Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works).: It becomes necessary to appoint a committee of the House of Commons to act in conjunction with the committee of the Senate in connection with the restaurant. As the present committee of the House has given such satisfaction during the past year, I would move that they be reappointed. I therefore move:



19C9

[Stage Direction]
That the members of the House of Commons on the permanent Joint Committee on the restaurant be His Honour the Speaker, and Messrs. Monk, Harris, Macdonald and Stanfield.
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon.   S@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) delivered a message from His Excellency the Governor General.
Mr. SPEAKER read the message as follows :
Grey:
The Governor General transmits to the House of Commons Supplementary Estimates of sums required for the service of the Dominion for the year ending on the 31st March, 1910, and, in accordance with the provisions of ' The British North America Act, 1867', the Governor General recommends these estimates to the House of Commons.
Government House,
Ottawa, Nov. 24, 1909.
Mr. FIELDING moved that His Excellency's message together with the estimates be referred to the Committee of Supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Mr. Speaker, might I suggest to my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) that the papers brought down yesterday in connection with the resignation of Mr. Lums-den ought to be printed without delay. Perhaps he would be good enough to make a motion to that effect. Before he makes the motion I would like to ask whether this return includes all the papers. The motion that passed the House referred to any communications from Mr. Lumsden to the Prime Minister. I did not observe them in the papers. I do not know that there was any such communication but if there was one it should be brought down.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Perhaps there is. If there is such a communication I will bring it down to-morrow.


Robert Laird Borden: This might perhaps be proceeded with in the meantime if the Prime Minister has no objection. I would move:
That Rule 72 relating to the printing of public documents be suspended in the case of the papers relating to the resignation of Mr. H. D. Lumsden, as Chief Engineer of the Transcontinental railway, and that all such papers be ordered to be printed forthwith..


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.: Mr Speaker, at this stage of the proceedings I am going to bring up as a question of privilege, the condition of the railways of this country in connection with the storm of yesterday, and I propose to show why myself and other members have not been able to get here because of the inefficiency of these roads. People who left Toronto the night before last only got here last night while others who left last night are only here now, with the result, that they missed their engagements yesterday and most of them to-day. It seems to me that the railway service in the province of Ontario, which has been organized for years, is altogether inadequate to the requirements of the country, especially between Toronto and Ottawa. The Grand Trunk Railway Company have promised to give us a line from Ottawa to Kingston connecting with their main system at that point, but it has not been built. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company have promised to double track their system between Ottawa and Toronto, and this has not been done, although it has been Dromised for years. In consequence, whenever there is the slightest storm, the road breaks down, the public are not accommodated, and people are not able to keep their engagements. There is another thing which I notice and I believe it is the cause of the inferior railway service in this country, and it is that the railway men, the general managers, whenever they wish to travel, are so distrustful of their own system and so distrustful of the accommodation that the public have that they always go in private cars, with especially well equipped larders. This morning there were two railway magnates with special cars with well equipped larders and they were well looked after. The Chairman of the Railway Commission was there, and he was looked after while the general public was lacking accommodation. When the Minister of Railways travels he has so little confidence in the railways and the treatment that they give the general public that he has his private car. This is an abuse of the railway system of this country. The railway and political magnates travel in these specially equipped cars and we failed to make time last night-we were four hours coming from Smith's Falls-because the engine was overtaxed by these magnates' cars.
If these magnates want to travel on these special cars, and if they cannot give ordinary accommodation to the public, let them hook up to the freight trains. If, instead of that they were compelled to travel as the ordinary Canadian travels there would be a great improvement in the railway service of this country. I will venture to make the statement after a personal in-

vestigation that the equipment of our Canadian railways is always at the minimum. The moment there is a strain the service falls down, trains are delayed, and the ordinary public cannot keep their engagements. It is time the Minister of Railways took up this question in order to see that the city of Toronto and the city of Ottawa have better railway service than they have now and that an improvement takes place throughout the province.of Ontario as well as in the older provinces of the Dominion. He will find that we cannot get here in time to attend to our duties because the energy of the railway managements is devoted rather to the acquisition of new lines in the west-
Sir WILFRID LAURIER Order.


Mr. SPEAKER.: The hon. gentleman is right in discussing the matter as a question of privilege in so far as inconvenience and delay have been caused to himself in getting here, but not in undertaking to discuss the railway system generally. It must be confined to the question of privilege which is a question personal to the hon. gentleman.


William Findlay Maclean: I quite admit what you say, Mr. Speaker, and I must accept your decision in the matter. But, I still say that if I were speaking to the question of privilege I would contend that the reason I am not able to get here in time is that the railway managers are not attending to their business and are not giving the accommodation they ought to. I hope that the Minister of Railways will find a way of stopping these magnates from delaying trains and that he will see that the railways are better equipped.


Mr. SPROULE.: As one who was also on the same train as my hon. friend (Mr. W. F. Maclean) I may say that it occurred to me in looking along the line that the delay was occasioned almost wholly by the breaking down of the telegraph and telephone lines, which I thought could be avoided if these were either put under or upon the ground, because the increased weight from the ice broke them down and the train was obliged to feel its way from station to station to avoid danger.	.



FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 27), respecting the British North American Mining Company.-Mr. Geoffrion
Bill (No. 28), respecting the Campbellford, Lake Ontario and Western Railway Company-Mr. Fowke.
Bill (No. 29), respecting the Columbia and Western Railway Company.-Mr. Goodeve.
Bill (No. 30), respecting the Eastern Townships Railway Company-Mr. Laver-gne.
William Findlay Maclean: Bill (No. 31), respecting the Kamloops and Yellow Head Pass Railway Company. -Mr. Burrell.
Bill (No. 32), respecting the Nicola, Kamloops and Similkameen Coal and Railway Company.-Mr. Burrell.
Bill (No. 33), respecting the Northern
Mortgage Company of Canada.-Mr. A. Haggart.
Bill (No. 34), respecting the Ottawa, Northern and Western Railway Company. -Mr. McGiverin.	.
Bill (No. 35), respecting the South Ontario Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Nesbitt.
Bill (No. 36), respecting the Union Life Assurance Company.-Mr. McGiverin.
Bill (No. 37), respecting the Walkerton and Lucknow Railway Company.-Mr. Donnelly. i
Bill (No. 38), respecting the West Ontario Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Nesbitt.



DEATH OF MR. BARR.

Mr. E. N. LEWIS (West Huron).: Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, I have just returned from paying the last acts of respect to our late fellow member, Dr. Barr, the member for Dufferin. I have been requested by the Warden and other prominent gentlemen of the county of Dufferin, among whom our late colleague had spent his whole life, to convey to the government and parliament of Canada an expression of appreciation of their courtesy in furnishing a government car for the conveyance of the body of our late colleague to his home.


May I.: as perhaps his most intimate colleague, take this opportunity to voice my deep sense of the great loss we have sustained through Dr. Barr's death.



BILL TO AMEND THE RAILWAY ACT-LABOURERS' PAY.

Mr.   N.@: MARTIN (Ste. Marie, Montreal), introduced the Bill (No. 39) 'Act amending the Railway Act.'
(Translation)'I will, Mr. Speaker, explain in a few words the object of this Bill. It is intended to amend section 259 of the Railway Act, in its relations to the labourers' pay. The railway companies as a custom pay their employees monthly. By this Bill I desire that these companies _ should be obliged to pay their men fortnightly.
Moreover, it is the custom with these companies to keep the pay of the first fifteen day of a new employee, which means, that when an employee enters the service of the company, he must work during six weeks before receiving a month's salary. This reserve forms a very considerable sum on account of the great number of employees. It is no wonder to see the president of Canadian Pacific Railway Company receiving a salary of $50,000 a year, when this

company is able to economize a sum as large as the interest alone on the money which is kept back and remains in his bands.
I hope that these explanations are sufficient to satisfy the honourable members of this House. As to the merit of the Bill, I will discuss it more fully on the second reading.
(Motion adopted and Bill read for the first time).



QUESTIONS.


Mr. HENDERSON:: 1.	Has the report of the International Fisheries Commission, appointed to draft regulations respecting fishing in the international waters between Canada and the United States been completed and placed in the hands of the government? If not, when may such report be expected?
2.	Will the report when presented be laid before parliament before being finally ratified by the government?


Hon. CHARLES MURPHY:: 1. The regulations prepared by the International Fisheries Commission have been received by the government.
. 2- Inasmuch as simultaneous publication in both countries is considered desirable, and as the regulations cannot appropriately be laid before Congress until that body meets in December next, the government have agreed to defer laying the regulations before parliament until after the date of the meeting of Congress early next month.


ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE RIDING ESTABLISHMENT.
Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	What are the dimensions and what the internal arrangements of the riding establishment on the R.M.C. grounds?
2.	When will the building be completed and to what use will it be put?
3.	Were tenders called for by advertisement? If so, in what papers and when ?
4.	From whom were tenders received, and what was the amount of each?
5.	To whom was the contract awarded, and what did the contract cover?
6.	How much has been paid on the building to date, and to whom?
7.	What is the estimated cost of the building completed and ready for use?
8.	Has any of the work been let without tender ? If so, what portion, to whom and the amount in each case?
2.	(a) The building is practically completed and is expected to be ready for inspection early in December.
(b) I am informed by the Department of Militia and Defence that the building will be used as quarters for non-commissioned officers and men attending horses and instructing cadets in riding.
3.	(a) Yes.
(b)	Kingston, 'Freeman'; Kingston, 'British Whig '; Deseronto, ' Tribune '; Trenton, ' Courier '; Napanee, ' Express '; Belleville, 'Ontario'; Brockville, 'Recorder'; Ottawa, ' Le Temps'; Ottawa, 'Free Press'; Ottawa, ' Danebrog '; Peterborough, ' Examiner '; Peterborough, ' Times '; Toronto, 'Globe'; Toronto, 'Star'; (3 insertions in dailies, 2 in weeklies.).
(c)	Advertisement dated December 12, 1908.
4.	M. Sullivan, $9,490; W. H. Godwin. Jr., and E. Godwin, Jr., $9,890; W. J. Chapman, $10,500.
5.	(a) M. Sullivan.
(b) Excavation, masonry, brickwork, carpenter and joiner work, plastering, galvanized iron, plumbing, painting and glazing.
6.	Michael Sullivan, contractor, $6,100; Henry P. Smith, services as clerk of works. $99.03; advertising, $205.47; printing and stationery, $60.63; total, $6,465.13
7.	$15,000.
8.	No.


LIEUTENANT GOVERNORSHIP OF BRITISH COLUMBIA.
Mr. J. D. TAYLOR:: 1.	Has the government or any member thereof received from the executive of the Liberal Association for British Columbia, or any other political organization, any recommendation purporting to be made by resolution of that body, in favour of the appointment of F. C. Wade, K.C., as Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia? If so, what reply has been made?
2.	Is the office of Lieutenant Governor one as to which the jurisdiction of patronage committee is recognized?


Right Hon.   S@: I must observe to my hon. friend that information of the description asked for in the first part of his question would be considered by the government or by any minister as absolutely private matter. In reference to the second part of his question I do not exactly understand what he means by the expression ' the jurisdiction of patronage committee.'


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY:: 1.	(a) 35 by 41 feet.
(b) Basement contains furnace and fuel rooms, storeroom and laundry; ground floor, non-commissioned officers and men's mess rooms, kitchen and lavatory; first floor, men's dormitory [DOT] and bedrooms for noncommissioned officers; attic, bedrooms.


MANUFACTURE OF AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY.
Mr. HENDERSON:: 1.	How many mowing machines were there made in Canada during the year ending 31st March, 1909?
2.	How many harvesters, self-binding, were there made iu Canada in the same period?
* 333

3. How many reapers were there made in Canada during the aforesaid time?


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER.: This information is not obtainable in any government office or, I think, in any office or any place in Canada. This applies to all parts of the question.


GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS IN NEW BRUNSWICK.
Mr. CROCKET:: 1.	Is there any provision in the contract entered into between the government and the Grand Trunk Pacific Construction Company for the construction of that portion of the New Brunswick section of the Transcontinental railway (a) for limiting the subletting of said contract for different sections or otherwise beyond one or any number of subcontracts below the original contract, or (b) for the protection of farmers, merchants and others furnishing supplies and materials to subcontractors for the construction of the railway by providing for recourse against the original contractor or otherwise.
2.	Is the government or the Transcontinental Railway Commissioners aware that for certain sections of the railway in New Brunswick the contract has been sublet from one subcontractor to another until in some cases the work has been done and is being done by 4th and 5th subcontractors at a cut of 40 to 50 per cent below the prices contracted for and paid by the government to the original contractor ?	...
3.	Has the government or Minister of Railways received any complaints to the above effect, and that as a result farmers, merchants and others, who have furnished supplies and materials for the construction of the railway, have suffered heavy losses by the failure of the subcontractors to pay their bills?
4.	What action if any, has the government or Rai 1 way Department taken or what action is intended to be taken in the matter ?


Hon. G. P. GRAHAM:: 1.	(a) No, but the contract provides that the work or any part thereof shall not be subcontracted without the written consent of the commissioners, (b) There is a clause in the contract providing that where the contractor fails to make payment for labour, services and material in or about the construction of the work the commissioners may retain, such amount of moneys as the chief engineer deems sufficient to make such payments; or if the engineer reports that there is reason to fear that any such payments will not be properly made by the contractor, the commissioners may pay for any such labour, services and material, from any date to any date and to any amount, which may be" payable and charge same to the contractor.
2.	The commissioners are aware that certain portions of the work have been sublet, and this was done with their consent, but such subcontractors are not dealt with by the commissioners, who treat them only
~ Mr. HENDERSON.
us agents of the contractor and have no knowledge of the prices that are paid by the contractor to such subcontractors. They do not know anything about a contract sublet from one subcontractor to another.
3.	The Minister of Railways has had cor-rescondenee with the hon. member for York, N.B., on the subject.
4.	The minister took the matter up with the commissioners of the National Transcontinental railway and will be glad to lay a copy of the correspondence on the table of the" House, if the hon. gentleman will make the usual motion.
TRENT CANAL-BRADFORD CHANNEL. Mr. LENNOX:
1.	Has the Department of Railways and Canals had a survey or investigation made into the feasibility and cost of constructing a channel from the Devil's Elbow on the Holland river to a point in the neighbourhood of the Bradford railway station in South Sim-coe?
2.	If not, will the department have this done at an early date, and if done, is the report favourable and what is the estimated cost?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Yes, a survey has been made in that locality; but owing to the telephone and telegraph wires being out of order it is not possible to get the information required for the House to-day; but it will be given as soon as it can be obtained.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


FISH HATCHERIES, MANITOBA.
Mr. BRADBURY:: 1.	What is the total outlay for the erection and equipment of the three fish hatcheries in the province of Manitoba?
2.	What is the annual outlay in connection with the taking of spawn and the running of those hatcheries?
3.	What is the annual cost of the Fishery Protection Service in connection with lakes Winnipeg, Manitoba and Winnipegosis?
4.	What is the total revenue received by the government from all sources in connection with these fisheries?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR:: 1.	$34,013.	.
2.	$14,550, in 1908-9. This cost is not stationary, depending on conditions.
3.	$9,423.72 in 1908-9, not including the salary and ex-penses of the inspector of fisheries, which are chargeable to the whole province.
4.	$4,671, in 1908-9.
Note-The year 1908-9 has been taken as the present one is not yet completed.


BRITISH COLUMBIA LIGHTHOUSES.
Mr. RALPH SMITH:: 1.	How many lighthouses are there in British Columbia ?

2.	What were the salaries of the light-keepers at the end of the financial year 1907-1908?
3.	What are their salaries to-day?
4.	Why have some salaries been reduced, and when did the changes of salaries take place ?
Question allowed to stand as notice of motion.


CANADIAN GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES.
Mr. RALPH SMITH:: 1.	What is the revenue to date from the sale of Canadian government annuities?
2.	llow many persons are purchasing annuities?
3.	What are the occupations of the persons purchasing?
4.	What amount is represented in annuities applied for?
5.	What is the average annuities applied for?
6.	In what provinces are agents or representatives for explaining the features of the Act employed?
7.	Have any manufacturers or other employers of labour been in communication with the department with a view to purchasing
annuities for their employees?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: 1.	$337,634.56.
2.	426-Ontario	266
Quebec	  46
Nova Scotia	 32
Manitoba	 21
British Columbia	 20
Alberta	 19
New Brunswick	 13
Saskatchewan	 6
Prince Edward Island.. ..	2
Yukon Territory	   1
3.	Accountants, Attorney General, bookkeepers, bank clerks, barristers, barbers, business managers, bakers, boiler makers, brick makers, clergymen, clerks, civil servants, carpenters, civil engineers, chemical engineers, cable operators, children, compositors, dressmakers, domestics, dentists, draughtsmen, druggists deaconesses, Dominion immigration inspector, excise officers, electricians, farmers, ferrymen, freight checkers, factory hands, freight agents, florists, geologists, gardeners, grocers, harness makers, insurance agents, lithographers, librarians, lumbermen, locomotive engineers, labourers, married women, merchants, mariners, music teachers, miners, Northwest Mounted Police, physicians, photographers, postmasters, property agents, printers, pedlars, port stewards, picture framers, polish maker, reporters, spinsters, students, stenographers, shipping clerks, shoemakers, solicitors, station agents, shantymen, school inspectors, superintendent of homes, teachers, trained nurses, travellers, tailors, trackmen, telegraphers.
4.	$100,007.63.
5.	$240.
6.	Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia. Chief lecturer covering all provinces of the Dominion.
7.	Yes.


VACANCIES IN SENATE.
Mr. JAMESON:: 1.	How many vacancies now exist in the Nova Scotia representation in the Canadian Senate, and when did any such occur?
2.	Have any names been submitted to the government by any person or persons for recommendation to His Excellency? If so, what names?
3.	When will the vacancies be filled?


Wilfrid Laurier: There are two vacancies in the Senate to-day in Nova Scotia. I am sorry I cannot give at this moment the dates at which they occurred. No names have been submitted to His Excellency for any appointment, but the vacancies will be filled in a very short time.


ORDNANCE STORE, OTTAWA.
[Stage Direction]
Mr.. WORTHINGTON:
1.	Has any damage been recently caused by fire to the ordnance store building at Ottawa?
If so, what is the approximate loss to building and stock?
2.	What is the approximate value of stores held on ordnance charge at Ottawa?
3.	What is the strength of Canadian Ordnance Corps at Ottawa, including attached officers, non-commissioned officers and men, and civilian employees?
4.	Does the Canadian Ordnance Corps maintain a night guard or watchman at this building? If not, why not?
Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	(a) Approximate loss to building, including heating, electric wiring and elevators, $20,000.
(b) 2, 3, 4. To be answered by the Department of Militia and Defence.


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN:: 1.	(b) Yes. Approximate Public Works answers. Approximate loss of clothing through fire, $120,000; approximate damage to stock through smoke and water, $30,000.
2.	Approximate value of stores and clothing, $900,000.
3.	Officers 5; warrant officers, non-commissioned officers and men, 30; civilian armourers, 1; civilian labourers, 1; civilian transport driver, 1.
4.	No. The duty of patrolling the building at night is performed by the Dominion Police.


GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Mr. LENNOX:: 1.	Referring to a letter from the Auditor General to the Secretary of the National Transcontinental Railway Commission, of the 18th of August, 1909, in which the Auditor *



General points out that 64,192 cubic yards of excavation, classified at an average price of 83-06 cents, were subsequently reclassified at $1,101 per cubic yard, and the cost thereby increased by the sum of $17,433.80, and asking for an explanation. Has this letter been answered? If so, when?
2.	Wbat was the cause of the delay?
3.	In any case, what is the explanation?


Mr. GRAHAM.: The Transcontinental Eailway Commission answer as follows:
1.	Yes, 8th and 10th November instant.
2.	Matter was taken up with the^ engineers, and an order in council obtained in accordance with the advice of Justice Department.
3.	The price referred to was the result of an agreement with the contractor by the late chief engineer of the commission and approved by his. successor who reported that, ' In the interest of the economical construction of the road this price for rock borrow should stand.' The explanation is too long to incorporate in an answer to a question, and can be best furnished in the form of a return giving copies of the correspondence relating to the matter.


Mr. LENNOX:: 1.	Referring to a letter of the 18th August, 1909, from the Auditor General to the Secretary of the National Transcontinental Railway Commission, in which he calls the attention of the commission to 581 yards (cubic) of excavation returned and paid for at $10 per cubic yard, and other quantities at the same price, and asks for an explanation as to why the price should exceed $2.50 per cubic vard. Has this letter been answered? If so, when?
2.	What caused the delay.
3.	In any case, what is the explanation?


George Perry Graham: The Transcontinental Eailway Commission answer as follows:
1.	Yes, on the 10th November, instant.
2.	Matter was taken up with engineers.
3.	Price referred to was arranged between contractor and late chief engineer of the Transcontinental Eailway Commission, but was disallowed by his successor, as a result of an opinion given by the Deputy Minister of Justice.


Mr. LENNOX:: 1. Has the letter of the Auditor General of the 16th December, 1908, to the Secretary of the National Transcontinental Railway Commission re contractors in default in completing work, been answered? If so, when? If not, why not?


Mr. GEAHAM.: The Transcontinental Railway Commission answer as follows:
1. Yes, on 12th November instant.


Mr. LENNOX:: 1.	Is there any provision in the contracts for construction of the Transcontinental railway that the contractor shall pav or forfeit $5,000 for each calendar month during which he makes default in completing his contract?
2.	If so, has this provision, in the opin-Mr. LENNOX.
ion of the minister, a tendency to increase the price at which the work is tendered for?
3.	Has this provision been enforced against
any of the contractors? If so, against which of them, and with what result?	_
4.	How many of the contractors are in default in this connection, what are their names, and for what period, respectively, have they been in default?	.
5.	In what cases have extensions of time been formally granted, and upon what terms and for what cause in each case?


Duncan Graham: The Transcontinental Railway Commission answer as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	No.
4.	The following contractors have not
Anally completed the work covered by their contracts within the time limit fixed bv their respective contracts:	Hogan &
MacDonell, 26 months beyond fixed date, contract covers work from north end o'f Quebec bridge to near La Tuque about 150 miles. Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, 14 months beyond fixed date. Contract covers from 150 miles west of Quebec bridge to Waymontachene about 45 miles. Grand Trunk Pacific Eailway Company about two months beyond fixed date, contract covers from 8 miles of A'bitibi river, easterly about 150 miles. O'Brien, Fowler & McDougall Brothers, about two months beyond fixed date. Contract covers about 24 miles easterly from Dog lake, Ontario. John D. McArthur. 26 months beyond fixed date. Contract covers from Winnipeg about 24 miles easterly.
5.	No extensions of time have been granted, and enforcement of penalty clause is a matter for consideration before final payments have been made.



IMPERIAL CONFERENCE SECRETARIAT.

Hon. GEO. E. FOSTER moved:: 
George Eulas Foster: other. The Belgian and German treaties and the most favoured nation clauses came in for a very thorough review, and these resolutions I have read-the two former especially-were for the purpose of clearing away as far as possible the obstacles which existed in the way of preferential arrangements.
With reference to communications, strong ground was taken on two matters. One was an arrangement for fast lines of steamships on the Pacific beween British Columbia and the east, especially Australasia and New Zealand, and the principal of co-operation was invoked, namely, that as the scheme was for the benefit of the empire, it should be supported by the constituent parts of the empire between which these steamship lines were to ply. Strong ground was taken with reference to a Pacific cable, and a resolution passed asking the British government to have a survey made, subject to the condition that the expense of the survey should be shared mutually between the British government, the government of Canada and the government of Australasia; and in order to keep this resolution alive, another resolution was added giving into the hands of the Canadian government the pressing of this to a conclusion. I may say that this resolution followed on the assent of the Earl of Jersey to the British government undertaking the survey and paying a portion of the cost. Canada assented through her representative as did the representatives of the Australasian colonies. These, then, were the results of the conference of 1894, a conference which was characterized by great unanimity, great interest and a more hopeful feeling that the period of discussion would quickly merge into a period of more or less full developments along the lines that were then discussed.
The next conference held was that of 1897. It was called by Mr. Joseph Chamberlain on the 60th anniversary occasion of Her Maiesty's ascension. It met in June, and continued for some days. The usual countries were represented. The Secretary of State presented a memorandum dealing with three matters, political, defence and commercial relations and incidentally with the Pacific cable. With reference to commercial relations it was resolved:
1. That an early denunciation of any treaties now hampering the commercial relations of Great Britain and the oolonies is desirable.
Having special reference to the Belgian and German treaties which have since been denounced. The various colonial premiers undertook to confer with their colleagues as to a preference on the products which may be imported from the United Kingdom. With reference to political relations, a resolution was passed affirming that the present political situation and relations were satisfactory, to which Mr. Seddon and Mr. Brad-don dissented. Another resolution was passed affirming:
That it is desirable whenever practicable to group into federal union colonies which are geographically united.
That has borne fruit in the subsequent union of different colonies into the commonwealth of Australia. A third resolution affirms that it is desirable to have periodical conferences at which matters of common interest may be discussed. The memorandum goes on to state that although a resolution was passed as to the present relations being satisfactory, it was the decided feeling of the conference that these could not last very much longer, that they could not continue indefinitely, that some means was desirable of giving the colonies a voice in the control and direction of questions of imperial interest, those more especially affecting the colonies. It was also felt that such control, or such voice in control, would bring its corresponding obligations of assistance and of help. With reference to defence, the Australian squadron was continued with some changes, and a resolution was passed in that sense. The premiers agreed that on their return they would examine into the practicability and possibility of interchange of military units beween the mother country and the colonies. With reference to penny postage, it was found to be impracticable on account of the revenue necessities of several of the colonies. With regard to the Pacific cable, it was discussed but little in that conference, the representatives feeling that they should make themselves better acquainted with the reports which had been obtained, and examine them before coming to any conclusions.
The next conference held was that of 1902. It was held in London and was called on the 23rd of lanuary of that year, and the meetings extended from June until August. The occasion of the calling of the conference of 1887-the first one-was a ceremonial one. It was called on the 50th anniversary of Her Majesty's reign. The occasion of the calling of the conference of 1902 was also a ceremonial one, that of the King's coronation. Advantage was taken of that event to bring representatives of the different over-seas countries in communication with the British government. All the over-seas dominions were represented and many very able men brought together. Of course, I think myself, that the ceremonial part of the proceedings rather interfered with the business outcome, but at the same time opportunity was had for extended discussion. We have not, however, any report of the discussion, inasmuch as at the beginning of the conference of 1902 it was decided that the resolutions arrived at and a summary only of the proceedings should be

which shows the position that was taken by Canada at that conference. It is found in the appendix, page 73 of the return for 1902:
The Canadian ministers regret that they have been unable to assent to the suggestions made by Lord Selborne respecting a nary, and by Mr. St. John Brodrick resoecting the army. The ministers desire to point out that their objections arise, not so much from the expense involved, as from a belief that the acceptance of the proposals would entail an important departure from the principle of colonial government. Canada values highly the measure of local independence which has been granted her from time to time by the imperial authorities, and which has been so productive of beneficial results, both as respects the material progress of the country and the strengthening of the ties that bind it to the motherland. But while, for these reasons, the Canadian ministers are obliged to withhold their assent to the propositions of the admiralty and the war office, they fully appreciate the duty of the Dominion, as it advances in population and wealth, to make more liberal outlay for these necessary preparations of self defence which every country has to asume and bear.
Then follows a recapitulation, through four or five paragraphs, of what Canada has done in expenditure upon her militia and the militia pension law, and cites as a proof of the availability and effectiveness of that system that:
At the time of the, Boer war a thousand men in the first contingent were drawn from every section of Canada embraced within 4,000 miles of territory, and was organized, fully equipped and embarked within a period of 14 days; and a second contingent composed of 1,200 men was shortly afterwards similarly organized, equipped and embarked within the space of three weeks.
Then it ends up with this part, which is of course the more important part of the memorandum:
At present Canadian expenditures for defence services are confined to the military side. The Canadian government are prepared to consider the naval system of defence as well. On the sea coast of Canada there is a large number of men admirably qualified to form a naval reserve, and it is hoped that at an early date a system may be devised which will lead to the training of these men and to the making of their services available for defence in time of need.
The House will note that, both with reference to the military and with reference to the naval side, this memorandum confines the effort and good will of Canada's representatives entirely to the lines of selfdefence, the defence of Canada itself.
In conclusion, the ministers repeat that, while the Canadian government are obliged to dissent from the measures proposed, they fully appreciate the obligation of the Dominion to make expenditures for the purpose Mr. FOSTER.
of defence in proportion to the increasing population and wealth of the country. They are willing that these expenditures should be so directed as to relieve the taxpayer of the mother country from some of the burdens which she now bears; and have the strongest desire to carry out their defence schemes in co-operation with the imperial authorities, and under the advice of the experienced imperial officers, so far as this is consistent witli the principle of local self government, which lias proved so great a factor in the promotion of imperial unity.
This, I think, sets forth the position of the different participants in that conference upon the question of naval defence. With reference to military defence, no definite conclusion was reached at this conference. The Secretary of State for War and New Zealand suggested an imperial reserve, that is a special body of troops ear-cnarked for imperial service, and held ready in the different colonies for emergencies when they arose. Cape Colony and Natal agreed to that principle; Canada and Australia thought it best to raise the standard of the training of the general body of the forces, leaving it for the colonies to determine the nature and the extent of the assistance when an emergency arose; and both argued that in that way you would avoid any jealousy that might arise from there being two kinds of militia, so to speak, one, a special reserve marked for a special purpose, and the other thrown alongside of them, the general militia of Canada. In that respect I am not at all saying that I do not think the position taken by Australia and Canada was a proper position. I am not here to comment on this to-day. but simply to make the review. Resolutions were passed with reference to government contracts, that is, favouring the colonies, the parts of the empire itself, in giving government contracts for the militia and military, and with reference to the nomination of cadetships; and I think the number of cadetships at that time was somewhat enlarged so as to open up a larger career to young men from the colonies. There was also a general agreement as to the bringing, as far as possible, the organization of the militia down to a common principle and a common system so that, as far as possible, the same general equipments and all that kind of thing might be standardized, as it were throughout the different parts of the empire, so that, if ever a time came that the forces of the empire were to be massed together for a supreme effort there would be no disparity and the different parts of the work in every direction could be carried on with the greatest possible effectiveness. So much with reference to defence matters at that conference.
Taking up the political relations, we find the following were the Tesults: It was re-

solved that there should be quadrennial conferences and that if, within a period of four years, any special occasion arose subsidiary conferences, if necessary, might be called. It was also resolved that the views of the colonies affected upon foreign treaties be obtained before ratification of these treaties by Great Britain. An agreement was also reached between the different parties to the conference on an imperial court of appeals. When we come to commercial arrange-! ments and relations, there was a longer discussion and there was some definite advance made. A general debate showed differences of opinion and conditions and here again the step was taken of having the conference dissolve itself into a system of conferences between individual colonies and the President of the Board of Trade. On the reassembling of these conferences the following were announced as the results: Canada, having given a 334 per cent, expressed its willingness to make an additional concession in one or all of three ways-either by reducing the duties to Great Britain on her imports into this country, or by raising the duties on imports from foreign countries, or by imposing duties on foreign free imports. Australia promised a preference on imports from Great Britain but was not able to define at that conference just exactly what it would be. New Zealand promised a 10 per cent reduction all round on manufactured goods imported into New Zealand or an equivalent on the same lines as were stated with reference to Canada, upon either one or all of the three plans. Natal promised a 25 per cent preference on all dutiable goods, with the exception of some that were specially rated. Then there was a general resolution passed which is somewhat important. That general resolution recognized (a) the principle of mutual nre-ferential trade, (b) that free trade is impossible within the empire, (c) that the colonies should give a substantial preference to Great Britain's products, (d) that Great Britain should give preferential treatment to the colonies, and (e) that the premiers present undertook to bring the matters before their legislatures on their return, and to submit to' their respective governments measures to carry out these conclusions that were arrived at. That especially had reference to the legislatures carrying out, when they were assembled and received the reports from the premiers who were present at this conference, what the premiers all promised and which I have just detailed. Canada contended that Great Britain should give an exemption on Canadian food products from the recent duties imposed on certain food products coming into Great Britain. These were known as the war duties and it was contended that in right Canada should have that because of the preference she had given and the representatives of
Canada stated that they were willing to make further concessions if the British government would grant that. For a wider preference they would go still further and presented a resolution affirming the principle of preferential trade, the advisability of its adoption by the colonies generally and that Great Britain should reciprocate. That is the resolution which I just a moment before analysed. Then they made the statement that if that principle was not acceptable to the colonies and the mother country Canada would hold herself free to choose her own course thereafter.
With reference to other questions, there were discussions upon mail services, and shipping subsidies, patent protection, purchase of ocean cables, merchant shipping laws, stamp duties, wireless telegraphs, metric system, newspaper postage, naturalization and professional employment in South Africa. All of these were discussed. This in brief is the result of the conference of 1902.
The next conference was held in 1907. That was called and met from April 15, until the 14th May. The Earl of Elgin was in the chair, the colonies were all represented, I think, without any exception. India also was represented for the first time at a colonial conference, and the Prime Minister and other ministers of His Majesty's government were present and took part in the various discussions. The resolutions that were come to as a result of the conference are in brief these: a resolution for establishing, as it were, the permanency of the imperial conference, that it should be held every four years, that it should be a conference consisting of the Prime Ministers of the outside Dominions, of the Prime Minister of Great Britain, with other ministers attending the Prime Ministers and taking part in the discussions upon the various questions, more particularly those which were technical to the different departments, but that each colony or portion of the empire should have one vote, each premier. could be assisted by two of his colleagues at any discussion and that no more than two persons should take part in that discussion. What was particularly important at this conference was the formation of a secretarial staff or secretariat as it was called. This was thought necessary to fill a long-felt want. The trouble with the old conferences was that, once the conference had ended and the resolutions had been passed, there did not seem to be any machinery to keep these resolutions alive, and, as regards a coming conference, there did not appear to be any machinery to prepare, collate and gather information. It was so arranged that this information should be presented not after the conference took place, when the delegates and representatives would be so busy that it would be

almost impossible for them to digest the information, but to have it prepared, at a sufficiently early period and put in the hands of the representatives so that reasoned judgments and opinions could be given upon the digestion and consideration of that information.
Very strong ground was taken by Mr. Deakin, Sir Joseph Ward, and the representatives of Cape Colony and Natal. The Canadian representation did not see quite the same necessity for a secretariat but Sir Wilfrid Laurier declared he had an open mind. The Australian delegates with the Cape and Natal were in favour of a secretariat which would be responsible to the Prime Minister of Great Britain, and attached to his office as head of the conference, this secretariat to be the creation of the conference itself and to be paid by the conference. Sir Joseph Ward and the Canadian representatives took the ground that there must be a responsible head as the Colonial Secretary was the proper head and that argument triumphed when the Prime Minister stated that it was impossible for him to take on this added burden, and when Lord Elgin proposed to take charge if it in his own department, to separate absolutely the Crown colonies from the self-governing colonies and to secure a secretarial staff whose whole duty it would be to look after the affairs of the conference and perform the duties of the secretariat which had been urged as necessary. That idea was unanimously agreed to, and one object of my motion to-day is to find out, if I can, from the government what steps have been taken as regards the organization of that staff and what work has been done by it. There was a strong feeling in the conference that such a link was absolutely ne-' cessary in order to join conference to conference, to maintain continuity, and to contribute to the effectiveness of the work of each succeeding conference. There was some difference of opinion as to the name the conference should go by; it had been suggested by Australia that it should be called the imperial council, but on the suggestion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier it was unanimously decided to call it the imperial conference. There, however, was no difference of opinion as to its still being maintained as consultative only and not having in any way legislative or executive authority.


William Findlay Maclean: By whom is the expense of the secretarial staff paid?


George Eulas Foster: By the British government.


William Findlay Maclean: I thought you said that all the colonies should join in its maintenance?


George Eulas Foster: Had it been a secretariat responsible to the conference alone as was Mr. FOSTER.
proposed, the expense would be paid by ! the different members to the conference, but as the other scheme was adopted, I understand it is regarded as one of the expenses of the Colonial Secretary's department.
On the question of military defence I read with extreme interest the two memoranda which were submitted from the naval and military point of view and though but a layman I should say they were verv able state documents. The members of the conference may not have agreed with everything in these two memoranda but that they were able state papers there was a complete unanimity of opinion. In the memorandum upon military defence two ideas were brought out-that there should be a business management of the militia, that the Militia Department should have brains as well as body, and that therefore the prime requisite of any perfect system was an imperial staff whose duty it would be to study strategic war organization, the conditions of defence in every part of the empire, and to give their complete attention to that subject. That is the plan that largely contributed to the success of Germany; that is the plan which every great military power now puts into execution. The imperial staff which was to be an advisory board and nothing more, should, in the opinion of Mr. Haldane, the author of the memorandum be made really imperial and should take in every portion of the British empire which has a militia organization, and by way of advice, and of counsel, and of interchange of officers, and of information arrive at the best conclusion as to what should be done for the empire as a whole. The memorandum contemplated that if it were possible there should be two lines of defence the empire through. As Great Britain herself has an army which is kept ready to strike whilst she has also defensive forces, her militia, or at present her territorial army at home, it would be well if it could possibly be carried out, to have the same carried out in every one of the self-governing colonies; but Mr. Haldane expressed the difficulty he found in carrying that out in Great Britain itself, the territorial army there being a volunteer force, and the militia in all the British dominions being also, I think, a volunteer force, although I am not sure but Natal or the Cape has a compulsory system. However, the main idea that was promulgated in Mr. Haldane's memorandum was the necessity of having this imperial staff, which was acceded to unanimously by the conference. It was suggested that it would be well, if possible, to have a portion of the forces in every over-seas dominion, as well as in Great Britain, ear-marked for outside service when emergencies arose. That, however, was abandoned, as I have said. So that what was really contemplated by

Mr. Haldane was this striking force in Great Britain, a second line of defence in Great Britain and a second line of defence in every one of the self-governing dominions. These were the broad principles on which this memorandum was based, and these principles, I think, received the unanimous assent of the conference. Three basic facts were laid down in that memorandum as obligations upon all members of the empire (a) that each unit should provide for its local security; (b) arrangement for mutual assistance in cases of supreme need; and (c) the necessity of the maintenance of sea-supremacy. It was argued in the memorandum, and ably argued, that as far as possible the methods, the equipment, the arms, the ammunition, the units of force, all these technicalities of administration, should be in all parts of the empire standardized and on an equal basis. The resolution which was come to by the conference, and which will be found on page 5, was as follows:
That this conference welcomes and cordially approves the exposition of general principles embodied in the statement of the Secretary of State of War, and, without wishing to commit any of the governments represented, recognizes and affirms the need of developing for the service of the empire a general staff, selected from the forces of the empire as a whole, which shall study military science in all its branches, shall collect and disseminate to the various governments military information and intelligence, shall undertake the preparation of schemes of defence on a common principle, and, without in the least interfering in questions connected with command and administration, shall, at the request of the respective governments, advise as to the training, education, and war organization of the military forces of the Crown in. every part of the empire.
Leaving the military side of the question, and coming to the naval side, we find an interesting discussion and interesting conclusions that were come to. Lord Tweed-mouth was the exponent of the British government on naval defence. What he declared in the main was that they wanted the over-seas dominions to help them make more complete the naval defence of the empire. He held strongly to the necessity of the admiralty having the management, and without constraint, in the time of war. He was glad to get contributions in money, or, if not in money, in kind, and he welcomed the latter almost as heartily as the former. Unity of command and direction of the fleet, however, he maintained must be kept. He was in favour of help being given by the colonies in the way of smaller defence vessels for squadrons, in the way of docks, in the fitting up of establishments for receiving and repairing warships, in the initiation and maintenance of coaling vessels. All these are of great advantage in
the defence of the empire, and if these are provided by the colonies, very substantial aid will be given in the general purpose of imperial defence. I think it well, to read this extract from Lord Tweedmouth's memorandum :
We welcome you, and we ask you to take some leading part in making more complete than it is at present the naval defence of the empire. I wish to recognize all that our cousins over the sea have done in consequence of decisions of former conferences. I know that you gave to the government and to the admiralty, with a free and unstinting hand, the help that you thought you could manage to give. Gentlemen, I have only one reservation to make, and in making it I ask that, as we have proved ourselves successful in the past, you should put your trust in us now. The only reservation that the admiralty desire to make is, that they claim to have the charge of these strategical questions which are necessarily involved in naval defence, to hold the command of the naval forces of the country, and to arrange the distribution of ships in the best possible manner to resist attack and to defend the empire at large, whether it be our own islands or the dominions beyond the seas. We thoroughly recovnize that we are responsible for that defence. We want you to help us in that defence. We want you to give us all the assistance you can, but we do not come to you as beggars; we gladly take all that you can give us, but at the same time, if you are not inclined to give us the help that we hope to have from you, we acknowledge our absolute obligation to defend the King's dominions across the seas to the best of our ability.
Upon this a discussion arose, participated in by the representatives of all the portions of the empire represented at the conference. Mr. Deakin, speaking for Australia, which is now contributing largely in money to the defence under certain conditions, made the statement that this contribution was not altogether satisfactory-that, as he read the spirit of his people, it was felt that something more must be done. The squadron furnished by Australia was at first to be confined to Australian waters, but afterwards could be extended to Chinese waters. The feeling to which Mr. Deakin gave expression was that although no very formidable fleet might break the first line of defence, it might be possible that marauders -two or three cruisers fitted out for a sharp descent-might break the lines and find the harbours of Australia entirely defenceless. So he thought something should be done by Australia at once towards putting her harbours into a state of defence and if possible at reasonable cost, go further and patrol the more valuable portions of the coast. Sir Jos. Ward, who represented New Zealand, came out straight for contribution and contribution alone. His dominion was too small to build a fleet, and they preferred to give what they had to give to the British admiralty to expend as the British admir-

alty thought fit. When Canada's turn came Mr. Brodeur spoke, and as what he said is somewhat important, I shall refer to it a little in detail:


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Brodeur will speak for Canada.


Mr. BRODEUR.: 
Wilfrid Laurier: I am sorry to say, so far as Canada is concerned, we cannot agree to the resolution. We took the ground many years ago that we had enough to do in our respect in that country before committing ourselves to a general claim. The government of Canada has done a great deal in that respect. Our action was not understood, but I was glad to see that the First Lord of the Admiralty admitted we had done much more than he was aware of. It is impossible, in my humble opinion, to have a uniform policy on this matter, the disproportion is too great between the mother country and the colonies. We have too much to do otherwise; in the mother country, you must remember, they have no expenses to incur with regard to public works; whereas, in most of the colonies certainly in Canada, we have to tax ourselves to the utmost of our resources in the development of our country, and we could not contribute, or undertake to do more than we are doing in that way. For my part, if the motion were pressed to a conclusion, I should have to vote against it.


Dr. SMARTT.: But the public works to which you refer are of a reproductive character which are vital to the interests of your Dominion.


Wilfrid Laurier: Some of our railways have never paid a cent of interest or expenses.


Thomas Aaron Hartt: Still, it is developing and opening up the country to an enormous extent. All the colonies are building developing railways of a character which may not be revenue producing for years. I thought the wording of this resolution would have specially met your views because towards the up-keep of the navy it may take the form either of a grant of money or the establishment of a local defence force or other services. I understand Canada suggested strongly the other day that some of their other services were in the nature of local defence.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have said all I have to say on the subject.


Thomas Aaron Hartt: I should like very much to hear the opinions of the representatives of the other portions of the empire.


Mr.   DEAKIN@: I have no hesitation in entering into the discussion if desired; but if we are not going to pass the resolution, is it worth whi le ?	.


Thomas Aaron Hartt: I think it is a great pity we do not pass something. We have done so

much in the way of pious affirmation, that I am anxious we should do something of a practical character.


Wilfrid Laurier: It can be passed if there is a majority. For my part I must vote against it.


Sir JOSEPH WARD.: To do any good we would require to be unanimous about it.


Thomas Aaron Hartt: Yes, I suppose so.


Mr. WINSTON CHURCHILL.: It is not much good to have a resolution at all if we cannot be unanimous.


The CHAIRMAN.: I think we had better not proceed any further just now.


Wilfrid Laurier: We, of the different dominions beyond the seas, have tried to be unanimous up to the present time. I am sorry to say this is a question upon which we could not be unanimous. Therefore, Dr. Smartt can move it if he chooses or withdraw it, but if he presses it I should have to vote against it.


Thomas Aaron Hartt: 1 am absolutely in the hands of the conference. I do not want to press a resolution that is not likely to meet with the general approval of practically everybody on the conference, especially a resolution of this particular character. We might, perhaps, let it stand over until the next sitting. Between this and Tuesday I may be able to modify it in some way to meet Sir Wilfrid's view.
Nothing further was done and that represents the situation as far as naval defence is concerned.
Other questions of more or less importance were discussed, but I have not time to refer to any except the trade question With reference to the trade question, I will give the summary in the resolutions which after a debate were passed. I may say that the debate was an extended and a very able one, and all views were placed fully before the conference. The result was that the resolutions of 1902 were reaffirmed, with the representatives of the British government dissenting in so faT as the implication that it is necessary or expedient to alter the fiscal system of the United Kingdom. Those resolutions I read in discussing the conference of 1902 and it is not necessary at this point to recapitulate them. The ground that was taken was ground that had been strongly affirmed in 1902 and the conference did not see that they could go beyond that although several members of the conference were strongly of the opinion that a forward step by resolution, if it could possibly be agreed upon, ought to be made. A resolution was passed providing:
That all doubts should be removed as to the rights of the self-governing dependencies to make reciprocal and preferential fiscal agreements with each other and with the United Kingdom, and further, that sucb right should not be fettered by imperial treaties or conventions without their concurrence.
Among other subjects taken up were international penny postage and imperial Mr. FOSTER.
cable communication, and then, towards the latter part of the conference, the All Red Route resolution which we have already had discussed in parliament and to which I need not further refer. Such, in brief, were the results of the conference of 1907.
Now to conclude: We have had conferences commenced in the way I have stated, begun in 1887, repeated in 1894, 1897, 1902 and 1907; and this latest conference in 1909, of which, as it is fresh before us, I should say nothing at the present time. No one will doubt, I think, that these conferences have grown in public commendation, and they have grown in their sphere of action, grown in their usefulness, grown in the greater knowledge which public men of the empire have been able to form of the different questions affecting others than their own .countries, grown in that personal contact and sympathy which arises therefrom, and the mutually good understanding which takes place as a result of those conferences, that which is not by any means the least important of the benefits that have been conferred; until to-day they have taken a character of absolute permanency, with their own secretarial staff, the link -being thus found for their continuity and their action. They constitute in fact the only imperial parliament that we have, and a regal and worthy imperial parliament it is, in its way- consultative simply and solely, advisory one with the other, without any functions, legislative or executive, but still a parliament composed of the empire's strongest and best men from the different portions of the empire, collected on the basis of popular selection, and so supposed to be representative in the very highest way. It is this quadrennial parliament, which may meet more frequently, which has grown up almost without our noticing it, which has gradually taken to itself power and influence without any legislative or executive character, but influencing the very centre, and from the very centre the very outside limits of the empire, a parliament which draws the great men, the chief men of the empire, together at stated times for the development of plans, the consideration of sentiments. Therefore it must have a tremendous effect in coming to wise decisions, in avoiding comnlications which otherwise would be sure to take place, and in leading in a general sense the empire along the lines of certitude and of reasonable safety. It may be that we shall never have any other imperial parliament. I cannot say. In the meantime I, for one, am content with this, and I hope that in the future as in the past, the same able contingents may form the delegates and representatives to these conferences, that the same unanimity and wisdom may

characterize their discussions and their conclusions. History -not long in the future will write many pages about this new addition to the British constitution and the British system; and this history will not be written with the first pages that are made. I for my part look to it, however it may expand, gradually or more rapidly, as the one medium of the exposition of the best and strongest sentiments that prevail in the empire.
Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER
(Prime Minister). My hon. friend has presented the observations with which he has favoured the House in the manner that he promised us at the outset, that is to say, in no partizan spirit. If he will permit me to say so, I offer him my hearty commendation. The only observation I will make is that he has presented the conclusions of the different conferences that have taken place in a very fair and accurate manner.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that he had received from the Clerk of the House a certificate of the election and return of Duncan C. Ross, Esq., for the electoral district of West Middlesex.

[Stage Direction]
Duncan Campbell Ross, member elect fir the district of West Middlesex, introduc id by Sir Wilfrid. Laurier and Mr. Mackenzie King.

Mr. JAMESON.: I wish to ask the Rt. Hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) if he has vet decided whether he will elect to sit for East Quebec or Ottawa?


Wilfrid Laurier: No, I have not yet decided.



RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On the order for the second reading of Bill (No. 2) to amend the Railway Act.- Mr. Lancaster.
Mr. LANCASTER.: The Minister of Railways was obliged to go away this afternoon and he asked me to allow these orders of mine to stand until to-morrow, which I am willing to do.
Order allowed to stand.



MOTIONS AGREED TO WITHOUT DISCUSSION.

[Stage Direction]
For a copy of all correspondence, orders, proceedings of courts of inquiry, or other
documents or papers, in connection with charges of malfeasance of office made against the officer commanding No. 5 company, Canadian Army Service Corps, or the officer second in command of this company.-Mr. Worthington.
For a return showing the total number of incubators and brooders, respectively, imported into Canada from the United States during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1909, and the total cost of each.-Mr. White.
For a return showing approximately the amount of revenue collected by the government between the 1st January, 1908, and the 1st November, 1909, in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, respectively, on account of payments for coal lands, coal royalties, bonuses and rental on timber lands, timber dues, hay lands, grazing lands, irrigation areas, school lands, minerals, water powers, stone quarrying lands, Indian lands, or on account of any natural resources within each of the above provinces.-Mr. McCarthy.
For a copy of all letters, correspondence and complaints, or other papers, from Indians or others regarding the manner in which the St. Peter's Indians have been treated, relating to lands allotted to them by the government in consideration of the surrender of the St. Peter's reserve.-Mr. Bradbury.
For a return showing the total amount paid by the government in each year since 1896, for all printing, advertising and lithographing done outside of 'the Government Printing Bureau; the total amount so paid by each department of the government* for such purposes during each year; the names and addresses of each individual, firm or corporation to whom any such moneys have been so paid, and the total amount paid to each such individual, firm or corporation in each year since 1896. What portion of the said sums, if any, so paid since 1896 was expended after public advertisement, tender and contract, to whom such tenders were awarded, whether to the lowest tender in each case, what portion was expended otherwise than by public advertisement, tender and contract, and to whom it was paid in each instance.-Mr. Armstrong.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
George Eulas Foster: Before the House goes into Committee of Supply, I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mir. Fisher) if he has yet found the tracing that was to form a part of the report of the Committee on Forestry?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, and instructions have been given to have it reproduced so that each member will have a copy as soon as possible.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Department Indian. Affairs-salaries, $1U.-825.	[DOT]
Mr. BLAIN.: I see a very large number of items for expenses in connection with

the payment of annuities to Indians. Would the minister give us a statement as to "what the total amount of expenses is in connection with paying annuities to Indians?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior).: The information asked by my hon. friend is of a character that is not compiled in that form in our records arid will require a general search through the records in order to procure it. I will have to ask my hon. friend for time to prepare the information that he asks.


Richard Blain: Every year we pay large amounts in travelling expenses, railway fares and pullman cars to distribute tins money. Could this money not be sent to the local banks, without the necessity of a special messenger, and the agents pay the annuities?


Frank Oliver: The course suggested by my hon. friend is followed so far as possible, but in connection with the treaties in northern Ontario, northern Alberta, northern Saskatchewan, and the. territory north of Manitoba, the treaty money must be carried by an officer whose duty it is to pay it out, and as he must be accompanied by a party the expense is very considerable.


Richard Blain: Would the minister furnish a statement of the amount of money carried in this way and the total expense of distributing it.


Frank Oliver: Yes, but it will take some time to prepare. .	,


George Eulas Foster: Is Mr. Laird employed in the Indian Department here?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Is he a civil servant?


Frank Oliver: Yes, in division A of the first division.	,
Roval Northwest Mounted Police-Salaries, $18,425.


Wilfrid Laurier: There are no changes in the staff; the increases are simply the statutory increases.


Mr. DANIEL.: Is it the intention to continue the Northwest Mounted Police at the present numerical strength?


Wilfrid Laurier: This is the vote for civil government and that information would be given more properly on the vote for the Northwest Mounted Police, but I may say to my hon. friend that while we are diminishing the force in the Yukon, it is our intention to maintain the strength of the force as it is at present.
Department of Trade and Commerce-Salaries, $44,887.50.


Wilfrid Laurier: There are no increases with the exception of provision Mr. BLAIN.
for two additional clerks in subdivision B of the third division at $500 each, and the appointment of an actuarv in subdivision B of the first division at $2,100. These are for the annuities branch.


George Eulas Foster: Who is the superintendent of the branch?


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Bastedo.


George Eulas Foster: Who is the actuary?


Wilfrid Laurier: I cannot tell my hon. friend just now.


George Eulas Foster: Will the minister give us any reason why we should have an actuary?


Wilfrid Laurier: I am sorry to say that I cannot give the information today. If my hon. friend wants it, I will let the item stand.


George Eulas Foster: I think this annuities branch will provoke some discussion. I would like to have a full explanation in regard to it.
Item allowed to stand.
Public works chargeable to Capital-Ottawa Astronomical Observatory-additional buildings, etc., $11,000.


William Pugsley: This is asked to make provision for the completion of the residence for the chief astronomer, also two azimuth huts in connection with the observatory, applied for by the Department of the Interior.


Mr. CROCKET.: What is the total cost?


William Pugsley: For the residence, $17,000 and for the two azimuth huts, $6,000, making a total of $23,041.49. According to the chief architect's estimate, $1,291.71 additional will be required.


John Waterhouse Daniel: This is just for the building, not for any furniture in it?


William Pugsley: It includes the electric wirineand fixtures, heating and boiler, but not IheT furniture. I have made no provision for the furniture. I have no intimation from the Interior Department that we shall be asked to do the furnishing. I would think that would be done by the chief astronomer himself.


George Eulas Foster: What is the building made of?


William Pugsley: It is a brick and stone building, two stories, with a wooden attic and a concrete and stone basement. Tenders were called for, and the lowest tender was $12,300, which was accepted.


George Eulas Foster: How comes it to be $17,000 now?


William Pugsley: This figure of $12,300 does not include the cost of heating and boiler, electric wiring and fixtures, side-

walks, fencing, contingencies and superintendence.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Were tenders called for the works not covered by the contract?


William Pugsley: No tenders have yet been .called for these.


George Eulas Foster: How much is estimated for the installation of the heating apparatus?


William Pugsley: $1,500. Office fixtures and electric wiring $1,000, sidewalks and fencing $500, contingencies and superintendence, $1,700. According to the present practice of the department, tenders will be called for electric wiring and fixtures, also for heating and boiler.


John Waterhouse Daniel: That is just for the residence of the astronomer royal?


William Pugsley: Yes, for the chief astronomer.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Does it usually take as much as $1,000 to establish light and fixtures in an ordinary house of that sort?


William Pugsley: That is the amount the architect estimates.


Mr. TURRIFF.: What is the total cost of the building complete?


William Pugsley: $17,041, including everything.


George Eulas Foster: Who made the requisition for the house?


William Pugsley: The Minister of the Interior.


John Gillanders Turriff: I do not intend to criticise the expenditure on that particular house because it is not very much out of the way, but I want to point out that very expensive buildings appear to have been put up for officers in connection with the Militia Department. There is not a minister living in a house which cost as much money as that, if you leave the site out of consideration. It would be well to go a little easier in expending public money on houses for government officials.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is this a new departure?


William Pugsley: It is a special case and was fully explained last session. The chief astronomer is required to live close to the observatory, and there was no building close by that could be obtained.


George Eulas Foster: What is his salary?


William Pugsley: I do not know. That is in the Interior Department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Surely it is not intended that this will not be furnished for the astronomer.


William Pugsley: I do not see why we should furnish it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Take the experimental farm, are not the residences there furnished? And if they are, will not the chief astronomer expect the same treatment as other officials have received?


William Pugsley: The argument my hon. friend is urging in favour of furnishing it will be carefully considered; but as at present advised, I am not disposed to furnish it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not furnishing any argument. If the hon. minister chooses to be facetious, he should have some better grounds. I was asking for information which he is here to give. I wanted to know if he would not be called on to furnish that residence, and he did not give a definite answer.


William Pugsley: My present view is not to furnish it. I did not intend to be facetious, but I understood my hon. friend to urge that the astronomer was as much entitled to have his house furnished as the officers at the experimental farm. If he did not intend to say that, I regret that I misunderstood him. I have informed the committee that I have not been asked to furnish the residence and. see no reason why I should furnish it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It was the hon. gentleman's indefinite answer which induced me to ask a further question. He said he was not aware the house was to be furnished, and I think it desirable that we should have now definitely the intention of the government, whether to furnish it or not.


William Pugsley: I thought I was as definite as I could be. The question of furnishing has not been brought before me and I do not see why the department should furnish it.


Richard Blain: Did the hon. minister not say to the committee last year that the government did not intend to furnish the house?	.


William Pugsley: I do not remember.


Mr. BOYCE.: Were the estimates for this house prepared under the instructions of the minister?


William Pugsley: They were prepared by the chief architect in the usual wav. There were no special instructions as to the exact form or detail.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Last session the minister got into a rather penitent frame of mind with regard to expenditure. I have recollections of his saying, almost with tears, that he was obliged to cut down some of the estimates for Public Works in order to keep them well within the_ revenue, which then was not as bounding as he would have liked to see it. It does seem now rather extraordinary that as high as $17,000 should be expended on a house for the astronomer. It is rather contradictory to find that the hon. minister, while deprecating extravagance, should agree to build so extravagant a house for a public servant. No doubt by the time it is completed it will cost $20,000 and possibly more.


George Eulas Foster: I am surprised at the mildness of the criticism by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) but I was still more surprised that he should have given expression to any criticism. If we just had about once a week some gentleman on that side, who knows just as well as men on this side, who would get up and condemn these extravagancies, even as mildly as my hon. friend has done, we would have a change that would save the country millions of dollars. I invite my hon. friend to do this thing oftener and more strongly, and he will find that he will do his country extraordinary good service. This expenditure is simply outrageous. There is no possible justification for it. I go into the homes of people all through this city and find gentlemen and their families living in good homes, which cost from eight to ten thousand dollars and many less. What reason is there that this official should have a $20,000 house built for him by the government. He would not build such a house for himself. The minister says he is not going to furnish this house, but is the disposal of that in his own hands? He was simply asked by the Minister of the Interior to build this residence. I do not know whether responsibility for the extravagant sum rests on the Minister of the Interior or the Minister of Public Works and his department but the sum is extravagant. Is it the intention of the government to furnish the house?


William Pugsley: It is not the intention to furnish the house. In saying that, I am speaking for the government. I do not quite agree with my hon. friend as to the price at which suitable residences can be purchased in Ottawa. I looked around with a view to purchasing a residence, and although I am not extravagant in my tastes, I did not find that I could get a fairly good residence for less than $20,000, and the result has been that I have not Mr. PUGSLEY.
felt myself able to purchase a residence so far in the city of Ottawa and I am living in somewhat humble apartments. A fairly good residence ranges from $15,000 to $30,000, some of them more than that. The chief astronomer is a high official of the government, and it having been decided to erect a residence for him, close to the observatory, it does not seem unreasonable that he should be given a residence suitable to the position which he occupies, and a residence of such style as Tie would be likely to live in if he were permitted to reside in the city of Ottawa.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: What is the salary of the chief astronomer?


William Pugsley: That rests with the Interior Department, and is to be found in the Auditor General's Report.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I understand the salary is $3,000. Is he to pay any rental?


William Pugsley: No.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Was his salary increased in the general increases last year?


William Pugsley: Unless he had reached the maximum of his class, I presume the increase would apply to him.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Has an estimate of the rental value of the property been made?


William Pugsley: No, but it could be easily figured, I suppose, at six per cent on the cost.


Oswald Smith Crocket: So it amounts to another increase to his salary? I was amused at the minister's statement that he was not extravagant in his tastes. Of course, all we have to judge iby is the minister's use of the public moneys of the country. I may call the attention of the House to the fact that on one occasion it cost the government $600 to maintain the minister here at Ottawa for one week.


William Pugsley: One cannot help admiring the fertile imagination of my hon. friend. If his ability to present the facts were as great as his ability to draw on his imagination he certainly would be a wonderful man.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I may say that I am not drawing on my imagination at all. I have the documents at hand, and I can turn them up very readily, which will fully substantiate the statement I made that on one occasion he charged the province of New Brunswick $600, if it was not $800, as travelling expenses on a trip to Ottawa which did not extend beyond one week.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: What would he the ordinary rental for a residence of this description?


William Pugsley: I am not a very good judge of rentals in Ottawa, but I would suppose $1,000 a year would 'be a fair rental.


Mr. GEO. TAYLOR.: Would that amount to six per cent?


William Pugsley: Very close to that.


George Taylor: The minister ^considers six per cent a fair rate for the owners of property to get?


William Pugsley: On a brick and stone building, where the wear and tear is not very great, yes.


George Taylor: It is on that basis that the government pays Tent on property throughout the city for their own use?


William Pugsley: We do not rent on that basis, we rent by the superficial foot.


George Taylor: Does that amount to more than six per cent on the value of the property?


William Pugsley: I am not able to tell my hon. friend as to that.


George Taylor: But six per cent on the value of the property would, in the minister's opinion, be a fair value?


William Pugsley: All I can say is that in my own city of St. John we consider six per cent rental on a stone or brick -building as a very fair return.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Net rental?


William Pugsley: No, gross rental.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: What would be the value of the site?


William Pugsley: We are building it upon government land. I am not able to say what the value of the site would be.


George Eulas Foster: The minister ought not to go to St. John when we are talking of rental values in Ottawa. The minister gave a statement of a fair value in Ottawa.


William Pugsley: I think six per cent.


George Eulas Foster: Six per cent would be a good rental?


William Pugsley: That is what I would suppose.


George Eulas Foster: What arrangement has *been made as to this gentleman's salary?
14i
He gets a certain salary which we have voted to him. If we are to supply him with a house worth $1,000 to $1,200, then he is getting an increase in his salary of that amount. The whole thing is unfair, and we should have a full statement. Other officers of the same class do not receive these houses. It is not fair treatment as between man and man.


William Pugsley: I may say frankly that my understanding is that the chief astronomer will be furnished the use of this residence free in addition to his salary.


Mr. GOODEVE.: Is it the intention to supply him with fuel and light for this residence?


William Pugsley: He will have to pay for his own light and fuel.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I understand the minister to say that he did not fix the value of this residence, that that was determined by the architect. That seems an odd way of disposing of the public moneys for the minister to absolve himself entirely as to the amount of money to be expended on any particular undertaking. Cases of this kind have come up repeatedly where architects have been instructed to erect buildings without instructions as to the cost. One notable example of that was in the case of the post office at Winnipeg, where the then Minister of Public Works stated distinctly in the House that he was not responsible for the character of the building, that he gave the architect carte blanche, and if there was anything wrong in the construction of the building the government was not to be held responsible for it, the department was not to be held responsible, the minister was not to be held responsible. If a mistake was made it was simply the mistake of an officer of the government. I distinctly understood the minister to say here that the architect had fixed the character of this building and consequently the cost of it. Now it does seem a strange thing that a minister presiding over a department should hand over to an officer of that department, who is not responsible to the people of this country, the control of the money to be expended in the erection of that building. I think the minister when he instructed the architect to go on and prepare plans and specifications for a building, should have limited him to a particular sum, say $10,000 or $12,000, and then let the architect work out a plan of a building where the cost would not exceed that sum. In that way the minister would hold some control over the expenditure of the country. But according to the plan that I understand is adopted, the head of the department practically has no control over the expenditure, neither has the House. We
42.3

are supposed to watch the * expenditure of the country, but it turns out that it is an officer of the government in no way responsible to the people, a man who can do just
as he pleases. We vote him his salary, and he determines what the cost of a pub lie building shall be, he controls the expenditure of the country, and the House or the minister practically has nothing to saj-in the matter. I say the whole principle is wrong, and the sooner some other plan is adopted the better. If we are going to have an economical administration of the affairs of this country the minister himself should keep control of that expenditure, by giving more full directions to his officer as to what amount of money is to be expended on any particular undertaking. Now I think my statements are properly put, because J distinctly understood the minister to say that the architect alone was responsible foi the cost of that building, that he determined the character of the building.


William Pugsley: I do not remember say* ing anything of the kind.


David Henderson: I think ' Hansard ' will report the minister as having made that statement. If I misunderstood the minister-I did not intend to make an unfair statement. .


William Pugsley: What I said in answer to the hon. member for Algoma, was that the details of the building were prepared by the chief architect. But I certainly did not intend to say that I gave up the absolute control of the cost of the building to him. What took place would be this:	I
would confer with him as to what kind of a building, in a general way, should be erected. His directions were to prepare plans for a building that would be a suitable residence, not a flimsy residence, but a build ing reasonably fire proof, reasonably substantial in its character, and suitable for a gentleman occupying the position that Dr. King occupies as chief astronomer.


David Henderson: I do not know that the hon. minister has made the matter much better in his latter statement. I do not think he has shown the House that he in any way restricted the architect as to the cost of this building. He has not told us that he directed him to construct a building that would cost any specific sum. Perhaps the minister will tell us if he did limit him in any way beyond the general way to which he has referred. We all know the disposition of architects to erect buildings of this kind on an elaborate scale. I remember years ago when the Hon. Mr. Tarte, then Minister of Public Works, determined to erect a number of post offices throughout the country on what might be called a cheaper scale, with the idea that Mr. HENDERSON.
smaller towns and villages throughout the country might obtain a public building at not a very large, cost. I had year after year advocated in towns ranging from 1,500 to 2,000 population, the erection of post office buildings at a cost of about $6,000. I was supported on both sides in that contention. It was stated in the House that such could be done. After one or two years advocacy of a plan of that kind, in order that small towns and villages could participate in the public expenditure and get the advantage of a public building, the Hon. Mr. Tarte determined to try the plan. I was told in the case of the Clinton post office, the first one that the minister determined to erect on the plan we had spoken of, that when he found the cost running up, instead of to $6,000, to $15,000, the architect had said that he would not draw a plan of a building to cost less than $10,000. It w'as no matter what the minister wanted, the minister was only a side show in the matter, the architect was the man that decided what the cost of the building should be. I fear that has been the case in these expenditures, that the architect has been given a free hand, that he wanted to put up a building according to his own fancy, according to his own ideas, without regard to how the public money should be spent, and that he has erected this $17,000 building when, possibly, if the minister's better judgment had been exercised, and if the minister had controlled him along the lines that he says he believes in, a building quite suitable for the astronomer could have been erected at a cost of not more than $10,000 or $12,000. What I wish to draw to the minister's attention is that I think in every instance of the erection of a public building, he should restrict the architect to the ultimate cost, and if the architect is not able to draw plans and specifications of a building to come within the measure of the capacity of the country's finances, then some other man should be put in his place who would be willing and able to do so. There is a principle involved, and if we are going to see that the finances of this country are carefully conserved, then I think the minister should in all cases control this expenditure in some such manner as I have indicated. 1 had occasion in bygone years to refer to this matter time and again 1 remember when the Hon. Mr. Sutherland was Minister of Public Works. In speaking with reference to a public building in. London I explained to him what I thought should be the principle upon which he should proceed, that he should tell the architect exactly the amount of money he wanted to expend on that building, and then limit him to that expenditure, compel him to keep within that amount, and in that way he would have a control of the ex-

penditure of the country. The Hon. Mr. Sutherland, a very genial man, a man who never liked to quarrel with anybody in the House, found it always the easiest way to get his estimates through was to agree with those who were criticising them. He answered me by saying that he thought I was right, he thought that was the proper plan, and in fact gave us to understand that in future he was going to adopt that course. I am sorry to say that what was approved by the Hon. Mr. Sutherland when he was Minister of Public Works has not been carried out by his successor. I think the minister should weigh this matter well and put a firm hand upon the expenditure of the country, keeping control of that expenditure himself, and then we will certainly know who is to blame if we think too much is being expended in the erection of any building.


Mr. BURRELL.: In this discussion the chief astronomer, whom I have not the pleasure of knowing, is almost put in the position of being the party who was blame-able for the action which the government has taken. I should think there should be a fair line of division drawn as between the chief astronomer and the government We have been accustomed to think of people associated with scientific pursuits as being men of scientific minds given to plain living and high thinking, and here the government is trying to force upon a gentleman of simple tastes a wildly extravagant house perhaps contrary to his wishes and beyond his ability to maintain. They are not only putting upon a $3,000 civil servant a $20,000 house, but they are practically saying, according to the advising of the Minister of Public Works, that he will not only have to furnish it but that he will have to furnish his own fuel and light. It is tantamount to saying to a gentleman who is drawing $3,000 a year:	You will
have to give $2,000 a year in heating and warming yourself if we make you a present of this white elephant. It seems to me up to us on our side to* take into consideration the view of the chief astronomer that he may not want a house of these regal dimensions. I suggest that his views be ascertained before he is called upon to pay these extravagant prices for furnishing, heating and lighting and not have forced upon him by the government this riotous and extravagant style of living -which may not be in harmony with his own wishes.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: The minister has not definitely stated whether he places any limit upon buildings which are erected or whether he placed any limit upon this building.


William Pugsley: I think it will be found that the amount which I stated to parliament when this vote was first asked for will not be materially exceeded. I think I then stated what would be the character of the house that it was proposed to build and what would be the cost. I may say that the residence is not of an extravagant character. The foundation is of concrete, it is a two story brick building and is to have a wooden attic. The design is very good. The house is somewhat large but still it is not what would be called an extravagant house.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What are the dimensions?
Mr, PUGSLEY. 47 x 41. The basement partitions are of brick, it is a very substantial house and will be pretty nearly fireproof. I think it is desirable that all these buildings should be built in a substantial manner. It is desirable that they should be reasonably fireproof because the government is its own insurer. We have a great many buildings, we do not insure, and we try, as far as possible, to erect buildings of such character that the danger from fire will be as little as possible.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Was the work let by tender?


William Pugsley: Yes, five tenders were received and the contract was awarded to Messrs. Doran & Devlin, of Ottawa, for $12,300. An hon. gentleman spoke of this as a $20,000 house. It does not amount to that. The contract was for $12,300 and then there is an additional amount for heating and boilers, electric wiring and fixtures, sidewalk in front of the house, fencing, contingencies and superintendence, making a total of $17,000.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I do not quite understand these items. The item under discussion refers to this building that I understand the minister is erecting for the astronomer royal.


William Pugsley: I did not say astronomer royal. I said chief astronomer.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Oh, chief astronomer. I see that there is $14,000 down for 1909-10 and $11,000 for 1910-11 which makes $25,000. Then, I think the minister stated that there was $1,200 in addition not included so that that would be $26,200. Does that refer entirely to this building, or does it refer to other buildings?	,


William Pugsley: It includes two azimuth huts.


George Eulas Foster: Is azimuth a building material?


William Pugsley: No, that is the name of the building.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Why do you not get an easier one?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the chief astronomer take the rank of a deputy minister or does he rank as a technical officer?


Frank Oliver: The chief astronomer does not hold the rank of a deputy minister. He is at the head of a branch.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is there any specific salary provided under the Civil Service Act for that class of office, and if so, what is it?


Frank Oliver: The chief astronomer is in the highest division next the deputy minister.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What salary does that division command?


Frank Oliver: From $2,800 to $4,000. It is in class A of the first division.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How do you justify the provision of a house for this officer and the refusal of the same to another who is in an equally high class or in a higher class?


Frank Oliver: As the Department of Interior is responsible for the salary of the astronomer and also for this request^ I may be privileged to answer. The most important work of the astronomer necessarily is done at the observatory and at night. That being the case it is considered to tend both to economy and efficiency that he should reside at his place of work. The condition is not paralleled in the case of any other officer of the Department of the Interior, and it is not with the view of giving the astronomer- an advantage over any other officer of the department, but merely of putting him in a position whereby he can give the best and most work for the salary that he receives that this residence is being provided. It is not with a view of favouring the chief astronomer over any other officer, but merely to put him in a position whereby he can do the best and most work for his salary.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The chief astronomer receives a salary of $3,000 which will gradually go up to $4,000, and the Minister of Public Works tells -us that this house will be worth an additional thousand a year to him. Does not the Minister of the Interior see that if the reasons given by him are sound, then the three assistants should also be supplied with houses?


Mr. MEIGHEN.: Are we to understand that these asimuth huts are to cost $6,000?


William Pugsley: They will cost $6,000.


Arthur Meighen: What is their purpose?


William Pugsley: They are intended for the purpose of testing the steel tapes, a Mr. LANCASTER.
work which is essential in connection with the observatory, and considering _ the size of the building and the manner in which it is to be built, $6,000 does not appear to be out of the way.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Why do you call them -huts? Is it because they are only one story and will cost $6,000?


William Pugsley: It is the technical name by which they are known. The building is only one story but it is 177 feet long.


Arthur Meighen: I beg to move that this item be reduced by $5,000, the reduction to apply te' the astronomer's residence.


Frank Oliver: Well, Mr. Chairman, with respect to that matter


Some hon. MEMBERS: Vote.


George Eulas Foster: You are obstructing now.


Frank Oliver: I am not obstructing. As my department is responsible for the request to build this residence, I may be permitted to say something.


George Taylor: Let us vote.


Frank Oliver: The matter has been under consideration for some years and it would appear that there is just as much necessity for the residence of the chief astronomer to be convenient to the observatory as there is to have an observatory at all. My hon. friend (Mr. Armstrong) has asked why residences should not be built for the assistant astronomers; but that is not a fair comparison. The time and talent of the gentleman who has charge of the responsibility of making astronomical investigations may be of much more value than the time and talent of his assistants. Therefore it is advisable from every point of view that his time should be conserved as thoroughly as possible.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Would not that apply to his assistants as well? [DOT]


Frank Oliver: I do not understand my hon. friend's point of view. If a gentleman is placed in charge of a certain work and receives a salary proportionate to his responsibility, it is presumed that he is burdened with the responsibility and receives the salary because his. talent is greater, and therefore his time is more valuable than that of his assistants.


Mr. J. D. REID.: Is the minister trying to argue for a $20,000 house for this astronomer?


Frank Oliver: No, I understand that I am trying to argue for a $17,000 house lo-

cated convenient to the observatory, and that this is not an improper expenditure of public money, but on the contrary


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I am afraid I cannot allow the committee to continue work after 6 o'clock.


Mr. FIELDING.: I think it would be convenient to have the usual motion that the committee rise, Teport progress, and ask leave to sit again, and I would ask my hon. friend opposite to withdraw his motion in order that I may make the usual motion, and he can renew his motion on a future occasion.
Motion of Mr. Meighen withdrawn.
Item allowed to stand.
Some resolutions reported.
House adjourned at 6 p.m.

Thursday, November 25, 1909.