British Columbia and Yukon Territory.. No data.


Approximately ..: due principally to laok of knowledge. The successful working of peat bogs and manufacture of the raw peat into marketable fuel depends on:
1st. The proper classification of the different peat bogs, since the peat occurring in one bog might be suitable for peat fuel manufacture while that from another might not be.
Bnd. The treatment of the raw material and the apparatus used for its combustion either for domestic or industrial purposes.
These facts, upon which the whole success the industry depends, can be determined only by experiments carried out on a commercial scale and..in an intelligent manner.
In several European countries peat and lignites are largely used both for domestic and industrial purposes with satisfactory and economical results and as conditions in Canada are quite as favourable for the manufacture of peat fuel and the use of lignite, there is no reason why, with the employment of proper methods and latest ideas, peat fuel manufacture and the use of lignite cannot be successfully introduced into Canada.
To accomplish this, a government testing and experimental plant should be established where the values of these fuels could be demonstrated and investigations made as to the machinery and apparatus best suited for their utilization.
This plant should be under the supervision of special officers who can give to this work their undivided and continuous attention. The functions of such a plant would be:
1st. The determination of the best methods and *y-chinery to be employed in working in the different bogs.
2nd. Investigation of the most efficient means of manufacturing the raw peat to be used for domestic or industrial purposes.
3.	The investigation of the most economical method of using peat and lignite for domestic or industrial purpose.
4.	To make complete analysis and fuel value determination of the different peat bogs and lignite deposits.
5.	To distribute the results obtained.
Upon the completion of the tests now being
carried on at McGill University on about fifty Canadian coals, this plant, which is the property of the government, will be transferred to Ottawa and will he used to test the new coals which may be from time to time discovered.
The United States government has established a fuel testing plant where all kinds of fuels are tested and their suitability for various purposes ascertained. This plan constitutes a branch of the Geological Survey, called the ' Fuel Division ', and is under the supervision of special officers.
The investigations so far have demonstrated that an enormous waste of fuel takes place and that by suitable arrangements and the adoption of proper methods this waste can be materially decreased. So important is this question considered to be, that the United States government appropriated $250,000 to continue the experiments started at St. Louis during the Louisiana Purchase Exposition and for which work $60,000 were appropriated, making a total appropriation to date of over $300,000.


William Pugsley: qualities of the peat. The results obtained will be published from time .to time and it is hoped that these investigations will help to place the peat industry in Canada on a sound basis and prevent the useless spending of large amounts of money, which in several cases already has been done on bogs more or less unsuitable for the purpose in view.
Parties desiring to have their bogs investigated, or the peat analysed, can have it done by applying to the director.
In order to demonstrate the practical use of ordinary air-dried or briquetted peat fuel for power purposes, a gas producer plant is row under erection in Ottawa. At this plant, which will consist of a 60 h. p. gas producer and accessory apparatus and a gas engine of Gebriider Korting's type (see plan), interested parties can ascertain for themselves the suitability of such an installation.
Lately power plants combined with necessary apparatus for the recovery of by-products, especially ammonium sulphate, are coming to the front. Such plants, however, can only be run with a profit in large units and at the present time such an installation cannot be undertaken by the department.
The advisability of having an experimental plant for the production of the peat fuel itself in charge of the department has been strongly urged, and if satisfactory arrangements can be made the establishment of such a plant is probable. The object of such a plant will be not only the manufacture of sufficient peat fuel for the gas producer plant already under erection, but also for the testing of promising methods and machinery invented from time to time, and to ascertain their practical value.
In view of the enormous deposits of peat which exist in Canada, and in view also of the fact that it seems to have been pretty well demonstrated that it will be possible to utilize peat, lignite and other kinds of fuel which are not now marketable, even certain kinds of wood, for the production of gas, which can be used economically in the operation of gas-producer engines, the Department of Mines seems to have been moving in the proper direction. The matter was brought before parliament last session, and an appropriation was made for the purpose of procuring land and erecting a building for the purpose of these experiments. We have gone thus far that we have purchased half an acre of land on Concession street in the southern part of the city, and Dr. Haanel has purchased the plant, which is on the way to Ottawa and will be ready to be installed as soon as the building is constructed. I therefore hope that the committee will approve of the amount which is being asked to complete the building and to get it ready for the reception of the plant which the Department of Mines proposes to establish.


John Allister Currie: When this item came before the committee the other evening, I asked the minister to defer the discussion of it until the members had an opportunity to examine further into the question. I may say that every member of the House who has given the matter any study is sat-Mr. PUGSLEY.
isfied that it is essential that . efforts should be made by the government to test various fuels. The importance of the gas engine and the producer-gas engine is to-day greatly pressing itself upon the attention of the Canadian people, owing to the fact that fuel is becoming dearer all the time. The question simply resolves itself into this, whether it is better for the government to expend this money for an experimental plant to be operated by the Geological Department of the government, or whether it might not be more satisfactory for the government to use the money in having these tests carried on in the technical departments of some of our universities, such as Queen's and Toronto, or in the technical school of Nova Scotia. The government spent a large amount of money to test the question of the manufacture o.f steel by electrical power. That demonstration has been made possibly to the satisfaction of Dr. Haanel and his assistants in Ottawa; but these tests should be carried on for many years, and the best place to have the work done would be at one of the technical schools, where the machinery would be in constant operation, and where it would not cost the government anything to operate it. It is well known to everybody connected with fuel industries that peat has been used for the manufacture of producer-gas for many years in Germany.
There are two or three remarkable problems that remain unsolved in reference to the manufacture of producer gas, and it is becoming very important to Canada, with its vast areas of soft coal, that these problems should be solved. It is an easy matter to manufacture producer gas from hard coal. There are thousands of horse-power now in operation in England and in Europe, and also in Canada, operated by producer gas from hard coal. The difficulty is to eliminate the tar from the producer gas, made either from peat or from soft coal, and various devices have been suggested and are now in operation in Europe, whereby the tar is fixed and made into gas without any difficulty, and is used in engines, I have no doubt that the minister is doing what he thinks best, and that the government, with the best intention, is giving large sums of money to Dr. Haanel to squander on these experiments. To my mind they are useless, because an experiment conducted in this way must be useless to Canada, or to the working people who have to operate these plants. I would therefore suggest that if the minister-of course the item being in the estimates I suppose it cannot very well be withdrawn -but I would ask the minister to consider if it would not be better to have that machinery installed at the new technical school in Nova Scotia, and use it permanently there for testing fuel gas of various kinds, that woulfi become useful to

Canada as a whole. The Geological Department m Ottawa has a great deal of other work to do, besides spending money on these tests. McGill University, I understand, does a great deal of work for the government in connection with the Intercolonial, and I think the government could wisely extend its generosity to the technical schools by granting to each of them yearly $25,000 or $50,000 for experiments in connection with the various departments of scientific industry. One school might deal with experiments in electrical science; another might deal with fuel, and this school in Nova Scotia might be devoted to that purpose; another might deal with textiles and dyes, another with electrical apparatus, and other matters of that kind, that would help to improve the industrial condition of the people of Canada, and keep us up to date in technical science and knowledge with other countries. To my mind it is worse than useless to squander this large sum of money on experiments, and on a plant here in Ottawa which will be not readily accessible to students of technical science, except at large cost in fares coming here, and which, moreover, may prove a total failure. A cheap machine has not yet been devised to manufacture producer gas from peat or soft coal that will do this work successfully. Expensive plants can be built and operated to do the work. They are in operation, such as Monde plants, that can manufacture fuel without any doubt, and cheap producer gas from lignite, or from soft coal, or from peat, but they take a large sum of money for gas tanks and various other apparatus to clear the tar out of the gas. I have thought it necessary to make these criticisms of the proposals of the government to spend money for testing fuel, and I desire to remind the minister that if anything of this kind comes up again, to remember that we have technical schools and colleges in this country, attended by thousands of students, where any tests of this character would be beneficial to students and the money should be spent at these schools and not on the Geological Department in Ottawa.


Mr. BRADBURY.: Before this item carries I would ask the minister if he is aware that we have a large peat plant situated in the eastern part of Manitoba? There is a plajit thereon which I think the promoters have spent about $80,000. I do not desire to criticise this expenditure at all, I think perhaps it is wise that something should be done to make a test of this fuel. But I would ask the minister if it is not possible to give some assistance, by lending the services of Dr. Haanel or some one else, to go out there and advise them how to operate this plant successfully. There has been a large amount of monev spent there, they have a large peat bed," and I think if a government official who is qualified and understands the manufacture of peat into fuel, was sent out there to lend his assistance, the minister would be doing a public service.


William Pugsley: I shall be glad to bring the suggestion of my hon. friend to the attention of the Minister of Mines, on his return. I shall also be glad if, when the items for the Department of Mines come under discussion, my hon. friend will call the attention of the Minister of Mines to his present request. The suggestion is worthy of consideration, and I am sure, in view of the interest that is now being taken in the question of utilizing peat for fuel, the Minister of Mines will be only too glad to do anything he can to stimulate that industry in any part of Canada.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN.: The suggestion which was made a few moments ago by my hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Currie) is well worthy of consideration by the Department of Public Works. It will be a difficult matter to make technical schools in Canada successful for some years to come, owing to the fact that there will not be sufficient original work for students to do, and it will be difficult for them to obtain opportunities to carry on original research work with advantage to themselves and the country. Nova Scotia will shortly be equipped with a splendid technical school, and if work of this character could be assigned to that school, I heartily concur in the suggestion that it should be done. It would be a considerable encouragement to the students, and the interest of the Department of Public Works would be as well served there I think as by making a separate and special expenditure at Ottawa.


Mr. AMES.: I understand the minister has purchased a plot of land for the erection of this building. Would he tell us where it is situated, who was it purchased from, and at what cost?


William Pugsley: It was purchased on Concession street, in the southwestern part of the city, from the Ogilvie estate of the city of Montreal. I cannot give the price just now, but I think it was in the neighbourhood of $2,500 for half an acre of land.
, Mr. AMES. Generally speaking, I think it is to be regretted that the government has not adopted the principle of laying out its buildings according to some fixed plan. The practice of purchasing sites all over the city of Ottawa, here, there and everywhere, on which to erect public buildings, is not calculated to make Ottawa, the capital of the north, from an architectural point of view such as we would like to see it. I hope the minister will tell us whether his department has in view any general scheme whereby the buildings that will be erected from time to time can be grouped

in one locality, and so arranged as to make their cumulative effect and their general appearance a beautification to the city of Ottawa. We are spending a great deal of money in purchasing lots in different parts of the city and erecting buildings that no one who comes here ever sees unless he makes it a special point to find them out, whereas, if some such method as has been adopted in Washington, where a distinct plan is being followed year after year, and where with each succeeding year, the number of beautiful buildings that can be seen from a given point is increasing, were followed, we would be working for the future of Ottawa better than we are to-day.


William Pugsley: I am afraid that my hon. friend is rather influenced by a feeling, which, I am sorry to say, influences a great many of us; we are apt to think that things away from home are better than they are right here. My own idea is that the arrangement of public buildings in Washington is not one bit better than our arrangements here. I think that some of our buildings are more striking than they are in Washington. In Washington the buildings are not all grouped together ; they are scattered over the city. Even the building which has been most recently erected seems to have been erected as if it were the only building there. It is by itself and does not form part of any group of buildings. But there, as here, regard must be had to the purpose for which the building is to be used. As far as this building is concerned, we could not put it near the parliament grounds. There were several things which we had to keep in view. In the first place we wanted railway connection. We wanted it to be right close to the railway so that we could have a siding where cars of peat could be brought at the least possible expense. As there would be considerable smoke, we wanted to put it in a part of the city where there would be the least objection from that cause. But, speaking, generally, I think that the buildings in Ottawa have so far been built and located with exceedingly good judgment. Nothing could be better than the location of this building. The same applies to the east and west block, to the Langevin block, and in continuation of these buildings a large tract of land has been purchased upon the other side of Major's Hill park. That building will have two fronts, one upon the park and one upon Sussex street. It will be quite convenient to the parliament buildings and to the other departmental buildings, and I am sure that the building, which is to be of a very superior character and of very handsome design, will add materially to the beauty of the capital. The Museum and the Mint might possibly have been brought nearer to the parliament buildings, but I am of the opinion that the location of these build-Mr. AMES.
ings is very good. With regard to the observatory, we could not very well have it anywhere else than where it is. We wanted to locate it where there would be plenty of room, where it would be separated from other buildings and where there would be a considerable elevation. I am inclined to think there is no good ground for criticism as to the past and I shall heed the warnings or suggestions of my hon. friend in future.


Herbert Brown Ames: It seems to me that in this particular case the explanation of the minister is quite sufficient. The necessity for a railway siding and for putting this building where the smoke will not be a nuisance to the residential portions of the city may be a sufficient excuse for erecting this building where it has been put. But, speaking in a general way, I think _ there has been too much scattering here in Ottawa, not only with regard to some of the buildings which we own, but with regard to many of the buildings which we have rented, and I believe that it would add to the facility with which business could be carried on as well as to the beauty of Ottawa were the plan to be followed of as far as possible erecting new buildmgs in the same neighbourhood, keeping in view a general scheme, and the architectural features of the buildings themselves.
Toronto Drill Hall-additional accommodation for new corps and armouries, $25,000.


Mr. MACDONELL.: Will the minister explain that?


William Pugsley: An addition was made some time ago to the large armoury in Toronto and this vote is to put in all the fittings.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Will this complete the work?


William Pugsley: Yes, it is expected this will complete it.


Mr. U. WILSON.: What is the total cost?


William Pugsley: The total expenditure up to the 31st March, 1908, was $203,000.^ It was then estimated to take $259,000 to finish it.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Is that the new work or the total cost?


William Pugsley: The total cost of the extension. The contract for that was $218,994, and, in addition to that, there are heating apparatus, electric wiring and some other work of a minor character.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Will the minister tell us to whom the contract was let and if tenders were asked for?


William Pugsley: The contract was let to the firm of Wm. Langdon and M. Sullivan, Kingston, on the 18th April, 1906. Then there were some additional contracts. There was a contract for heating apparatus let

also to Messrs. Langdon & Sullivan; for additional heating apparatus to the same contractors, and for electric wiring to the firm of Keith & Fitzsimmons, Limited.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Were tenders called for this work?


William Pugsley: Yes, for the large work.


Angus Claude Macdonell: What was the cause of the delay in completing it? It is nearly three years since the contract was let.


William Pugsley: The building is all completed and this is for the completion of the fittings. They had until the 15th August to complete their work. They are not very much behind.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Have they finished it yet?


William Pugsley: I understand the building is finished as far as their contract is concerned. The chief architect tells me they completed it before the 15th August.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Were the subsidiary contracts for lighting, heating and wiring advertised, and to whom were they given?


William Pugsley: No, the contractors were asked to give a figure. That was submitted to the chief architect and on his reporting it as reasonable the contracts were made. The amount of the first heating contract was $4,890, and of the additional heating contract $890. The contract for electric wiring was $3,579.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Were tenders asked for these small contracts?


William Pugsley: Tenders were asked for the electric wiring.-
Toronto Meteorological Observatory, $44,000.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Will this complete?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Who were the contractors?


William Pugsley: Brown & Love. Only one tender was received after advertisement and the amount of the contract, including heating and wiring, was $91,800.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Is the building completed yet?


William Pugsley: No.
Toronto Military Buildings, Magazine, $1,500.


Angus Claude Macdonell: The Minister of Militia is not present, but I would ask the Minister of Public Works if he is aware of the intention of the government as to the erection of the new barracks at Toronto? Just previous to the elections of 1904 we were promised new barracks and a site was purchased but nothing has been since done.


William Pugsley: I am informed that the matter is under careful consideration by 48
the Minister of Militia. I am unable to say just how soon the work will be undertaken.


Angus Claude Macdonell: That is a very unsatisfactory statement. We have been told just the same thing since 1904 and we should now know if the government seriously intends to erect these barracks in Toronto.


William Pugsley: I cannot go on with the work when there is no appropriation.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Is the minister aware that the government is spending more than $14,000 every year in renting temporary quarters at Toronto as barracks? The accommodation there is absolutely inadequate; it is not sufficient for more than half the force and the soldiers and officers are housed in private quarters throughout the city for which the government is paying a large rental. It is high time for the government to announce their intention in this matter.


William Pugsley: I am told that the Minister of Militia is very desirous that this work shall be proceeded with at as early a date as possible. The expense will be quite large and as the hon. gentleman knows we are spending a good deal of money in Toronto in improving the harbour and other public works. My hon. friend must be patient.


Mr. OSLER.: I do not think the government made any rash promises in Toronto this year.


William Pugsley: I do not think they ever made any rash promises.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Oh yes, every previous election they made promises but they knew it was useless in Toronto last year.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Perhaps the Minister of Public Works can tell us something about the new post office in Toronto which we were also promised before the elections oi 1904?


William Pugsley: My hon. friend may possibly have some ground for the exercise of his imagination in regard to that matter, because it has been under consideration for some time. The idea was to erect a distributing post office close to the railway station. Since then the railway company has purchased the contemplated site and now there is some talk about utilising a part of the new railway station for postal purposes. I am not prepared to say whether that will come to pass or not.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The post office will merely be a subsiduary office to the Grand Trunk station.


William Pugsley: It will be a distributing office to facilitate the handling of the mail that comes by train-
I



Kingston Royal Military College-additional accommodation, $57,000.


William Pugsley: I have the plans and specifications here with reference to these buildings. The tenders received were as follows:-M. Sullivan, Kingston, $77,930; Doran & Devlin, Ottawa, $78,500; McKelvey & Birch, Kingston, $83,000; Elliott Bros., Kingston, $85,000. The department accepted the tender of Mr. Sullivan which was the lowest.


Mr. EDWARDS.: What was the tender of Elliott Brothers?


William Pugsley: 


Mr. LANCASTER.: Are these the residences for the men which have cost over $100,000?


William Pugsley: Yes, my hon. friend can look at the plans.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I don't want to look at the plans for I have seen the buildings themselves, and I think it would be a good thing for the country if the Minister of Public Works took a look at these buildings himself, for I believe he would come to the conclusion that not more than one-half of the money should have been expended. I know from repeated visits to Kingston that some buildings were required there, but to spend such a sum for sixteen little residences is altogether out of proportion to the value obtained. I saw them on Sunday afternoon, and while they are substantially built two story houses, no one would ever suppose they could have cost anything like $100,000. When I heard on Monday of the enormous cost of these buildings I was as astonished as I have been at anything this government has yet done. A dozen residences were required for non-commissioned officers, &c. If you got value for the $100,000 I would not find any fault, but when people are paying a price of $6,000 or $7,000 for a building they ought to have the equivalent of a building worth more than $3,000.	*


William Cameron Edwards: Did the tenders of McKelvey & Birch or Elliott Brothers, of Kingston, include anything more than the building, the plumbing or fixings?


William Pugsley: Nothing but the construction of the buildings, it was the same with all the contractors' tenders. I am glad my hon. friend admits the necessity for these buildings, that of course puts us forward a considerable distance. As to the cost, I do not know that we could have gone about any better way of getting the buildings constructed as cheaply as possible. We advertised for tenders quite widely, inviting the attention of contractors and received tenders from four different contractors, ranging from $77,000 up to $85,000. We accepted the lowest tender. We might have been severely criti-Mr. PUGSLEY.
cised if we had made a private contract with any one of these firms to erect the building, but we went about it in the usual approved way and having received tenders that in the opinion of the chief architect were reasonable, we awarded the contract.


William Cameron Edwards: The contract given to Sullivan was for $77,739, for a building which is to cost $112,000, the extra cost being to cover the putting in of the heating, &c. Was any of this $34,000 extra done by tender?


William Pugsley: Tenders were called for
the electric lighting and wiring. The work of heating was given to the contractor at a figure he furnished which the chief architect certified to be fair and reasonable.


William Cameron Edwards: The minister said he would be open to censure if the work had not been given by tender, but according to his own statement a considerable part of it was not given by tender. I take the view that the tender of $77,COO was for a complete building. Sullivan, who had the contract for putting up the building, is a contractor. McKelvey & Birch and Elliott Brothers are hardware merchants and plumbers, and I am a little surprised that these men should put in tenders for this work if their tenders did not cover something along the line of their own business. I am also surprised at the cost of this building. I visited it last Saturday and was more astonished than ever. I would ask the attention of the minister to the cost of some of the prominent buildings in Kingston. The old Queen's Arts buildings, erected 30 years ago, cost $50,000. The new Arts building cost $60,000; Grant Hall, $45,000; Ontario Hall, $80,000, Fleming Hall, $50,000; new Medical Hall, $50,000. Here we have 16 cottages costing $112,000 to accommodate the civil subordinate staff. At P-61 of the Auditor General's Report it is said they are for servants' quarters. Either the Auditor General is wrong or the minister is wrong in his answer to me. I want to enter a protest against this reckless waste of public money. This is not the only instance we have had of reckless waste of money In the neighbourhood of Kingston for military purposes. You are asking $15,000 for stables and $15,000 for a veterinary college. You erected some three years ago a stable at the entrance to the Military College grounds and there has not been a horse inside that stable; it is standing there and the hinges are rusting on the doors. I think this extravagance should be condemned for it cannot be called anything else than reckless extravagance.


George Henry Bradbury: The difference between the cost and value of these buildings is very striking. Has not the minister on his staff some official who makes an approximate estimate of the cost of a building when he calls for tenders? It is no use to say the

contract is given to the lowest tenderer, as there may be collusion between tenderers.
I presume the department is not bound to accept the lowest tender, and somebody in the department should be responsible for the cost of the building.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend may rest assured that in the Public Works Department, which has ibeen established since confederation, we have men who do know the value of buildings. The chief architect has been there for 30 odd years under the various governments we have had during that time. He is a man in whose judgment I and my predecessors have had every confidence, and until I have something more than the opinion of gentlemen who, I suppose, have not been through these buildings and know nothing about the interior work and details, I shall continue to hold my faith in the judgment of the chief architect.


John Allister Currie: Did your architect estimate on the cost of this building?


William Pugsley: Yes, Mr. Ewart estimated the cost to be $96,000. That was before the contract was let.


William Cameron Edwards: Is that for the building complete?


William Pugsley: Yes.


John Allister Currie: Has the minister an itemized estimate there of material, &c., required?


William Pugsley: No, I have not the items of Mr. Ewart's estimate, but I have no objection to bringing it down. My hon. friends sought to draw a comparison between this and certain buildings in Kingston, but you cannot compare one building with another unless you know something about the interior of the buildings, how many partition walls there may be, the number of bathrooms, heating apparatus, plumbing, &c. In some cases the chief architect thinks the lowest tender is too high and new tenders are called for, but in this case he considered that the amount for the building was reasonable and recommended that the contract should be given to the lowest tenderer.


George Henry Bradbury: It appears that the cost of each one of these dwellings to the government will be $7,000 for a two-story building with only the end walls, so to speak, practically all one building. An ordinary man erecting such a building could not find any way of spending that much money in it.


William Cameron Edwards: For the information of the Minister of Public Works, the buildings to which I referred were all in connection with Queen's University at Kingston, and as they are divided into a great many classrooms, &c., they are not an inexpensive type of structure. These dwellings, which cost $7,000 each, contain upstairs, two bed-484
rooms and one bath-room, and down stairs a kitchen, living room, hall and vestibule. If you divide the number of rooms into the cost you will see that each room costs $1,500 or $1,600. The whole thing is indefensible and absolutely ridiculous. It is an evidence of the most reckless extravagance ever indulged in by any government in any civilized country.


Mr. CROSBY.: I am not here to try to obstruct public buildings because I believe that public buildings should be constructed and we are here for that purpose; we are here to construct public buildings wherever we can. But it is our duty to see that the moneys of the country are judiciously and well spent. We have the statement made by the Minister of Public Works that the contract for these buildings, which were estimated by the architect to cost $96,000, are now costing us, under present methods, $112,000, or 16 per cent over the estimate. I am interested somewhat in real estate and I know something about the construction of ordinary small buildings such as these, and I say that $3,000 each would be a high price for these buildings. Reference has been made to the_ subject of advertising for tenders. The minister has stated that in this case the department advertised very widely, and perhaps they did, but while he said the other day that he had decided to abolish the patronage system, he said at the same time that he was going to continue to advertise in the Liberal papers.


William Pugsley: I said the best papers.


Adam Brown Crosby: I suppose he will admit that the best papers are the Liberal papers. Is that what he means?


William Pugsley: I would admit that.


Adam Brown Crosby: The minister has been driven into many corners, but he cannot get out of this corner in that way. I want to ask the minister a fair question. I am standing here as a representative from the eastern part of Canada trying to find out if I can how this country is being governed. I do not care how it has been governed in the past; I am here to look after the present and future. If the minister wants to give the country an intimation that he is going to abolish the patronage system he can do that in no better way than by advertising in all the papers, whether Liberal or Conservative. In that way he would show the public that he meant business, that he meant what he said. Everybody knows that in the city of Halifax the ' Morning Herald,' which is an independent paper, claims to have the largest circulation of any morning paper in Canada published east of Toronto, and would it not be wise on the part of the minister when he calls for tenders in that part of the country to have an advertise-

ment put in that independent paper? Then, if the Minister of Public Works announced that he was doing away with the patronage system, the people would say: That is true, because he is advertising in other papers besides Liberal papers. I have no fault to find with him for advertising in the Liberal papers if he advertises in other papers as well. If that had been done in this case, we might have had better tenders for this work than the one we are discussing. I simply arose for the purpose of intimating to the Minister of Public Works that if he desired to inspire the people of Canada with confidence in his statement that he is going to do away with the patronage system, there is no better way of doing that than by advertising for tenders in all the influential papers in the various towns and cities, no matter what party they may support, and especially the independent papers.


Mr. PRICE.: I really feel very sorry for the Minister of Public Works, because last Friday he informed us that he was not satisfied with this expenditure himself, but that he could not help it because the estimates had evidently been made under his predecessor. This discussion is rather hard on the Minister of Public Works, because we know from the speech he has made in this House, that he takes the greatest care of the money of this country. Not long ago there was a resolution before this House, introduced by the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. J. D. Reid) in regard to the opening of tenders, and the Minister of Public Works told us then how carefully he would supervise the opening of tenders and what his subordinates would do. Here is one of those cases. These tenders may have been opened quite properly, but it appears to me that there is an appearance of collusion on the part of the tenderers. Here are sixteen houses built in two terraces, each house, without heating or lighting, costing roughly $5,000. Anybody who knows anything about the building of houses knows-he need not be a contractor-that $5,000 for that kind of house is simply absurd. Moreover, the cost of heating and electric lighting for these houses practically amounts to $2,000 per house. In other words, these houses are costing $7,000 apiece, and I believe we have not heard the end of them. I believe that next year we shall have a further item in the estimates, one for extras. It seems to me that estimates and tenders do not really amount to much, because there are always extras, and under the present regime what do extras mean? They mean a great addition to the cost, from the little I have seen. I want to say strongly here that the expenditure of $7,000 each for these houses, making up a total expenditure of $112,000, is a disgrace. It is something the govern-Mr. CROSBY.
ment ought to be ashamed of. I think that in future they should look better after the expenditure of the people's money. We do not want to obstruct or impede these estimates, and if we felt that the people's money were being properly expended, there would be very little opposition to them. Nearly all the opposition to the government is due to the fact that we feel that the money of the people of Canada is not being properly expended. It is time for a change in this respect, and, by Jove, if there is not, you will see that your party will be out the next time.


Mr. BURRELL.: I would like to ask the minister what rate of pay do the men get who are going to occupy these houses?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: I cannot say at the moment the exact rates of pay, but I am having a list made up, and this evening I will be able to give the rates of pay. I may say that the name ' servants' quarters ' is altogether a misnomer. The people who are occupying the buildings are teachers and instructors, with the rank of noncommissioned officers, and some of them are civilian instructors in connection with the Royal Military College. These men are getting from $1,000 to $1,600 each, possibly some of them more.


William Pugsley: I shall have the information to-night. But before we rise at six, I want to say that all the excavation for these sixteen buildings was made in solid rock. Kingston, as we know, is a limestone city. Then all the floors in the basement were cemented. In every dwelling part, there is a bath room, and the buildings were made as near fireproof as possible All the partitions are of solid brick, as the chief architect tells me, and the walls are nine inches thick.


William Cameron Edwards: Are the division walls upstairs of brick as well?


William Pugsley: Yes, the partition walls all the way up between these 16 different cottages are of brick, nine-inch walls. Then on the first floor there are many other walls similarly of brick, as the architect tells me.


Robert Laird Borden: There is a distinction between the partition walls of the houses and the wails between the rooms?


William Pugsley: The partition walls between the rooms are not of brick.


Herbert Brown Ames: I desire tj call the attention of the minister to the fact that on the 18th of February he promised to supply us with certain information, which we have not yet received. As he will find in ' Hansard,' page 1348, he promised to give a list of those public works for which tenders had been called, and which it was decided would not be gone on with this year. Has the minister taken steps to procure that information?


William Pugsley: I gave that on the very same evening I promised it, and that appears in the ' Hansard/
At six o'clock House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at 8 o'clock.



[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
William Pugsley: I have here the information asked for the other evening by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) with respect to the advertisements for the public buildings in Whitby, Welland and Simcoe. It is a very long list and perhaps I might hand it to ' Hansard.'


[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Bill (No. 35) to incorporate the Salisbury and Harvey Railroad Company.-Mr. Emmerson.
Mr. EMMERSON.: This Bill stood over for the purpose of consulting those interested in it with respect to the title. I have a communication from the promoters in the city of St. John who have suggested the title of the ' Salisbury and Albert Railway Company.' I gave notice of an amendment, having filed it with the clerk. I would therefore move:
That in line 26 of sec. 1 the words ' Harvey Railroad be struck out and that in lieu thereof there be inserted ' Albert Railway.'
Section as amended agreed to.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You will have to change clause 8 because the name appears there again.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Clause 8 should not be amended because it will be borne in mind that it was originally the Salisbury and Harvey Railway Company whose rights were foreclosed and were purchased by the incorporators under this Bill, who now seek to operate the railway under the title of the Salisbury and Albert Railway Company. They want to retain in this Bill the provisions which would enable them to exercise the rights, properties, privileges and franchises of the old company.
Bill reported, and read the third time.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That the Bill do now pass and that the title be An Act to incorporate the Salisbury and Albert Railway Company.'


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 66) respecting the Abitibi and Hudson Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Gordon.
Bill (No. 67) respecting the Alsek and Yukon Railway Company -Mr. W. McIntyre.
Bill (No. 68) respecting the Athabaska Railway Company.-Mr. W. McIntyre.
Bill (No. 70) respecting the St. Mary's and Western Ontario Railway Company- Mr. G. H. McIntyre.
Bill (No. 71) respecting a Patent of Thomas L. Smith-Mr. Bickerdike.
Mr. BLAIN.: So long as it appears in ' Hansard ' that will suit me.


William Pugsley: I will give it to ' Hansard ' The following is the list:-
Advertisement issued September 3, 1908.
Whitby, Ont.-Post Office. Whitby 'Chronicle', Ont.	County.. ..
Whitby ' Gazette ',	"	....Uxbridge ' Journal ',	"	.. ..Oshawa ' Ont. Reformer	"	.. ..Pickering ' News ',	"	.. ..Port Perry ' Standard ',	"	.. ..Port Perry ' Star ',	"	....Bowmanville ' Statesman '	Port Hope ' Guide '	Millbrook ' Mirror '	Barrie ' Examiner '	Barrie ' Gazette '	Lindsay ' Canadian Post '	Belleville ' Ontario '	Brantford ' Expositor '	Brockville ' Recorder '	Chatham ' News '	Guelph 'Mercury'	Hamilton ' Times '	Hamilton 'Herald'	Kingston ' British Whig '	Kingston ' Freeman '	London ' Advertiser '	London ' Echo '	Ottawa 'Free Press'	Ottawa ' Danebrog'	Peterborough ' Examiner '	Peterborough ' Times '	Stratford 'Beacon'	Sarnia ' Observer '	St. Thomas 'Journal'	Toronto ' Globe '	Toronto ' Star '	Toronto 'North Ender'	Windsor 'Record'	Woodstock 'Sentinel Review '	Ingersoll ' Chronicle '	3	insertions in dailies.2	insertions in weeklies.
Peterborough ' Times ', 1 insertion. Total paid to date, $337.55 One account not yet received.


[Stage Direction]
17	50
5	00 13 95
9 00 15 00 9 00
18	75
4	50 10 00
6	00 9 00 9 00 9 00
22 50 22 50
5	00 9 00 9 00 4 50
Advertisement issued August 5, 1908. , Welland, Ont.-Post Office.
Welland ' Tribune '	$ 5 40
Niagara Falls ' Review '	 6 75
Beamsville 'Express '	 5 40
Niagara-on-the-Lake ' Times '	 5 85
St. Catharines ' Journal '	 9 00
Caledonia ' Haldimand Banner '	 6 75
Cayuga ' Haldimand Advocate '	 5 85
Dundas ' Banner '	 6 25
Dundas * Wentworth Light '	 6 75
Paris ' Star Transcript '	 5 00
Dunnville ' Monck Reform Press'.. ..	4 50
[Stage Direction]
Dunnville ' Chronicle '	
Ingersoll ' Chronicle '.. .,		9
Brantford ' Expositor '	 9
Brockville ' Recorder '	 8
Belleville ' Ontario '	 9
Chatham ' News '	  9
Chatham ' Le Canadien '	 5
Guelph ' Mercury '	 9
Hamilton ' Times 5	 17
Hamilton ' Herald *	 15
Kingston ' Freeman '	 9
Kingston ' Whig '	13
London ' Advertiser '	 15
London ' Echo '	 10
Ottawa ' Free Press '	 18
Peterborough ' Examiner '	 10
Peterborough ' Times ', 1 ins	 6
Stratford ' Beacon '	 9
Sarnia ' Observer *	 9
St. Thomas 'Journal'	 9
Toronto ' Globe '	 22
Toronto ' Star '	 22
Toronto ' Contract Record '	 5
Toronto ' North Ender '	 5
Windsor 'Record'	 9
Woodstock ' Sentinel Review '	 9
3	ins. in dailies; 2 ins. in weeklies.
Total paid to date. $340.80.
One account not yet received.
First advertisement issued July 30, 1907. Simcoe, Ont.-Post Office.
(Norfolk County.)
^Simcoe ' Reformer Norfolk	
Waterford ' Star ',	"		 6
Aylmer 'Sun'	  5
Port Bur well ' Packet '	
Hutton ' Advance '	 5
St. Thomas ' Journal '	 9
Caledonia ' Haldimand Banner '	 6
Cayuga ' Haldimand Advocate '	 5
Dunnville 'Monck Reform Press'.. ..	3
Dunnville ' Chronicle '	
Emibro ' Courier	 6
Ingersoll 'Chronicle'		9
Ingersoll ' Sun '	 5
Tilsonburg 'Liberal'	 6
Paris 'Star Transcript'	 5
St. Catharines ' Journal '	 9
Brantford ' Expositor '	 9
Chatham ' News '	 9
Guelph ' Mercury '	 9
Hamilton ' Times '	 18
Hamilton ' Herald '	 15
London ' Advertiser '	 15
London ' Echo '	 9
Stratford ' Beacon '	 9
Sarnia ' Observer '	 9
Windsor 'Record'	 9
Woodstock ' Sentinel Review '	 9
Toronto ' Globe '	 23
Toronto ' Star '	 23
Toronto ' Christian Guardian '	 10
Toronto ' Catholic Register '	 5
Wiarton ' Echo '	 6
Walkerton ' Telescope '	 4
Beamsville ' Express '		4
3 ins. in dailies; 2 ins. in weeklies.
First Advertisement. Total paid to date, $285.40.
Three accounts not yet received.
William Pugsley: 
Mr. HENDERSON.: The Minister of Public Works stated the other evening that those public works for which an appropriation had been made and which had not been gone on with, would receive the first consideration of the government when it was felt they had money enough to proceed with the erection of public works.


William Pugsley: Speaking as a general rule.


David Henderson: Now, there is no doubt that a great many of these public works were promised for purely political purposes.


William Pugsley: Oh, no.


David Henderson: Oh, yes. The minister cannot deny that; it admits of no denial and therefore we will take it for granted. Now that the elections are over and the purpose for which these promises were made served, I do not think it would be fair to give the preference to these buildings which were promised because of a reason which was not in the public interest. It would be only fair to disregard the fact that appropriations had been made to all these towns and commence afresh, placing those places for which no appropriation had been made on exactly the same plane as those named in the Appropriation Act. In that way we would have a better distribution of public money; if we left political feeling out of consideration we would find plenty of other towns larger, more important, and producing more revenue than the ones enumerated that would deserve consideration from the minister.


William Pugsley: I am surprised beyond measure at my hon. friend's ideas of political morality.


David Henderson: Do not be surprised.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend, as an old and experienced member of the great Conservative party, intimates that in my position he would absolutely ignore the appropriations made last session, suggesting that these appropriations may have had an effect on the public mind and that we should not carry out the promises made by the Appropriation Act. If he were in my position I am sure he would not attempt to humbug the electorate in that way. I honestly believe, whether rightly or not, that every public work provided for in the estimates of last year was necessary and in the public interest, and I would be ashamed as a minister to say that no weight should be given to the fact that parliament last session made appropriations for these various works. As I have said I feel there is a solemn obligation resting on me to carry out these works for which appropriations were granted last parliament. In my constituency, and I think I can say the same thing for my friends throughout Canada in every constituency in which public buildings were promised, there was no contingency with respect to them; the public was informed, through the Appropriation Act and the estimates brought down to parliament, that these different works were regarded as reasonably necessary in the public interest and the good faith of parliament was pledged to Mr. HENDERSON.
the carrying out of these promises. Therefore I say, speaking as a general rule, that I would feel bound to continue the public works for which appropriations were made, regardless of the constituency in which they were situated. It may be that I may get further information. If my hon. friend knows of any work in his constituency that is unnecessary in the public interest, he might present his views to me. If any member thinks that a public work which has been provided for in his constituency should be dropped he has only to call my attention to the fact, and I will weigh carefully the reasons advanced.


David Henderson: I have listened with pleasure to the jocular remarks of the minister, whose smiling countenance showed that he was merely seeking to create a pleasing impression. I thought a mistake was made when the minister was asked to carry out an undertaking which had been promised. It is all very well for the minister to say that the political exigencies are not considered in these matters. I do not think even his own political friends will give him credit for entire sincerity in that statement. No public buildings in my riding will be left out of consideration, even although he does not adhere to the rule laid down, because there were no appropriations for any, nor has a public building ever been erected in it, so I am absolutely free to speak on this matter. The minister may think my criticism was severe, but I am satisfied that members felt last session when these appropriations were going through the House, that many of them were made simply in view of the approaching election. I believe a fair plan would be that all appropriations dropped by the minister this year should be considered as having lapsed, and when the minister takes up the matter again and money is sufficiently plentiful to go on with the construction of public works, he should begin afresh, leaving out of consideration everything that had been promised before and giving all towns and villages throughout the country an equal show.


Mr. LALOR.: Is it the intention to carry out a promise made by the government candidate in my county as to the erection of a post office in Hagersville? In that village a remarkable vote was cast for the government candidate, which was wholly attributable to the fact that he was able to promise a beautiful post office to be built on a beautiful site in the village of Hagersville. I am quite anxious that such a post office should be built there, and I hope the minister will carry out the promise made by the candidate in the last election. The site selected is an admirable one, nicely located in the centre of the town, which is a thriving centre, and I hope that my opponent in making that

promise, did so with the assurance of the government that they would carry it out. No doubt the minister assured him that if he were elected, that a post office would be built, and now that the county elected myself as an independent representative of the people, surely he will not for that reason go back on his promise. The labouring men there are most anxious to get work on this particular post office, as they were told they would be paid very high wages, and for that reason they voted for the government candidate.


William Pugsley: Lest my silence might imply that any such promise was made, I rise to say that I have no recollection of it.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: It seems to have been the rule for government candidates throughout the whole country to make these promises. Are we to understand that they were made without any assurance from the government that they would be carried out? But if these promises were made by the candidates in good faith and not merely to deceive the electors, the government should carry them out, or else take the stand that they repudiate them and say that their candidates had no assurance whatever on which to base them.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman has not gone so far as to say that he is personally aware of any such promise having been made. He says he understands that it was. All I can say to that, so far as the government is concerned, no promise of the kind is registered in the Appropriation Act of the last parliament.


Mr. J. D. REID.: I am about in the same position as my hon. friend who has just spoken. A promise was made by my opponent that a post office would be built in the village of Kemptville.


William Pugsley: That is in an entirely different position because an appropriation was made and the site purchased.


John Dowsley Reid: I did not know that. It must have been done a short time ago, and I am very glad to hear it. I suppose I can assure the people that we will have the post office.


William Pugsley: It will not be necessary for you to give that assurance because the post office will be built any way.


John Dowsley Reid: And I suppose at an early date?


William Pugsley: As early as possible.


John Dowsley Reid: And this year it will be in the estimates?


William Pugsley: It is not in the estimates of this year.


John Dowsley Reid: As regards these public buildings, I can hardly agree with the department in the way it proceeds. I see that for the installation of electric works and heating, one firm in Ottawa last year supplied $106,949.49 worth of work on different buildings without tender.


William Pugsley: Which firm was that?


John Dowsley Reid: Ahearn & Soper. Here are some of the items. On page V-20 of the Auditor General's Report, for the Dominion Archives building, $808.69; V-23 and 24, Ottawa Royal Mint, $33,887.86; V-27, Ot-Parliament Buildings, $6,103.50; V-67, Ottawa Printing Bureau, $11,917.40; V-108, $25,083.78. And other items, V-143, $10,428.20; and V-332, $3,898.20, a total of $106,949.29. Had tenders been invited for the work necessary for any one of these items, the government would have had it done much cheaper. I am quite satisfied that had tenders been called for, there would have been $25,000 in the treasury to-day saved out of that $106,947. I do not see why tenders should not be called for these works just as for the building itself. As I understand it, the system has been to invite tenders for the building. Then the heating and electric work is extra, and word is sent to this firm to go and do this work. In this way it must cost a good deal more than if tenders were called for.


Mr. HERRON.: I was rather surprised at the innocence of the present minister regarding the promises of public works. He is perhaps wiser in his day and generation than were some of his predecessors. In my former election, promises were made that certain works would be carried out in my constituency, but when 1 appealed to the department, I was deliberately told that it was only an election promise.


William Pugsley: By whom were you told?


John Herron: 
William Pugsley: A former minister?


John Herron: Yes, and I have witnesses to prove my statement.


William Pugsley: He must have been a younger politician than I thought.


Mr. SAM. SHARPE.: Are we to_ understand that all contracts in excess of $5,000 must be let by public tender unless you have the authority of an order in council?


William Pugsley: As a rule, in the case of a contract which involves an expenditure of $5,000, tenders must be called for, or the facts submitted to the Governor in Council. I feel myself bound either to call for tenders or to submit the facts to the Governor in Council. But there may be cases such as the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. J. D.

t
Reid) referred to, in which a number of small items amount in the aggregate to over $5,000. But the rule of the department is to call for tenders whenever the amount exceeds $5,000. I do not know that that applies to fittings, which perhaps can hardly be called a public work.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I understood that the minister promised to bring down the orders in council in regard to contracts amounting to over $5,000 in connection with the addition to the parliament buildings.


William Pugsley: What I told the hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) I would bring down were the orders in council with regard to the building of the guardhouses and the fence in connection with the Mint. I then said that I understood that there was only one order in council with respect to the addition to the parliament buildings, and that was in reference to the elevators. I have made inquiry, and find that there was no order in council for any other work apart from the original contract.


John Dowsley Reid: The minister's statement in regard to what I said is hardly correct. Take this item of $33,887 spent on the Royal Mint. That was for the electric work on one building. In a case of that kind, I should think that tenders should be asked for, because the chief architect of the department must know that a very large amount of that work would have to be done, and various firms should be able to estimate what they would do the work for. In every case in which the cost of the heating and lighting is likely to amount to more than $5,000, I think tenders should be asked.


William Pugsley: I may say that I have been making inquiry into this matter, and I have given directions to the chief architect that when tenders are called for, they should as far as possible include plumbing, heating, wiring and everything else. I should say, in regard to the equipment of the Mint and the Printing Bureau with motors, that the master of the Mint selected a certain class of motor for the running, of the machinery there; I think it was the West-inghouse, which is supplied by only one concern. In such a case it would be difficult to call for tenders, as the price would differ according to the quality of the machine to be supplied. There is a good deal more difficulty in that case than there would be in regard to plumbing, heating and electric wiring. At all events, the rule which my hon. friend thinks should be adopted, I also think should be adopted as far as possible, and I have already given directions to the chief architect in respect to new buildings, as far as possible, to have the specifications cover everything, so that when the contract is let we should know as nearly as possible what the work is going to cost.


William Pugsley: 


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The other day the minister read a long list of public works for which appropriations amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars were asked for last year. I want to ask one or two questions in respect to that. The first is: Did the minister, at the time he asked these appropriations, intend to proceed during the year with all the works for which they were asked? If he did not intend at that time to proceed during the year with all these works, did he indicate the works with which he did intend to proceed during the year, and those he did not intend to proceed with during the year? If there were any he did not intend to proceed with during the year, why did he ask for appropriations for them last year? If the answer be that he did intend to proceed with all these works, the next question is, why did he not proceed with them? If he did not proceed, was it because of the lack of funds? If it was because of the lack of funds, did he not know then that there would be a lack of funds for all these appropriations?


William Pugsley: My hon. friend will have to put his questions in writing, because my memory, though pretty fair, is not equal to carrying them all.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I will put them seriatim. The first is: Did you intend last year, when you asked for appropriations involving hundreds of thousands of dollars


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Order. The hon. gentleman will please take his seat. The hon. gentleman must address the Chair, and not any one in particular.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I will then ask you, Mr. Chairman, did the hon. minister, when he submitted all these appropriations to the House a year ago, intend at that time to implement his promises? Did he intend at that time to proceed with these works, and with all of them within the year?


William Pugsley: I think I can answer the hon. gentleman. When those amounts were put in the estimates, it was intended to proceed with the works as rapidly as possible.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Within the year?


William Pugsley: Yes; and proceeding with them meant acquiring sites, preparing plans and specifications, advertising for tenders, going along just as rapidly as the officials of the department could fairly proceed with the work.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: That answers the first question. The hon. gentleman has answered that a year ago; when he asked for those appropriations, he honestly and sincerely intended during the year to proceed with all the works for which appropriations were asked. The next question is: Why did the hon. minister not during the year proceed

with those different public works? I could understand very well that the hon. minister could not perhaps proceed with the whole of them, but we have scores of them


William Pugsley: I thought the hon. member wanted to ask a question.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: If you will please sit down, I want to address the Chair. The hon minister having said that at that time he intended to proceed with the whole of the wcrks, I now desire to ask him why he did not proceed with any of those in that long list?


William Pugsley: The answer is that he did proceed.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The hon. member gave us a long list of those which he asked appropriations for and did not proceed with. The hon. minister will probably admit that there is a long list of public works for which he asked appropriations, and in respect of which he has done nothing since.


William Pugsley: My deputy tells me that he does not think there is any work in respect to which something has not been done. In respect of some, the preliminary sketches have been dropped; in respect of some, the sites have been examined, and in many cases the sites have been selected and purchased. In some, plans have been prepared and specifications have been drawn up, so that we are ready at any time to ask for tenders. But in respect to all of them, preliminary work was done in the direction of calling for tenders, and in respect of others tenders were actually called for.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: When were these preliminary sketches made? Was it during the past year just previous to the general election?


William Pugsley: The work was begun immediately after the prorogation of parliament, immediately after the appropriations were made. General instructions were given to the officers of the department to proceed with as reasonable speed as they could.	,


John Allister Currie: I think the minister has dealt very unfairly with the public, because for months many promises had been made throughout the country, and great expectations were raised among the people that these expenditures would be made, and merchants and others began to make preparations to meet the demand for carrying on these works. Now, people have a lot of material on their hands and the business of the country is gradually coming to a standstill. Now we are told that something is wrong. There is something undigested, apparently the Department of Public Works has not digested these supplies that were given to them by the last
parliament. The result is disastrous to the country. Contractors were prepared to furnish material, manufacturers of various articles had begun to prepare them, and everybody was getting ready for the large expenditure that had been promised. And now for the government to reverse their policy and break their promises is a very serious matter to this country. A little over a year ago we passed through a serious crisis, and passed through it successfully. Now another crisis is at hand in the United States, and it is essential for this country that the wheels of commerce should be kept moving in some way. I do not think there is any public work that was suggested previous to the last election in which drawings were not made, and I trust that all these works will be gone on with this year.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The Minister of Public Works has told us of the preliminary work that was done in connection with many of these projects. I would like to ask him if a promise made by a government candidate is considered one of these preliminary works.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I would like to ask the minister if a sketch was made of the Uxbridge post office in the county of Ontario, or what other preliminary steps were taken?


William Pugsley: We purchased the site.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: When was it purchased?


William Pugsley: Previous to the election.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: When will the buildings be proceeded with ?


William Pugsley: When parliament provides the money.


Mr. HUGHES.: I understood the minister to say that he had furnished the House with a list of the public works for which moneys were voted last year, but which are not to be proceeded with this year?


William Pugsley: Yes, for the province of Ontario.


Samuel Hughes: Why are these expenditures not being proceeded with?


William Pugsley: I think I have stated half a dozen times the reason why they are not being proceeded with. Last December, when we came to consider these estimates, it was brought forcibly to my attention that it was desirable to cut down my estimates for the coming year to as low a figure as possible. The appropriations which were made for buildings were not sufficient to complete them, and if they had been gone on with that it would have been necessary to ask for further appropriations.


Samuel Hughes: What was the object of cutting them down?


William Pugsley: To do what every prudent man and every prudent government should do who, wish to keep the expenditure within the revenue. It became necessary for me to cut off from the estimates of the Public Works somewhere in the vicinity of eight million dollars. Now, I was not prepared to go through these estimates item after item and select those which we should proceed with and those which we should drop, so I decided that the better way was simply to postpone the construction of a certain number of public works for another year; at all events, we drew the line sharply between those works in respect of which there has been no commencement, in regard to which tenders, had not been called prior to the time we took this decision, and in that way we cut off this large amount from the estimates. Then we also cut off a number of public works in regard to which tenders had been called for, but in respect to which there did not seem to be great urgency for the present year. My hon. friend will find for the province of Ontario a list of those in respect to which tenders were called for, but the actual carrying on of which will have to stand over.


Samuel Hughes: Owing to the hard times?
Mr. PUGSLEY-. Owing to the revenue being smaller than we had anticipated.


Samuel Hughes: Owing to the general business depression the minister has put off many millions of expenditure that were deemed proper a year ago.


William Pugsley: I did not say the depression; I said owing to the decline in the revenue.


Samuel Hughes: The policy of the government then is still further to encourage hard times by turning a lot of labour idle on the labour market. Is that the policy of the government?


William Pugsley: That is an argument rather than a question.


Samuel Hughes: May I ask the minister why so many thousands of men have been turned idle on the labour market by the government at a time when there is business depression, when the industries of the country are in a state of depression, and why is the government still further intensifying the depression by turning those men idle on the country?


William Pugsley: That is an argument. If my hon. friend will ask me a question of fact I will answer him.


Samuel Hughes: I want to know why the government has seen fit to turn these men, these bread winners, idle at the present Mr. PUGSLEY.
time, at a time when the business interests of the country are in a state of depression? Does the minister justify that policy? Does the minister justify that expenditure?
Mr>
PUGSLEY. (That is an argument which might appeal to some, but I know there are others who take a very different view. Whether rightly or wrongly the view which the government took was that the revenue having fallen off, it was the part of prudence to curtail the expenditures and endeavour to keep them within the income. Whether that is a wise course or not, my hon. friend, as well as others, must form their own judgment. My own opinion is that we did the wise and prudent thing and that the country will approve the course we have pursued. As far as our turning people out of work is concerned, we have not done that. We simply have not gone on with public works for which we did not feel we had the revenues available at the present time. We are sorry we have not been able to give more employment on these public works though it is not our fault. We are placed in a condition which we were required to meet in a proper and prudent manner and I submit that we have met it in that way.


Samuel Hughes: Was the minister not aware last June when these estimates were voted that there would be a deficit?


William Pugsley: I was aware that the
revenues were not as buoyant as they had been, but the estimates of last session were made up before the close of the last fiscal year. I did not anticipate that the depression would continue as long as it lias.


Adam Brown Crosby: The minister has stated that plans have been prepared for certain public buildings for which appropriations were made last year and that is proof that it is the intention of the department to proceed with these works. I would like to know whether or not the preparation of plans is conclusive proof that the government will go on with certain work?


William Pugsley: Not at all. The best evidence of whether we will go on with certain work is the fact that parliament has made the appropriation. If, as the result of the appropriation, plans are proceeded with, my hon. friend may rely with confidence, taking the appropriation and the preparation of the plans together, that it is pretty good evidence that we intend to proceed with the work and that in the ordinary course tenders will be called and contracts made.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Is it the intention of the minister to build a post office at Port Perry, in South Ontario?


William Pugsley: I think there is no appropriation for that.

Mr. OSLER, I am afraid I cannot very well agree with my hon. friend from Viciori i and Haliburton (Mr. Hughes) in objecting to the government exercising a little economy. They have committed themselves to such wild, reckless extravagance


William Pugsley: That is spoiling all you said before.


Edmund Boyd Osler: No, I do not think so. I say I do not think I can blame the government for exercising economy now. They have in the past committed the country to such wild, reckless extravagance, without having looked forward to the possibility of a setback, that we are face to face not with a cutting down of the estimates for this year but, I think, that for years to come the pruning knife will have to be applied to meet the terrible outlays that the government are committed to. The government have been reckless to a degree. They have made promises in every possible direction and they have committed this country to wild expenditures. The minister is very profuse in his promises that in future contracts will be let so that the country may get the benefit of reasonable competition, but he refuses to apply his remedy when he has a chance. In connection with this museum in Ottawa a contract was let for the skeleton of the building. There is not very much more than half or two-thirds of the whole cost covered by contract.


William Pugsley: Oh, yes.


Edmund Boyd Osler: What are the figures of the original contract and what is the building going to cost?


William Pugsley: The contract is $950,000. and the total esimated cost is $1,250,000. That includes fittings, furniture and everything.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The public building here is what I refer to.


William Pugsley: The original contract for the new wing of the parliament buildings was $237,000, and the additional work that was given to the contractor was $44,000.


Edmund Boyd Osler: What is the total cost?


William Pugsley: The total cost of the new wing including the improvements to this building, elevators and the ventilation system is $447,000.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The minister is very pleasant and profuse in his mild condemnation of the way in which contracts have been let hitherto when the government let a skeleton contract and then left it open to permit inside contracts to be given bv the department without tender. The minister condemned that system and said that he hoped he would let the whole contract to one contractor. In connection with these
houses in Kingston we found the sam; thing. Four men tendered, of whom one was a builder and the others were plumbers.


William Pugsley: There was an Ottawa firm-were they not contracors?


Edmund Boyd Osler: I do not know who they were.


William Pugsley: The firm of Doran & Devlin are contractors of large experience who have done a large amount of work.


Edmund Boyd Osler: A contract was let for a skeleton building leaving it open to the department to let separate contracts for plumbing and heating not by public tender, but at the prices which the architect or the government gave to the original contractors. The contractor of the museum building took his contract at what the minister said was a very low price, namely, $900,000, and there is extra work amounting toi $400,000 remaining to be done. We are told that this extra work is not to be tendered for. These are sub-contracts and it is in these sub-contracts where fraud is committed and where the country is robbed. There is no man of sense in this country who would carry on that work as the gov ernment proposes to do in this case. I do not care what the minister promises for the future; I say it is his duty to commence now by showing his good faith and by having all the extra work on the museum, not included in the first contract, thrown open to public tender and competition. If the minister does that he will give us some assurance that he is trying to reform his department which needs reform badly. The minister speaks of economy this year and he says he hopes that next year he will be able to go on with many of these public works, but I tell him that the chances are that next year he will have a harder time and that he will have to reduce his appropriations still further. On account of the expose in the Cassels report the people of Canada are hoping that each department of this government shall be operated on purely business principles and that there will be no reason for accusation in future against the government or any of its employees as was the case in the Marine Department. I have very little confidence in the minister's promise of future reform unless he lets this extra work on the museum by public tender.


Mr. MARSHALL.: Last session I brought to the attention of the government the necessity for a public building in Aylmer, in my constituency. We fully expected the minister would be up there during the recess to look over the ground and we were disappointed he did not come. I find that he proposes to build a post office at Glencoe with a population of 1,200, and in Leamington, which has a population of 2,500, about the same as Aylmer, and I would like to

know why there is no appropriation for a post office in Aylmer.


William Pugsley: I did make inquiry into the claims of the town of Aylmer and I was impressed with what my hon. friend (Mr. Marshall) said and with the other information I obtained. I regret there is no appropriation for that purpose this year. It will have to stand over with others which are equally deserving.


Samuel Hughes: I regret exceedingly that the member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) does not see eye to eye with me on the question of public expenditure under present conditions. I can tell the hon. gentleman that economy and retrenchment are two different things; and I can tell him also that extravagance in the expenditure of public money is not economy. On the assurance of the Minister of Public Works we solemnly voted a year ago large sums of money for certain buildings which were declared to be absolutely necessary in the interests of the country. It is sound policy, and it is the policy in England and in France and in every civilized land that when there is depression amongst commercial enterprises, the government which ha3 the credit should come to the relief of the people by erecting public works. That is the policy that carried the Tory party through the stormy times of 1893 and succeeding years. There was a wing of the Conservative party then which went in for lopping off the mouldering branches but there was a stronger wing which held that in times of business depression the government should go on with public works and afford employment to the people. A time of stress is on us now and if these works are necessary in the interests of the country this is the time for the government to go on with them so as to afford useful employment for those who are out of work. That is a principle which will not stand contradiction for one instant among business men. If these public works were necessary before the elections, they are doubly necessary now and it is the duty of the government to go on with them and alleviate distress and suffering.


David Henderson: The Minister of Pub-lis Works misunderstands my position with regard to this matter. I did not ask him to abandon all the public works he has proposed; I simply asked that they should be put on the same level as to their necessity with other public works in other communities for which no appropriation had been made. As a member of the Conservative party, I desire to say, before I resume my seat, that I do not feel myself committed to the policy laid down by the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Hughes).


William Pugsley: I wish to say, in reference to some information which was asked by my hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Cur-Mr. MARSHALL.
rie), that it will take some days to prepare it and when it is ready I will give it to ' Hansard.'


John Allister Currie: We will have permission to discuss it at some other opportunity.


William Pugsley: Oh, yes.


William Cameron Edwards: I understood from the minister that four tenders were received in connection with the servants' quarters. Two of these were from men in the contracting business, Sullivan and Doran & Devlin, of Ottawa. The tender of McKel-vey & Birch could not be considered as a tender, as no cheque accompanied it. The tender of Elliott Bros, could hardly be considered a tender because they were not in a position to carry out the contract, not being contractors, and the specifications say that a contractor shall not assign or sublet this contract or any part of it. They were hardware merchants and plumbers and incapable of carrying out the work for which they had tendered. How much of the work represented by that $34,000 was for the heating and lighting fixtures?


William Pugsley: I could not give the information at this moment.


William Cameron Edwards: That is a large proportion of the total, $112,000.	$34,000 of that
is unaccounted for in the original contract.
I think we ought to have some information as to the proportion of that amount that was tendered for.


William Pugsley: If my hon. friend will give me a memorandum of what he wants I will submit it at some convenient time and place it in 'Hansard.'


Martin Burrell: The Minister of Militia undertook to bring down the figures in connection with the salaries of these men.


William Pugsley: I have the information. The salaries were for instructors:	One at
$3.00 a day, one at $2.25; sergeants, one at $2.45, two at $1.35, two at $1.65, eight at $22.00 a month, one at $1.50 per day, one at $2.00 per day. Rations of course are in addition.


Martin Burrell: I have checked over these items in the Auditor General's Report. I understood that these people were the subordinate staff. Last year there were just 22 men on this list of the subordinate staff. The pay of five sergeant instructors averaged $2.03 a day. I understood the Minister of Militia to say that the pay of these men ran from about $1,000 to $1,600. One bugler gets $321 a year, one storeman gets $420 a year and one labourer gets $420 a year. Then we have twelve servants at $22 a month and two butlers at $35 a month. I must confess that that answer does not help the situation as far as the Department of Pub-

lie Works goes, because we have here absolute evidence that a good many of these people inhabiting these $7,000 houses are of the servant class at $22 a month. In the western country we consider that a man is doing fairly well if he can build a $5,000 house and it seems extraordinary that people whose salaries average from $22 to $35 a month should have built for them by the people of this country houses cost-lng $5,000 and costing as much for wiring and heating as we would require to build a whole house. I cannot believe it is anything but gross extravagance in the expenditure of public money and I think the people of the west will so regard it.


William Pugsley: I hope my hon. friend will not think me discourteous if I do not feel called upon to reply to his observations, because I have already said all that can be said. I have explained that the basement had been excavated out of the solid rock and the fireproof character of the building.
I shall now refer to the item of barrack accommodation for stables. That means accommodation for the 25 or 30 non-commissioned officers and men of the permanent corps who look after the horses provided for the cadets. The stables have already been built and this is for the accommodation of the men who look after the horses.


William Cameron Edwards: This is a kind of annex to the servants' quarters.


Samuel Hughes: Are the stable men to reside in this building?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: Where are the buildings located?


William Pugsley: In the Royal Military College grounds.


Samuel Hughes: How many horses has the Royal Military College attached to it for the present?


William Pugsley: About twenty-five.


William Price: What kind of a building is this?


William Pugsley: It is built of brick- 41 by 35 feet, two and a half storys high.


Samuel Hughes: When were the horses added to the college?


William Pugsley: They are to be taken from the horse artillery.


Samuel Hughes: What are the salaries of these 22 stablemen?


William Pugsley: The sergeants about $1.65 and the men $1.50 per day.


Mr. BARR.: Do they receive their rations? Mr. PUGSLEY. Yes.


Samuel Hughes: Then there has just been a detachment of artillery moved to the barracks?


William Pugsley: Yes, with their horses, to instruct the cadets.


Samuel Hughes: Will they be on the pay of the Royal College?


William Pugsley: That is a matter for the Minister of Militia to decide.


John Allister Currie: I do not think that any opposition would be made to the erection of these buildings at Kingston if we were satisfied that they were intended for permanent barrack purposes and could be readily used at any time to accommodate from 500 to 2,000 men. But on looking over the plans I find that they have all been built with the view of the one purpose to which they are being put, and there is no reason why such expensive buildings should have been erected. I do not say that the Minister of Public Works is so much to blame because he has a lot to bear on his shoulders, but I trust that when anything of this description comes up again he will see that any building of this kind of a permanent character should be erected with a view of being utilized for general purposes of the barracks or police or quarters for the men. These are not intended for that purpose, but only for the one use, and while I would like to see the men have good quarters, I do not think the country should be charged to provide such luxurious quarters for men whose pay is so low.
Kingston Veterinary Hospital, $15,000.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Is that accommodation for the stables?


William Pugsley: Yes, it is a hospital for the horse artillery.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Are you building a mansion of $15,000 for this purpose?


William Pugsley: That is what it costs.


John Barr: Are we to understand that there are only 25 horses to be accommodated after all this outlay, and of course that $15,000 will not finish the building?


William Pugsley: There are about 300 horses in Kingston altogether, and this hospital is intended for those which are sick.


Samuel Hughes: Is this to be an isolation
hospital?


William Pugsley: Yes, but not necessarily so.


Samuel Hughes: Has the Whitby public
item been passed?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: What was the cost of the site; who recommended its purchase, and is it not a fact that an area of ground on the opposite corner, fully as large, if not a little larger, with a splendid building on it, was purchased about the same time for less than the cost of that vacant lot?


William Pugsley: It comprises part of lots 15 and 16. It has a frontage on Barclay street of 55 feet with a depth on Dun-das street of 150 feet, and the amount paid was $5,000. We had it examined and it was reported very suitable. It would appear from the notes I have that the site was recommended by the Whitby Board of Trade. I have here a resolution of the board of trade which recites that a suitable site is available, and no doubt this is the site.


Samuel Hughes: Do they recommend $5,000 as the price for it?


William Pugsley: They do not mention any price. It was purchased from Mr. Barclay.


Samuel Hughes: Why does it not appear in his name in the Public Accounts? It appears in the name of the Society of the Sons of Scotland.


William Pugsley: I never heard that before.


Samuel Hughes: I may tell the minister that a corresponding site on the opposite corner, better located than this one, and not a vancant lot, but having a three-story brick building upon it, was sold at about the same time for about half the money that this site cost; but it had not the same motive power behind it that this had.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The minister will find the item on page V-74:
Purchase price of site-Sons of >Scotland Benevolent Society, $5,000.
I wish to endorse what the hon. member for Victoria has said. There was an adjoining property, with a brick building on it, which was sold for less than half the amount this vacant property was purchased for. The department was certainly very extravagant in the price they paid for this lot. You could purchase nearly half the sites in the whole village for that price. It certainly was a most extravagant price to pay, and met with the condemnation of all reasonable men in that vicinity.


Mr. FOWKE.: The hon. member comes from North Ontario, and is not in a position to know what the value of this site in the town of Whitby is. It is a matter of which I know something, as it is in the county town of the county from which I CGme; and I wish to say that it is the most eligible site in the town of Whitby, that it is a corner lot on the main thoroughfare of the town, that practically every business man in Mr. PUGSLEY.
the town was consulted by myself in relation to the value of that property and its eligibility for the purpose to which it was to be devoted, and that Conservatives and Liberals alike said that if it were in their possession they would not part with it for the price which the government paid for it. I have this to say in addition, that the town council and the board of trade of the town of Whitby joined in affirming that opinion as being correct, and in declaring the site to be a proper site for the purpose, and said it was cheap at the price the government were paying for it.


Samuel Hughes: I venture to say that the hon. member cannot produce one man in the town of Whitby, much less the board of trade, who will state that that was not too high a price. He cannot produce one honest man in the town of Whitby who will say that it was a proper price. We are not condemning the site, but we are condemning the exorbitant price which my friend engineered for it. He knows that the opposite lot on the same thoroughfare, with a three-story brick building on it was sold about the same time for about half the sum that the government paid for this site. My hon. friend is an adept at engineering prices. We shall have something to say later on of the Oshawa harbour deal, which was engineered by my hon. friend in connection with this same riding.


Frederick Luther Fowke: My hon. friend says that no honest man in the town of Whitby can be got to say that that was a proper price. I have only to say that perhaps the honesty of men there is not of the same quality as that of the hon. gentleman who has just spoken. They are plain, blunt, honest men in the town of Whitby, who say what they mean and mean what they say. I went to them for information as to what would be a proper price in the circumstances, and I took them at their word. I took the board of trade at its word, and the town council as well; and I had the co-operation of private individuals and public bodies in saying that the government would be warranted in paying $5,000 for the site. The hon. gentleman who has just spoken came into my riding and made himself very industrious in opposition to my candidature, and no doubt made very good use on the public platform there of the representations which ho has made here to-night, and the people expressed their estimate of his judgment and his opposition to myself by returning me with the largest majority given to any candidate in South Ontario since confederation.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I would like to ask the hon. minister by what authority the hon. member for South Ontario was parading around the constituency looking for lots for post offices and other public buildings for the department? It is only in accord-

ance with the policy generally pursued by hon. gentlemen opposite, who took every opportunity to promise public buildings to the constituencies in order to secure a majority in this House; and it ill becomes the hon. member from South Ontario to show that assiduity in regard to corner lots in Whitby in order to put himself right with the electors of South Ontario. I would say, for the information of the Minister of Public Works, that the name of the gentleman from whom this lot was purchased does net appear in the Public Accounts at all. It is stated there that it was purchased from the Sons of Scotland. Why was not the name of the man from whom it was really purchased placed there? The reason was that he was an active political supporter of the hon. member for South Ontario, who busies himself with the voters' lists. In view of this fact, we can see why the government paid such an outrageous price for this vacant lot.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. member for South Ontario has referred to the honour of the people of Whitby. I again make the statement that I spoke to a great many of the prominent men in Whitby, and while they were delighted to get a post office, they one and all laughed at the price, and said that it was the result of a deal with my hon. friend from South Ontario, similar to the deal that had been made with him with regard to the Oshawa harbour, when the government were induced, by misrepresentations-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Samuel Hughes: Absolutely in order.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The point of order having been raised, perhaps I should rule of .it. I do not understand the hon. member to be charging dishonour to any hon. member of the House, and in that case I do not rule him out of order.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. gentleman who now misrepresents South Ontario


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: That I think is not in order.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. gentleman who now represents South Ontario in this House induced this government to purchase the Oshawa harbour, and the charge was made upon every platform in the riding, and was not successfully contradicted, that he had done it by misrepresenting the tolls of the harbour which he controlled, and thereby induced them to pay a large price for it. As soon as he unloaded, instead of bringing his coal in through the harbour, he brought it in by rail to the town, and dumped the harbour on the government. That is the charge that is made by the electors of Oshawa, and throughout that riding. That is the charge, and the hon. member came up
and went through the town of Whitby


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I think the
hon. gentleman is wandering away from the subject, which is the Whitby public building.


Samuel Hughes: I am speaking of that building. The hon. member came up to the town of Whitby 'and passed around from person to person, and everybody was naturally delighted to get a post office. But the board of trade have not stated that they endorsed the price paid for the site, the town council have not stated that they endorsed the price, nor has any public man in the town of Whitby. All of them look on it as a rake-off from start to finish.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I would ask the Minister of Public Works who it was that constituted the member for South Ontario (Mr. Fowke) a commissioner to purchase a lot for this government in the town of Whitby. He was not then a member of this House, he was not representing the county; the county was represented by an enirely different individual. How came it that the present member for South Ontario went through that county picking out lots for this government? This post office was not the only one the member for South Ontario promised to the electors of that county, and did this government appoint him as a commissioner to make those promises? Why should he take it upon himself to buy a lot in the town of Whitby for this government, if this government had not appointed him for that purpose?


William Pugsley: My hon. friend from South Ontario, I presume, as a public man and as a candidate, had a right to do what he did. When it was contemplated by the government to purchase a lot in the town of Whitby for a public building, he had a perfect right to inform himself with regard to the value of the different sites which were spoken of, he had a perfect right, for the protection of his own interest as a candidate of the Liberal party, to inform himself as to whether the price for this lot was fair and reasonable, and I commend my hon. friend for having taken the trouble to ascertain if the price was fair and reasonable. It is all very well for hon. gentlemen opposite to deal with rumours; it is all very well for people who are dissatisfied because they did not succeed in selling their property, to disparage the property that was sold. But we have the word of the hon. member for South Ontario, whose judgment, I for one am prepared to place great reliance upon; more than that, we have the report of our own inspector, a man of large experience. He went there, as I am informed, and examined the various sites, questioned people who had lots to sell as to what they would take for their property, and after carefully considering the relative values of the different sites, he recommended that this property should be purchased.


Samuel Hughes: Would the minister kindly give the price recommended by the other inspector, and who was the inspector?
_ Mr. PUGSLEY. My deputy informs me it was Mr. C. H. Hunter, a man of large experience in these matters. In the department rwe always adopt the course of requiring the most careful examination to be made into all the properties available. We asked our agent to find out at what prices properties had been recently changing hands for two or three years back, to get the assessed values of the properties, to furnish all the particulars which would enable the chief architect and the minister to form a correct judgment as to the propriety of purchasing a property which is recommended to the department.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Do I understand the minister to say that he sent two inspectors there to value the property?


William Pugsley: An inspector, Mr. C. H. Hunter.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I think this is a serious matter that the minister has brought up. He says he upholds the member for South Ontario, that he had a perfect right to pick out this lot. The member for South Ontario states that he was the man who selected the lot. As I understand, it was he who interviewed the different parties; he was, so to speak, the whole push in connection with the selection of this particular site. The minister lays down the princinle that it is proper to place in the hands of a candidate for parliament the power to select lots for post offices. If that is the case, we should know it. That seems to have been the policy followed by the government throughout the country. They authorize their candidates to give promises of post offices wherever they like, and the member for South Ontario seems to have been favoured in that respect also. The principle is entirely wrong. If the member for South Ontario had any authority frcm this govern-men we should know what that authority is.


Samuel Hughes: Has the minister the report of the inspector on that site?


William Pugsley: I have not.


Samuel Hughes: Nobody in Whitby condemned the site, the only thing they condemned was the rake-off in the extra price that was paid for this lot over and above the fair market value.


Richard Blain: I would like to know from the minister who was the owner of the property when the transfer was made to the government.


William Pugsley: I may say to my hon. friend that this item passed some days ago, and as I did not suppose it would come up Mr. PUGSLEY.
again to-night I did not bring with me the papers in connection with the site. But I could get the papers and bring them down for the information of my hon. friend. The real owner, I presume, would be the Sons of Scotland. Possibly Mr. Barkley had a mortgage, but the Department of Justice would attend to the title, that would not come under my supervision. When we decide to purchase a property we transfer the papers to the Department of Justice, and if the title is found good, the cheque is made out to the agent of the Minister of Justice to pay the owner. In this case I presume the Sons of Scotland were the owners of the property.


Samuel Hughes: Who was the agent of the Minister of Justice ?


William Pugsley: I do not know.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Would the member for North Ontario tell us who was the owner of this lot?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: My information was that it was a political supporter of the member for South Ontario, Mr. L. T. Barkley. Would the minister kindly say whether the member for South Ontario had any authority from the department, either to recommend or to inspect the various lots in the town of Whitby?


William Pugsley: By looking up the papers I could ascertain if there was any communication in reference to the matter, but I have not the papers with me to-night. But so far as the action of the hon. member for South Ontario is concerned in this matter, I thoroughly approve of it. I approve of the hon. gentleman having taken an interest in securing a public building for the town of Whitby. I think it would be entirely within his right as a public man seeking the suffrages of the people, to interest himself to the extent of seeing that a suitable location was secured for a public building. I think he was entirely within his right in ascertaining the value of the various properties, and to satisfy himself that the price asked for the lot in question was a fair and reasonable price, so that the government might not be criticised, and that he himself as a supporter of the government might not be criticised, in respect to the purchase.


Samuel Hughes: Would the Minister of Public Works give us the name of the agent of the government to whom this cheque was made payable?


William Pugsley: I will be very glad to do it, but I cannot do it to-night.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I do not think this committee should agree with the principle laid down by the Minister of Public Works. That principle is a most vicious one, a most reprehensible one and one which is capable

of the greatest possible abuse. If candidates for the government can be empowered by the different departments to go around towns and municipalities and represent themselves as the accredited agents of the government it is capable of the greatest possible abuse. I am surprised to hear the minister lay down a doctrine of that kind because it is demoralizing to the whole community. A practice similar to that was carried on in the town of Uxbridge in South Ontario. The day after the writ^were issued we had an accredited agent of the department around with the friends of Mr. Grant, my opponent in the election, taking options on all the corner lots in the town, holding out inducements and raising the expectations of the electors that if my opponent were elected an expensive post office would be erected in the town. Now we have the minister allowing this ontion to lapse and doing nothing although there was $8,000 in last year's estimates for this work. The principle enunciated by the minister is a most vicious one and one worthy of the most severe condemnation.


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD.: Is my hon. friend old enough in politics to let us know what policy his party followed previous to 1896?


Richard Blain: I would like the minister to read the communication from the Board of Trade.


William Pugsley: This is the resolution:
Whereas a suitable site satisfactory to the whole community is at present available. The Whitby office is a distributing centre for a considerable and important district. Whitby is the county town of one of the richest counties in _ the province; and as the various court sittings and the sessions of the county council are held here the offices of the general government should be in keeping with the other public buildings.
If a government building were, erected the customs and postal services could be combined under one roof, instead of being carried on as now in two buildings poorly equipped and a considerable distance apart.
The cost of constructing such a building would not exceed the capitalized rental of the present buildings.
The expenditure in the present case could be amply justified by the existing and pressing need as being in the public interest.
Be it therefore resolved- that the attention of the Dominion government be called to this matter in the hope that steps may at once be taken to secure the erection of a new customs and post office, suitable to the present and advancing needs of the town of Whitby and that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Premier, the Postmaster General and the Minister of Public Works.


Samuel Hughes: That is not the resolution that the minister referred to. We want the resolution endorsing this site.
49i


William Pugsley: This is the resolution.


Samuel Hughes: There is no site referred to there.


William Pugsley: It says ' Whereas a suitable site satisfactory to the whole community is available.'


Samuel Hughes: That meant any site.


William Pugsley: I told my hon. friend that this resolution did not name the site, but I presumed that it referred to this site.


Samuel Hughes: The minister gave the committee to understand that a resolution had been passed by the board of trade endorsing the site selected by the hon. member for South Ontario. The minister inferentially lets the committee believe that they have endorsed the site and the price. They do not say so and the member for South Ontario finds himself in rather an unfortunate position.


William Pugsley: I regret that my hon. friend's memory should be so fickle.


Samuel Hughes: My memory is all right and ' Hansard ' will bear me out.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend will remember that I stated distinctly that while the resolution did not mention the particular site selected, it referred to the fact that there was a suitable site then available and I presume that referred to the site which was actually purchased.


George Taylor: Does the minister say that Whitby is a customs port?


William Pugsley: The application was for a customs house and post office as well. I am unable to state whether it is or not.


Edmund Boyd Osler: What is the date of that resolution?


William Pugsley: It is dated March 6. 1907.


Edmund Boyd Osler: By whom was it signed?


William Pugsley: John Waugh, secretary.


Edmund Boyd Osler: At what date was the purchase made?


William Pugsley: There was an order in council passed on the 25th October, 1907, for the purchase and I presume the purchase would follow shortly after that.


Edmund Boyd Osler: How much is the new building in Whitby to cost?


William Pugsley: I am afraid I have not that information to-night. This item passed three or four days ago and I did not bring the papers back.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I understand that $43,000 has been appropriated. It will cost about

$50,000. The resolution says that the interest capitalized is not going to amount to more than the present rental. What rental is being paid?


William Pugsley: At that time it was $330.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Interest on $50,000 would be
about $2,000.	.


William Pugsley: I think the board of trade were rather within the mark.


Edmund Boyd Osler: They were talking through their hats when they made that statement in the resolution.
Public Works-Cha rgeable to Income-* Dauphin Public Building, $24,000.


Mr. STAPLES.: I would like to ask the minister whether or not he has been able to carry out all the pledges that were made in the province of Manitoba? How many public works promised last session and voted have been dropped? If. he will give us that list we will then be in a better position to discuss the items as they come up.


William Pugsley: I take it that my hon. friend is not very busy at the present moment and if he will take the Appropriation Act of last year, then take these estimates and subtract one from the other he will see exactly.


William D. Staples: I admit that I have not been very busy and that I have been sitting here listening to the discussion of these items. The minister took the trouble to make a list for Ontario and I am not asking anything more than he did in the case of Ontario.


William Pugsley: I will do it a little later; I cannot do it at this moment.


William D. Staples: I think the minister should give us that information before we begin to deal with these estimates.


George Henry Bradbury: I would like to draw the attention of the Minister of Public Works to the fact that there was an appropriation last year for a post office at Elmwood, Man. Previous to the election the county was visited by my opponent, Mr. Jackson, and he called a meeting of the Liberals of that town to select a site. I understand that a site was selected and I was told by the minister that the site was bought on the 6th October. The promise was given by my opponent, Mr. Jackson, that the building of a post office would be proceeded with immediately and I would like to ask the minister if it is his intention to implement that pledge? I presume that when the vote was made it was the intention of the government to proceed with the work. I also presume that my opponent, Mr. Jackson, had full authority to make the promise he made to the electors of Elmwood that a post office Mr. OSLER.
costing $40,000 would be proceeded with immediately. What has caused the government to change its policy in this regard, because I see that the vote for the Elmwood post office is dropped out of the estimates this year?


William Pugsley: I suppose I will have to explain it to my hon. friend again if he will not take the trouble to read ' Hansard.' The appropriation for the public building^at Elmwood last year was put in the estimates upon the earnest solicitation of the late member, Mr. Jackson, and it having been voted by parliament Mr. Jackson would have perfect authority for informing the people that the government had decided to erect that building. The fact that a site had been purchased would I presume justify him in stating that it was the intention of the government to proceed with the building without delay. That was the intention of the government when the appropriation was made, but for the reason that the revenues have declined and that we feel it prudent in the public interest to keep our expenditure within our revenue there is no vote for the Elmwood ' post office this year. We have treated Elmwood no differently from scores of other places throughout the Dominion. We do not treat it differently because it has, shall I say the bad fortune or the good fortune, to have my hon. friend (Mr. Bradbury) as its representative. My hon. friend can rely that having purchased the site it simply means a postponement of the building for a reasonable time.


Mr. BEODEE.: I would point out to the Minister of Public Works that when these very items were being voted for public buildings last year the Minister of Finance had announced in his Budget Speech that he anticipated a falling off of $6,000,000 in the revenue, and in face of that announcement the government voted these appropriations.


William Pugsley: We are providing this year for dredging rivers and harbours and for the erection of a large number of public buildings, and in view of the shrinkage in revenue being double what the hon. gentleman says was anticipated, I think we are doing very well that we have kept over one-half of our estimates for public works in the appropriations for this year.


Mr. MEIGHEN.: I quite understand that the Minister of Public Works has to answer the same questions over and over again, but if there were any consistency in the position assumed by him it would be less difficult for him to explain it. If we could discern a thread of logic running through his argument we would not be so insistent in our demand for information. As we pointed out last Friday evening, the Minister of Public Works stated in July last.

in reply to the hon. member for Peel, that there absolutely need be no concern about the erection of these public works, and that there was no cause for alarm that any accident would interfere with their being proceeded with. The logical result of this statement was that these buildings for which appropriations were taken would be erected. On looking into the matter I find that the very month that the minister made that assertion to the House was the month in which the revenue of the country fell to the largest extent below the revenue for the corresponding period in the previous year. I find that for the four months of the fiscal year, commencing on the 1st April and ending with the month in which the minister made that statement, the revenue of the country fell off by some $6,789,589.35, or at the rate of $1,697,397.34 per month. Now, from the end of July to the end of the current^ year, the falling off in the revenue diminished, so that commencing with the 1st of August, 1908, and ending with the very month when the minister decided on a retrenchment of $8,000,000 the revenue declined at one-half the rate of the previous period, or $933,577 per month.


William Pugsley: Order.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman has called me to order, but I really think I am closer to the point than many hon. members on this side of the House have been, or than the minister himself has been throughout this debate.


William Pugsley: That has been discussed so often.


Arthur Meighen: This has never been discussed before.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: This is the fifth or sixth time we have heard your speech.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: As the point has been raised, I think that in discussing Supply the opposition is entitled to a great deal of freedom and I have not felt that the remarks of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Meighen) are out of order on the vote for public buildings in Manitoba.


Arthur Meighen: I have endeavoured to show that the, reasons given by the minister for the policy entered on by the government in December last are not logical, and particularly so in the light of the fact that in July last, when these estimates were voted, not only was July the month of the largest decrease in our revenue over the corresponding period of the previous year, but the fact stands out in strong contrast that the very month in which the ministry arrived at the decision that there must be retrenchment, namely, two months after the election, was the only month in the year 1908 in which the revenue exceeded that of the corresponding month for
the preceding year. The revenue for December, 1908, was $7,183,355.94. The revenue for 1907 was $7,093,530.87, so that there was an actual increase in the revenue for December, 1908, of some $933,000, or about $3,000 a day over the corresnonding month of the year before. Thus the logic of the minister amounts to this, that when the revenue is falling off at the greatest rate he has cause to assure this country that there is no cause for concern, that he will be able to erect all the structures that he dangles before the electors and just as soon as the revenue resumes its equilibrium and reaches or surpasses the revenue of the year before, the minister in his logic arrives at the conclusion that he must retrench. It will be difficult for the minister to convince the House that that is the real position or the real reason that animated him. The Minister of Finance apparently was the monitor. It was at his suggestion that this decision was reached in December, 1908. I am glad to see him at the right hand of the Minister of Public Works to-night. We are justified in concluding that if the Minister of Finance was the monitor in December, 1908, he was the monitor also in July, 1908. Some three months before that the Minister of Finance, speaking on the 17th of March, assured the House that he anticipated the revenues would fall off by some six and a-half millions and probably by more than that amount. By the time July had arrived the revenue had fallen off by more than that amount, so that if the Minister of Finance were the monitor in December and also in July he surely must have told his colleague that he was only deceiving the public by saying it was possible to go on with this work because the revenue had already decreased by over $6,500,000. On the whole there is every ground to question the reason which the minister has given to-night and other nights, every reason to look back and to say that it is to meet the exigencies of the election that these two months elapsed and that the minister just at the time he had the only reason he ever had to go on with these works, on the contrary decided that he would abandon them for this year at least. I cannot accept the reason of the minister at all and I do not think the country can. I asked last Friday for a return relating to advertisements.


William Pugsley: I brought that down this evening.


George Henry Bradbury: From whom was the Elmwood site purchased?


William Pugsley: Would my hon. friend allow me to give him that to-morrow?


Mr. ROCHE.: How much has been expended for Dauphin public building?


William Pugsley: When the estimate was made up $8,000 had been paid on the contract over and above the site.


William D. Staples: I insist on the minister giving me a list of the works abandoned in Manitoba just as he gave a list to the members from Ontario. I think we are entitled to it.


William Pugsley: I trust my hon. friend will not be unreasonable. He could not expect me, while going through with these items, to sit down and do what my hon. friend would be able to do, that is to take the account of last year and these estimates and subtract one from the other.


William D. Staples: I presume, the minister has that information?


William Pugsley: No, I have not it with me.


Mr. A. HAGGAET.: Would the minister give the particulars of this contract?


William Pugsley: The contract price is $20,330, including the building, but not the heating, wiring, fittings or fixtures.


William D. Staples: What did the site cost?


William Pugsley: 


William D. Staples: What will the building cost when completed?
_ Mr. PUGSLEY. About $32,000. The lot is 75 x 132 feet on Burrows avenue.


William D. Staples: Is it a corner lot?


William Pugsley: I do not think so.
Dominion Public Buildings, renewals, improvements, repairs, &c., $10,000.


George Henry Bradbury: Will that item include the furnishing of the Selkirk post office?


William Pugsley: We expect the furnishing to be finished before March 31 and paid out of the appropriation for the present fiscal year.


William D. Staples: I would like an explanation about the public building at Emerson.


William Pugsley: It is being built on a lot
60 by 140 feet, required for post office and customs purposes. The site cost $1,000. Estimated total cost of building $34,000, including furnishing, fittings and fixtures.


William D. Staples: Will this complete the building?


William Pugsley: Yes.
Winnipeg Customs Warehouse, $175,000.


Alexander Haggart: In connection with the expenditure, I find in the Auditor General's Report, V-77, an item, 'purchase price of additional land for 'site. J. H. Kern.' The other day a question was asked regarding the terminals. Kern, it appears, was the man from whom these terminals were purchased. He was planted in there at a very convenient time between the former owner and the government, and Mr. PUGSLEY.
the report was that he got a rake-off of $122,000. This man Kern is a very agile person. We find that he is transplanted here between the owner and the former owner of the land in the purchase of the site of this warehouse. Is this the same Kern mentioned in the other case from whom the land was purchased for the terminals ?


William Pugsley: Is that for the new examining warehouse?


Alexander Haggart: Yes, he is a hotelkeeper at Moosejaw.


William Pugsley: This land was bought before I became minister. My impression is it was purchased from Mackenzie and Mann.


Alexander Haggart: There were two portions. This was for an addition to the site. The original portion was bought from Mackenzie and Mann.


William Pugsley: There may have been a small piece bought from Kern.


Alexander Haggart: $35,000 paid to Kern is a pretty considerable item. There will be a chance for a benefit to him here in addition to the benefit he got from the other transaction. When the government have such reliable inspectors and agents, it will be proper to call this matter to the attention of the inspector. I may tell the minister, for his information, that this Mr. Kern is not there for his sole benefit. The people of Winnipeg know, or soon will know that either the government or some friend of the government, or some mutual friend of the government and Mr. Kern succeeded in putting him in there as a stool pigeon for a certain purpose, and perhaps not the most laudable purpose.


William Pugsley: Does the hon. gentleman say that the price paid was too high?


Alexander Haggart: I think that $35,000 for a little piece of land pn a back street was a little too high.


William Pugsley: How much land was there?


Alexander Haggart: I do not know. We are here for the purpose of ascertaining that.


William Pugsley: The information I have is that the land was purchased from Mackenzie and Mann for $88,125.


George Taylor: How much was bought from the other man?


William Pugsley: I have no memo of land bought from any one else.


Alexander Haggart: We would like this cleared up because it was the subject of Ivery common conversation among the business men of Winnipeg.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman is speaking of a different building altogether. There was some land purchased from Mr. Kern for an immigration building which is a different item. This is for a customs warehouse.
Winnipeg Post Office Building-Fitting up ground and first floors, $25,000.


William Pugsley: This is an old building. We had built a new post office.


William D. Staples: That brings to my mind the question of some litigation as regards the ownership of the old building. Now that you have vacated it as a post office, I have seen articles in the press stating it is going to revert back to the original owners.


William Pugsley: I have heard nothing about that. The building is still to be occupied as a public building for Customs purposes and Inland Revenue and Assistant Receiver General.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would it be convenient to have that used as a custom house when the examining warehouse and the other buildings are so far from it?


William Pugsley: The examining warehouse adjoins the old post office building.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It must be at least a quarter of a mile from the present examin ing warehouse. Is it the intention to move all the customs business to that locality?


William Pugsley: The Customs Department have asked for this accommodation, and we are giving it to them. I do not know whether they intend to move the entire business there or not. I understand that the Department of the Interior will use the old customs house for' a land office.


William James Roche: If the hon. minister looks up the records of his department, I think he will find that there are communications in reference to the matter referred to by the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Staples). I remember hearing that matter discussed in the House in the time of the hon. gentleman's predecessor. I think a gentleman named Ballantyne owned the site in question, and donated it on the condition that it should be retained by the government as a post office site. When the matter was brought before the hon. minister's predecessor, he admitted that there were communications to that effect, and promised to bring them down at an early day, but failed to do so.


William Pugsley: I will have the matter looked up, if the hon. member will call my attention to it at some later day.


William D. Staples: I do not see any provision in the estimates this year for the post office north of the track in Winnipeg. Is that completed?	 i


William Pugsley: It will be completed before the end of the present fiscal year.


William D. Staples: What did that building
cost?


William Pugsley: I have not the papers at present, and cannot say.


George Henry Bradbury: Can the minister inform the House who are the contractors for the fixtures for the north-end post office and the Selkirk post office, or was a contract let? My information leads me to believe that a contract was let for the fixtures of those two post offices, and that a man very high in the service of the post office is a large shareholder in the company furnishing those buildings. I am told in Selkirk that that accounts largely for the delay in opening the Selkirk post office. Although the building has been completed for at least six months, I do not think) it is furnished yet.


William Pugsley: As I am not asking tonight for a vote for either of these buildings, I have not the papers with me regarding them. If my hon. friend will put the question in the House, I will with pleasure get the information in regard to both of them.


Mr. W. H. SHARPE.: I would like the minister to explain why the appropriations for Manitoba are cut down to such a very large extent this year, while those for other provinces are not cut down nearly so much. The appropriations for Alberta, Saskatchewan and Northwest Territories are cut down by $305,000, while those for Manitoba alone are cut down $346,876.


William Pugsley: My hon. lriend, on reflection, will see that, adopting the rule which I said we had adopted with regard to postponing public buildings, there might be an undue proportion cut off from one province as compared with another. For instance, take my own province of New Brunswick ; the appropriations for public buildings have been cut down from $134,100 last year to $21,500 this year. Those for Nova Scotia have been cut down from $282,300 to $132,600. The appropriations for Quebec have been cut down from $1,571,249 last year to $525,600 this year, only one-third of what they were. The appropriations for Ontario have been cut down from $1,453,175 to $605,367, a reduction of more than fifty per cent. So that" there is no rule in regard to the matter.


Alexander Haggart: There may not be the same inducement this year that there was two or three years ago, when it was said that a post office valued at nearly half a million was built as an annex to a large printing establishment on Portage avenue owned by an ex-minister.


Arthur Meighen: The figures given by the minister in his answer should be taken in conjunction with the figures of the amount unspent in each province. If that is done, they show a marked disparity against the province of Manitoba.
Public Buildings-Saskatchewan, Alberta and Northwest Territories, $352,000.


John Herron: I wish to bring to the attention of the minister a very urgent case in my constituency. A very small amount was asked for in the estimates of last year to protect the town of Macleod. I have already spoken to the minister personally on the subject, and I would like to impress upon him the importance of that work.


William Pugsley: Is that the protection work?


John Herron: Yes, the protection of the banks of the streams.


William Pugsley: I would ask the hon. gentleman to leave that until we come to the harbours and rivers. We are now on puijiic works.
Lethbridge-Custom House and Dominion Lands Office, $1,000.


Mr. MAGBATH.: In the estimates of last year there was $6,000 for this work. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman why the work did not proceed. I happen to know that there was every reason for it to be gone on with, because the Dominion Lands office, which occupies part of that building, is sorely in need of further office room. The court house in the upper part of that building has been vacant for a year waiting these improvements.


William Pugsley: I cannot give the hon. gentleman the reason why it has not been proceeded with more rapidly; but $2,000 has been expended upon it, or will be before the close of the fiscal year.


Charles Alexander Magrath: I do not think there has been any money expended at all. Up to the 10th of December, when I left, not a dollar had been spent.


William Pugsley: We expect to expend $2,000 before the 31st of next month, and we are here asking for a revote.


Charles Alexander Magrath: Does the minister intend that this work will be proceeded with in the spring?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Charles Alexander Magrath: I would like some assurance, because, as I say, better facilities are absolutely required. In the Dominion Lands office there is only a space in front of the counter about the size of the table Mr. A. HAGGART.
before us. People have to stand out in the street.


William Pugsley: The engineers have instructions to push these improvements in the spring.


Charles Alexander Magrath: I wish to bring another matter to the attention of the minister, although it is not in the estimates, and that is the necessity of a post office building in Lethbridge. I want to enunciate here the position I take in connection with the expenditure of public money. I do not believe that any town is ever going to make headway merely through the expenditure of public money therein. I do not think it means any advancement to a town to have government moneys spent there just for the purpose of getting a large building, and while I am in this House I do not mean ever to advance any such argument. I do not subscribe to the policy that is pursued in this country in reference to the erection of public buildings. Go through the country from one end to the other and you find post offices costing many thousands of dollars in small places where there is no necessity for such costly buildings, due, I suppose we may frankly admit, to political pressure. I hope that I shall not be found advocating expenditures with the hon. gentleman on any such ground. Lethbridge has to-day a population, I have been told, of 7,500, but I will call it 7,000. I have a letter from the Post Office Department which says in reference to a post office:
Practically the only way the difficulty can he overcome is by the erection of a public building.
The post office there is in a rented building and the post office authorities know that the facilities are not at all adequate. As I am interested in the question, I have been looking up statistics, and I find that the Postmaster General last March stated that there were ten post offices built since 1904, and 31 post offices under construction. I made a list of some of these post offices, which I submit to the committee:
List of Some Post Offices Built Since 1904:
Place.	Popula- tion.	Postal Receipts in 1908.	Cost of Building.
		$	s
Canso, N.S	2,567	2,195	20,690Hawksbury, Ont...	4,150	3,593	22,230Wingham, Ont	2,392	6,301	31,800Prince Albert, Sask .	6,000	12,875	103,965Sandwich, Ont	1,450	1,392	20,043
List of Some Post Office Buildings under Construction in .1908:
Place.	Popu- lation.	Postal Receipts in 1908.	Contract prices of building.Chicoutimi, Que	
Levis, Que.	
Knowlton, Que ... Bridgewater, N.S	
Kincardine, Ont	
Maple Creek, Sask... Fernie, B.C.	
Lethbridge, Alta	3,826 7,783 760 2,900 2,077 1,500 6,000 7,000	$ 4,405 3,509 2,156 5,500 4,239 3,911 9,933 14,541	$ 22,472 22,000 26,000 23,500 29.000 32.000 43,750
I want to get these figures before the hon. gentleman so that there will be no question next year about making provision for Lethbridge. I find in the province of Manitoba that there are only three offices yielding a larger revenue than Lethbridge; in Saskatchewan, three; in Quebec, three; in Nova Scotia, four; in New Brunswick, three; in Prince Edward Island, one; in Alberta, two; in British Columbia, four. Between the great lakes and the Pacific ocean there are thirteen offices yielding a larger revenue than the place I refer to. I think these are very strong reasons why there should be some relief given to Lethbridge in the shape of a post office. If there was a building in the town sufficiently large that could be rented and used, then I would say let us have it. But I know of no building in the place that is suitable for that purpose. I sincerely trust that the hon. gentleman will give this matter consideration when he prepares his next estimates. There are two other questions I would like to refer to in connection with Medicine Hat. In the last year's estimates there was a sum of $40,000 for the Strathcona Horse barracks. I have heard the hon. gentleman's statement in reference to cutting off eight million dollars from the public works expenditures contemplated last year, and I appreciate the situation. I understand he is going to have all these various items brought in again, and that he proposes to go on with these works at some future time. I would like the hon. gentleman's assurance in connection with that. I also want his assurance in connection with another matter. I have here an extract from a paper printed in Medicine Hat referring to these barracks: For the first time in the past five years the vote of '$40,000 for Strathcona Horse barracks' does not appear in the Dominion Estimates. For several years we had reason to believe t) at this vote was intended for buildings at Medicine Hat. Probably recent events have something to do with the withdrawal of this
vote from the general estimates. When we have said we don't want these things, it is quite natural to assume that they won't he thrust at us-pressed upon us.
The insinuation being that because those people saw fit to send a representative here who is not a supporter of this government the governmtnt is not going to give them what has been promised for five years past.
I have heard the hon. gentleman refer to similar questions before and he stated that he had not been guided by such influences.
I would be very glad if he will say so with respect to this.


William Pugsley: I do not see that it makes it any stronger if I say so three or four times. I have made my statement to the committee. I cannot give my hon. friend any assurance with regard to any individual building. I have stated that I would recommend to my colleagues-there may be exceptions-that as a general rule public works for which appropriations were made last parliament should have precedence and be proceeded with as early as possible. With regard to the Strathcona Horse, we have omitted that amount of $43,000 from the estimates. But, I want to correct one misunderstanding under which my hon. friend seems to labour. He assumes that that is promised to Medicine Hat. That never was promised, in so far as I am aware, either by the appropriations or in any other manner. It was put in with the miscellaneous items in a general way and was not limited to any particular locality. It was supposed that the barracks, when erected, would be erected in the Northwest, either in Saskatchewan or Alberta, but the place where they would be erected was never agreed upon or stated in the appropriation.


Charles Alexander Magrath: This paper


William Pugsley: I am speaking of the appropriation and not of any paper. i


Charles Alexander Magrath: This paper supports the party of the hon. gentleman. They make the insinuation that it was promised to them.


William Pugsley: They are in error.


Charles Alexander Magrath: And that because they had sent me here they were not going to get it. Of course that is one of the features of an election that it is not agreeable to refer to, namely, those political wire pullers who travel through the country holding out features of that sort to the public to buy them with their own money, something that I do not endorse and something I am sure hon. gentlemen on either side of the House regard in the same way as I do. There is another question that is not referred to in these estimates but which I want to bring to the attention of the hon. gentleman. We are inviting people into that country and

we should have proper means 'for taking care of them. Medicine Hat at one time had an immigration hall. I believe it was burned down. There is a necessity for such a building there to-day. I do not believe the matter has been brought very prominently to the hon. gentlemen's attention. It has been in the hands of the Minister of the Interior, but I want to bring it to the attention of the hon. gentleman now, and I trust that it will be kept in view when the next estimates are prepared. When we invite people into the country we must look after them.
Prince Albert-Saskatchewan penitentiary, $65,000.


William James Roche: Is the contract let ?


William Pugsley: Not yet. We have bought the land.


Mr. EOCHE.: Will the minister tell us from whom the various portions of land were purchased?


William Pugsley: It was all stated last year. There was a long list of the persons from whom the land was bought, and these purchases were made at a very low price, at the price almost of farm land although the land is situated within the limits of the town.	,.


William Roche: The list was not given when these items were up for discussion.


William Pugsley: I can give quite a number of the names of those from whom land was purchased: E. S. Cook, 183-7 acres at $30 per acre; W. E. Gladstone, 165 acres at $47.50; Mrs. Montgomery, 125 acres for a lump sum of $5,500; S. McLeod, 174-72 acres at $60, making a total expenditure up to the 31st March for land of $29,430.80. After that we purchased 200 acres, less the reserve for cemetery the right of way of the Canadian Northern Eailway and the highway, 190 acres at $55 per acre, and we also had to buy the buildings on the site, ten in number for $5,000.


William Roche: How much was purchased from Gladstone?


William Pugsley: 165 acres at $47.50 per acre.


William Roche: He is a government official.


William Pugsley: I do not know, I am sure. It seems to be a low price.


William Roche: You do not know how long he owned it?


Mr. FIELDING.: It is a good name-W. [DOT]E. Gladstone.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What business will be taken up on Thursday?


Charles Alexander Magrath: 


William Stevens Fielding: The motion for supply will be made, and, in supply, my hon. friend the Minister of Eailways and Canals (Mr. Graham) will ask the attention of the House to his canal estimates. If these be disposed of my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) will follow.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.10 p.m.
- HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, February 25, 1909.