Mr. HERRON asked:: What was the total revenue due and payable to the government from all sources, exclusive Mr. FISHER.
of bonuses, in respect of the timber lands in the province of Alberta under lease, permit, or limit, during the twelve months ending 31st March, 1908, and how much of the above has been collected?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior).: Amount due and payable, $34,634.24; amount collected, $34,300.61.


EAST POINT LIGHTHOUSE.
Mr. FRASER asked:: 1.	Has Lauchlin McDonald resigned his position as keeper of the East Point, P.E.I., lighthouse? If so, what is the date of his resignation?
2.	Has any one been appointed in his place as lighthouse keeper of said light? If so, what is his name?
3.	Upon whose recommendation was this last appointment made, and what is the date of the appointment?
4.	Who are the securities of the new appointee?
5.	Have any complaints been made to the department during the last year concerning this light?
6.	Were there any other applicants for this position? If so, who were the applicants?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: 1.	Yes. June 4, 1908.
2.	Yes. Ronald John McDonald.
3.	On the instructions of the hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. July 1, 1908.
4.	No securities are required.
5.	No.
6.	No.


GEORGETOWN, P.E.I., MARINE AGENT.
Mr. FRASER asked:: 1.	Who is the marine agent at Georgetown, Prince Edward Island?
2.	How much is he paid and what are his duties ?
3.	What position is held by Scoby Johnston?
4.	How much is he paid, for what services, and what are his duties?
5.	How are his duties distinguished from those of the agent?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: 1.	Mr. John A. McCormack is subagent at Georgetown, Prince Edward Island.
2.	$100 a year. He is acting as subagent at Georgetown and looks after the freight, also winter mail service when government vessels are calling at Georgetown.
3.	He is acting as timekeeper.
4.	Thirty cents an hour while in the service of the government. He looks after local freight and keeps time when the men are loading and unloading the vessels.
5.	His duties are limited to time keeping and looking after the freight while the duty of the agent is to look after the expenditure and revenue for that agency.


ONTARIO METEOROLOGICAL STATIONS.
Mr. THORNTON asked:: 1.	How many meteorological stations are there in Ontario, and where are they situated?
2.	Which of these were erected in 1908?
3.	At whose expense were they erected?
4.	What is the object of these stations or towers, and what service do they render ?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: 1.	Agincourt, Aurora, Birnam, Bruce Mines, Bancroft, Chatham, Clinton, Cock, burn Island, Cowal (Dutton), Ennismore, Guelph, Georgetown, Haileybury, Huntsville, Kingston, London, Lindsay, Lans-downe, Meaford, Midland, Madoc, North Gower, Ottawa, Orillia, Oliver's Ferry, Port Hope, Point Clark, Port Dover, Port Burwell, Peterborough, Parma, Renfrew, Southampton (Saugeen). Stony Creek, Sarnia, Sydenham, Uplands, Ursa, Woodstock, Windsor, Wiarton, Wallaceburg, Colling-wood, Port Colhorne, Deseronto, Sault Ste. Marie, Kincardine, Cobourg, Alton, Beatrice, Brantford, Barrie, Coldwater, Cottam, Calvin, Croydon, Emsdale, Gravenhurst, Goderich (Lighthouse), Haliburton, Hamilton, Hubrey (Westminster), Kinmount, Lucknow, Lakefield, Listowel, Moose Factory, Montague, North Bruce, Owen Sound, Otonabee, Orangeville, Port Arthur, Parry Sound, Port Stanley, Pelee Island, Pans, Princeton, Rockliffe, Rat Portage (Kenora), Stratford, Sunnyside (Wooler), East Toronto, Toronto, Uxbridge, White River Welland, Watford, Westport, Fort William, Bayfield, Oakville, Picton, Tobermory, Port
Credit.	.	_ .
2.	Barrie, Rouville (Fox Point P.O.), Lake Temagami, Wesley, Lake Side Home (Toronto Island), Judge, Kakabeka Falls, Lome Park, Copper Cliff.
3.	The cost of installation of these stations is defrayed by the Dominion _ government Department of Marine and Fisheries
4.	The object of meteorological stations is to have observations taken of the tempera^ ture, barometric pressure, direction and velocity of wind and other atmospheric conditions. These observations aTe compiled at the Central office, Toronto, from whence are issued weather predictions for the use of mariners and the public generally.


GOVERNMENT SHIPS.
Mr. J. A. CURRIE asked:: 1.	Were representations made to the Customs Department by any person as agent for the Dominion Marine Association, urging the government not to impose a duty on repairs made to Canadian ships in certain cases? If so, what are the names of such persons?


Mr. BRODEUR.: 2.	What ships have been purchased by the Cominion government from British shipbuilders since 1896?
3.	What are the names of the shipbuilders who built each ship, and the purchase price of each ship?
4.	Were any tenders received for the building of these ships from Canadian shipbuilders? If so, what were the amounts of the Canadian tenders for each ship, and the names of the tenderers?
5'. What amount of money was spent on each of these ships for changes, improvements, additional equipment and repairs since they were taken over by the government?
6.	Who were the Canadian agents or persons representing each individual British shipbuilders of any ships for the government of Canada?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: 2.	The Department of Marine and Fisheries have purchased the following vessels: 'Druid,' 'Minto,' Lady Laurier,' 'Montcalm,' 'Champlain,' 'Canada,' 'Lady Grey.'
3.	"'Druid,' Fleming & Ferguson, $110,960.00; 'Minto,' Gourley & Co., $185,317.14; 'Lady Laurier,' Fleming & Ferguson, $184,933.33; 'Montcalm,' Fleming & Ferguson, $265,233 33; 'Champlain,' Fleming & Ferguson, $90,033,33; 'Canada,' Vickers Sons & Maxim, $181,284.28; 'Lady Grey,' Vickers Sons & Maxim, $208,994.11.
4.	'Druid'-Tender of Collingwood Shipbuilding Co., $170,000; tender of Poisons. $173,000. 'Lady Laurier-Tender of Collingwood Shipbuilding Co., $235,000; tender of Poisons, $298,900.
5 'Druid', $61,865.50; 'Minto,' $61,282.32; 'Montcalm,' $118,377.22; 'Lady Laurier,' $138,514.86; 'Champlain,' $68,304.09; 'Canada,' $43,436.79; 'Lady Grey,' $9,966.33.
6.	The Department of Marine and Fisheries dealt directly with the builders in all these cases.
MAIL ROUTES TO AHMIC HARBOUR AND TTtOITT CREEK.


Mr. ARTHURS asked:: 1 Who is the contractor on each of the following mail routes, (a) Burks Falls to Ahmic Harbour, summer and winter routes, and (b) Loring to Trout Creek?
2.	Were tenders called for the above services?
3.	What is the amount paid each of the contractors ?
4.	When do the contracts expire?


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General).: 
ST. JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL, BRITISH COLUMBIA.
Mr. BARNARD asked:: 1.	Has ^ the government made any arrangement with the persons in charge of St Josephs Hospital at Victoria, B.C. whereby such hospital is in future to take charge of sick mariners?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to close the present marine hospital?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: 1.	No.
2.	There is no such intention for the present.


MONTREAL HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS.
Right Hon.   S@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into Committee of the Whole to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution :
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide that the interest on the sums of money advanced to the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal for the construction of grain elevators and other terminal facilities, during the period of construction of the said facilities- f?ch^period to terminate as of such date as the Governor in Council shall fix and determine-should be charged to the capital account of the commissioners, and be paid out cf the sum to be advanced to the commissioners under authority of chapter 30 of the Acts of 1907.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General recommends this resolution to the consideration of the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon.   S@: Before the orders of the day are called, I would like to bring before the House a matter of considerable importance. A few days ago, when the militia estimates were under discussion I had the honour of bringing to the attention of the Committee of the Whole a branch of the subject which I considered of great interest to this country. In doing so, I used the following words :
On several occasions in this House I have had the honour to bring up this matter, and to say I hope the time will come when, in all the schools of Canada, there will be undertaken by the respective provincial governments, which of course control education, n uniform system of physical training for younger children, of elementary drill for the older ones, and of rifle shooting for those still older. I am happy to say that this policy if it may be dignified by that name, has been very generally discussed throughout the Do-mmion; and so far as I have observed, all the. best newspapers which more correctly indicate the trend of public opinion, have favoured this idea almost without exception.
I went on to say that I had reason to believe that all the provinces throughout the Dominion would follow the example set by the province of Nova Scotia and enter into an arrangement with the Dominion government by which this system of physical training and elementary drill in the schools might be carried out by mutual co-oneration between the Dominion government and the provinces. Yesterday I had the honour to receive from Lord Strath-cona-an old friend of Canada, who delights to call Canada his home, and who has on frequent occasions shown his deep interest in the development of this country -a letteT which I shall read to the House, as it expresses his own views better than any language of mine could do :
28 Grosvenor Square,
13th March, 1909.
My dear Sir Frederick Borden,-You will recollect that, when we met in London during your recent visit, I was greatly interested in the account you gave me of your efforts to get a system of physical training and military drill, including rifle practice, introduced into the public schools of the Dominion.
I have long entertained the opinion that such training as that you are striving for is of the highest value in developing the moral, physical and intellectual qualities of children, as well as that valuable quality known as patriotism), and I am anxious to take part in the good work which is being done in this direction.
I write, therefore, to inform you that I am prepared to place at your disposal, or that of

any competent body which you may be in a position to constitute, with the object ot encouraging such training, the sum of 5)10,000 per annum. I would suggest that the fund which this sum would form might be designated as for ' The encouragement of Physical and Military Training in Public Schools, and that it should be administered by a body of trustees appointed for the purpose. I should be glad to know what your own proposals as to the constitution of this body would be, but 1 think that the central committee might perhaps be composed somewhat as follows: xqurtell or the Minister of Militia for the time being, as president; the ministers who deal with education in the various provinces of the Dominion as vice- presidents, but subject to the conditions that the province which each one represents has declared its adhesion to the principles agreed upon between the Department of Militia and the province of Nova Scotia, which were sanctioned and made applicable to the other provinces of the Dominion by the orders in council of 13th August, 1908; the executive council to be composed of (a) the members of the Militia Council; (b) representatives to be named by the ministers controlling education in the various provinces -two each for the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, and one each for the remaining provinces of the Dominion; (c) the military officers commanding the commands and independent districts of the Dominion. Should His Excellency the Governor General be disposed to become patron of the trust, I should feel especially honoured by such action on his part, which would conduce very greatly to the success of the object which we have in view.
I should also deem it an especial honour it tiie Prime Minister, as evincing his approval, would consent to be vice-patron of the trust.
While the fund as a whole should be administered and money grants allotted by the executive committee-an general, proportionately to the school population of the various provinces of the Dominion-it would, I think, be desirable that the administration of the grant within the several provinces should be made by local committees, appointed under the authority of the central committee. These local committees might be composed, for example, of the military officer commanding the district, as chairman; three civil members, nominated by the Minister of Education for the province, and three military members, nominated by the Minister of Militia.
While I attach the highest importance to the advantages of physical training and elementary drill for all children of both sexes, I am particularly anxious that the especial value of military drill, including rifle shooting for boys capable of using rifles, should be constantly borne in mind. My object is not only to help to improve the physical and intellectual capabilities of the children by inculcating habits of alertness, orderliness and prompt obedience, but also to bring up the boys to patriotism and to a realization that the first duty of a free citizen is to be prepared to defend liis country. The Dominion at the present time, and for many years to come, can hardly hope to be able to give so long a period of training to her military forces as by itself would suffice to make them efficient soldiers, but, if all boys had acquired a fair acquaintance while at school with Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.
simple military drill and rifle shooting, the degree of efficiency which could be reached in the otherwise short period which can be devoted to the military training of the Dominion forces would, in my opinion, be enormously enhanced.
I will only add that I should prefer that, for the present at least, the whole of the money grant should be devoted to those educational establishments which are maintained entirely out of public funds. I think, further, that the administration of the fund should be such as to enable both sexes, whether teachers or pupils, to share in the rewards, and that the allotments o'f money should be so made as to afford an inducement both to the teachers to instruct and to the pupils to perfect themselves in the training desired.
Believe me to be,
My dear Sir Frederick,
Very truly yours,


STRATHCONA.
[Stage Direction]
In reply to this letter, I at once caused the following telegram to be sent:
Ottawa, 23rd March, 1909. Strathcona, London.
Your letter 13th received. Gratefully ac-c.ept your most generous offer to create fund for the encouragement of physical and military training in public schools of Canada. Organization outlined in your letter appears admirably adapted to attain end in view. Am forwarding by mail detailed proposals based thereon for carrying out the scheme. Hope you will consent to fund being called the Strathcona Trust for the encouragement of physical and military training in publio schools. His Excellency the Governor General accepts position of patron and the Premier consents to become vice-patron.

[Stage Direction]
I may say, in addition that I received from His Excellency his consent to notify Lord Strathcona that he would accept the position of patron. The Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) is here to speak for himself. He has already informed me that he will gladly accept the position of vicepatron.	.
In a private letter, Lord Strathcona informs me that, on hearing from me a cheque for $250,000 will be forwarded as the basis of the fund to provide the annual income of $10,000. I thought this matter to be of sufficient importance to justify me in bringing it up in this way.
Right Hon.   S@: I believe I shall voice the sentiments of this House, if, without losing a moment, I move that we offer our thanks to Lord Strathcona for the letter which has just been communicated to the House by the Minister of Militia. Lord Strathcona has rendered many services^ to Canada, but, I believe, none of greater importance than the present one. Physical education is of the greatest possible importance, and its value has never, in the history of the world, been understood as it

is now. I hope and firmly believe, that the system now initiated by Lord Strath-eona, the organization which he sets on foot, will provide that, in all parts of Canada, physical training will become part of the education of the boys and girls of this country. I beg leave to move, seconded by Mr. R. L. Borden:
That the thanks of the House of Commons and the people of Canada are hereby tendered to Lord St rath eon a for his letter to the Minister of Militia just communicated to the House.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: I have the very greatest pleasure in seconding the motion which the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has just proposed to the House. Lord Strathcona's offer will be received with feelings of the deepest appreciation, not only by members of this House regardless of party, but by all patriotic citizens regardless of party. This act of Lord Strathcona's is entirely in harmony with the many patriotic actions which have distinguished his wonderful career. His encouragement of physical training andi of elementary drill amongst the children of the country is a most worthy object. I have no doubt whatever that this most worthy object will be stimulated to a very great degree by the foundation of this fund. I am sure that all of us earnestly hope and sincerely believe that it will be productive of all the great benefits and advantages to the people of this country which are so eloquently set forth in this letter with which Lord Strathcona has accompanied his gift.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: The hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Hughes), the other day, put a question, which, in part, concerned my department. I do not see the question on the paper to-day, probably because it was answered, so far as their departments were concerned, by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) and the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson). I am prepared to give the answers from my department. The questions were as follows:-
1.	Since taking over Oshawa harbour what officers have been appointed and what are their salaries, for duty at that harbour or in connection therewith?
2.	What products have been landed at the said harbour by water route since the date referred to?
3.	What duties, fees or receipts of cash have been collected by each department of the government since that date?
4.	What expenditure upon the harbour or any part of it have been made by each department of the government since the date of taking over?
The answers to these questions are as follows:-
1. Wharfinger, W. T. Henry, salary $100 per annum, paid from collections; harbour master, W. T. Henry, remunerated from fees collected, remuneration not to exceed $300 per
annum.	.
2.	Coal and general merchandise.
3.	The Marine and Fisheries Department has received, through the wharfinger, the following net revenue:-
11904-5	$
1905-6	
1308-7	
1907-8	
804 69 2 00 813 94 16 99

4.	The Marine and Fisheries Department has expended the following:-	*
1904-5, $6.34, for inspection of scales.
1906-7, $82.88, repairs to coal cars, tramway, use of telephone, &c.
No expenditure has been made by the De-1-artment of Marine and Fisheries on the har-hour or wharf.


CANADA'S SELF-DEFENCE.
Hon. GEO. E. FOSTER (North Toronto).: Before the orders of the day are called, I beg to give notice that on Monday next I will move the resolution which stands in my name, No. 2, under the heading of 'Notices of Motion,' as follows:-
That in the opinion of this House, in view of her great and varied resources, of her geographical position and national environments, and of that spirit of self help and self respect which alone befits a strong and growing people, Canada should no longer delay in assuming her proper share of the responsibility and financial burden incident to the suitable protection of her exposed coast line and great seaports.
The hon. member for Souris (Mr. Scha-ff-ner), in whose name stands the first notice of motion, has kindly given my notice precedence. I shall be very glad if the government do not interpose any unnecessary business in its way.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister).: I shall be glad to have it taken up as the first order.


INQUIRY FOR RETURN.
Mr. G. H. BRADBURY (Selkirk).: I desire again to call the attention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to the fact that the return of correspondence between the department and Mr. F. W. Colcleugh, has not yet been brought down.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I understand that this return is almost ready. Yesterday, or the day before, I laid on the table a couple of returns in which the hon. member (Mr. Bradbury) was interested. I do not know whether they have reached him.


DAYLIGHT SAVING BILL.
Mr. E. N. LEWIS (West Huron).: Mr. Speaker, before you go into Committee of Supply, Sir, I wish to ask the government a question with reference to Bill (No. 108) respecting the saving of daylight. I am aware it is out of order to discuss the Bill at this time, but in view of the feeling which has been aroused from Vancouver to Halifax, the resolutions of boards of trade, and letters I have in my pocket, and telegrams, I desire to ask that the government place this Bill on the government orders, or else appoint a small committee to investigate the matter.
Kt- H?n; Sir WILFRID LAURIRR (Prime Minister). We never have too much -daylight in this country, but we have not yet daylight enough to see'- whether we can comply with the hon. gentleman's request.


Robert Laird Borden: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
George Eulas Foster: Before you go on, is it intended to take up the supplementaries?


Mr. FIELDING.: We will take up the supplementaries, giving precedence to the Minister of Public Works, who happens to have the largest block.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: 


George Eulas Foster: Speaking generally, if it were not for some other considerations, I should object to the Minister of Public Works going on with any further estimates until he has filled the orders of the House. But I will not object to the supplementaries because of the understanding we have had with the Finance Minister. But I give the minister warning that when we come to the others, he will have difficulty in getting through any Public Works estimates until he fills the orders of the House. I have an idea that he is simply jollying the House.


Mr. PUGSLEY.: I am very much surprised that my hon. friend should imagine that for a moment. I am much obliged to my hon. friend for not raising an objection now.
Public buildings-Ottawa parliament buildings-additions	and	alterations-further
amount required, $40,000.


William Pugsley: This is required to make provision for carrying on works under contract in connection with the parliament buildings, up to the 31st of the present month. These works are in connection with the additions and alterations which the committee are familiar with. It includes also the construction of a new upper story and a roof on the tower which forms a portion of the residence of the Speaker. The total amount paid is $244,366.66 upon the new addition, and the amount due is $126,321.01. Then in connection with the old building there is still due $4,867.32; that makes a total of $131,188.33. This amount we are now asking for will be required to complete payments up to the 31st of March.


George Eulas Foster: This is all for changes and additions to this building ?


William Pugsley: Yes, including quite an amount in connection with the old building.


George Eulas Foster: What will be the total expenditure?


William Pugsley: The total amount is $447,732.94.


George Eulas Foster: Of that, what is the amount for furnishings?


William Pugsley: There has been paid for renewal of windows, lumber, hardware, painting, carpets and mattings, $40,555. For furniture, mantels, furnishings, painting, papering, dishes, silverware, &c., there has been paid $313.88 and there is due $9,282.85.


George Eulas Foster: The whole will amount to a little less than $10,000?


William Pugsley: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: That is above, ibelow, around and about; that is all?


William Pugsley: That includes everything.
3205 MARCH 24, 19C9 3206	
Ottawa-Royal Mint-refinery, guardhouse gates, &c., $6,300. Mr. MACDONELL. I tihink the committee is entitled to a little more information regarding the operation of this costly undertaking known as the Mint. The Mint has not been a success in the matter of paying its way or making any revenue to the government. It seems to me that the Mint should at least pay its way and do something better. It should actually earn money as it does in other countries. There are some curious facts in connection with the operation of this department of the government. I think the minister should explain just how it is that during the calendar year 1907, the year before the Mint commenced to operate, the government imported from the Royal Mint over $1,000,000 in silver. Mr. ^PUGSLEY. I have sent for my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) because my hon. friend's questions appertain to his department and he will be heTe in a few minutes. In the meantime I will explain the items of this vote of $6,300. It is to cover the balance due for materials provided for the Royal Mint, the guard-house gates, &c. This is for hardware, electrical supplies, weighing machinery .and machinery for the Mint generally. The total amount required to complete the payment of the accounts rendered is $6,190.71. We are asking for $6,300. I have here a detailed statement of the accounts which I will read to the committee if desired. Mr. FOSTER. For this amount? Mr. PUGSLEY. Yes. There is due for hardware to Workman & Co., the McDougall Hardware Company, Oharleson & (Butter-worth, $350.26; for electrical supplies there is due $1,392.80. There are quite a number of other accounts due for articles such as weighing machinery, amounting to $1,908.70, and then there are some ten or twelve small accounts altogether making $6,190.71. Mr. MACDONELL. I understand that there is a return to toe brought down in connection with this matter and that a motion will probably be made. Therefore, the matter may stand for further consideration. Mr. PUGSLEY. All right. Mr. FOSTER. What is the total cost of the Mint to date? Mr. PUGSLEY. Up to the 31st December last the cost has been $530,233.88. That includes the site. Mr. FOSTER. And the payments still to be made? 1011 i	Mr. PUGSLEY. $6,190.71. Public buildings, N.B., St. John quarantine station, Partridge island, water service, &c.- additional amount, $6,200. Mr. FOSTER. What is this for? Mr. PUGSLEY. This is to pay for work in connection with the water service. The work has been done under the direction of the resident engineer at St. John. Since the pipe was originally laid there have been several breaks in it and considerable work has been done. As my hon. friend is aware, Partridge island is some little distance from the mainland and this pipe is laid on the ground under the hay. Mr. FOSTER. And connects with the water system in St. John? Mr. PUGSLEY. Yes. Mr. FOSTER. What has been the whole cost of the service? Mr. PUGSLEY. The following amounts have been paid: Prior to- 1901 excavating	$ 4,0b7 74 1904-	5 ** 	 8,299 73 1905-	6 " 	 20,920 15 1900-7 " 	 13,000 29 1907_8 " 	 8,796 89 1908-9 to Jan. 31, excavating. 7,652 72 Then there was a payment to Harvey Ring for loss sustained by reason of his weir being interfered with by the laying of the pipe of $2,400. There was a reference and upon the finding and the evidence given it was decided to pay him that amount. That makes a total of $65,138.72. Mr. FOSTER. Will the minister just briefly say what he 'has to show for that? Mr. PUGSLEY. We have a fresh water supply. Mr. FOSTER. Never mind the supply, but tell us what you have. Mr. PUGSLEY. There was a trench excavated from the mainland to Partridge island and the pipe was laid in the trench. Then, upon the mainland, there would be a pipe laid to connect with the city service. Mr. FOSTER. Where? Mr. PUGSLEY. From St. John street in the parish of Lancaster adjoining the city. Mr. CROCKET. Was this work done under contract? Mr. PUGSLEY. No, it was done by day's labour. The water is carried to the island by a cast-iron main pipe from the main pipe of the city service at St. John street, Lancaster, down to Fort Duffexin, and from there across to Partridge island.


George Eulas Foster: Then, on Partridge island what have you?


William Pugsley: The water is distributed to the different buildings throughout the island.


George Eulas Foster: In surface pipes?


William Pugsley: Of course the main pipe would be laid underground to the different buildings. There are quite a number of buildings upon Partridge island and then there would be the ordinary services to the different houses.


Mr. CROCKET.: Is this the end of the appropriations for this service?


William Pugsley: It is unless some accident should happen, for instance by the bursting of pipes.


George Eulas Foster: Has the minister the length and dimensions of the pipe?


William Pugsley: No, I have not that information with me.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Was there a departmental estimate of the cost of this service before the work was undertaken?


William Pugsley: The chief architect has no estimate; it was done under the direction of the engineer at St. John. He has no memorandum here of any estimate.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Was a work of that magnitude done by day's labour?


William Pugsley: We have had a great deal of trouble with the pipe by reason of its bursting and leaks occurring from time to time and the work has been carried on from year to year by day's labour.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Who was in charge as foreman?


William Pugsley: I have not the name of the foreman here. This was some years ago. I will get him the names of the different foremen during construction and repairs.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Yes.


Mr. BLAIN.: When was this work commenced?


William Pugsley: In 1903 or 1904.


Richard Blain: I cannot see any justification for the minister proceeding with a work costing $65,000 without asking for tenders and without even an estimate to the department of the cost. Does not my hon. friend see that this afforded an opportunity for a good deal of political support to his party in a city like St. John?


William Pugsley: My hon. friend misunderstood me. I said the chief engineer could not give any estimate and had no Mr. TUGSLEY.
memorandum because it was engineering work done under direction of Mr. Shewan. the resident engineer at St. John; but I presume there was an estimate which would be in my department. As that estimate was made three or perhaps five years ago I would not have it with me, but I will have it looked up if my hon. friend desires.


Hon. JOHN HAGGART.: How did the payment for a work costing $65,000 performed by day's labour in direct contravention of the statutes pass the Auditor General's Department? The statute says that work over a certain amount shall be let by contract and there has been great neglect by the Auditor General's Department if it has allowed a payment of this kind in direct violation of the statute.


William Pugsley: I do not think my hon. friend is right in saying that this was a violation of the statute. I am free te say that if I had to do that work to-day anil anticipated it would cost anything like what it has cost, I would feel that, if it were possible to anticipate the conditions, tenders should be called for and the work let by contract, but it was begun some five years ago and it was never anticipated that it would cost nearly as much as it has. It has been carried on from year to year and there have been breaks in the pipe.


John Graham Haggart: If it was commenced five or six years ago the minister's responsibility is hereditary.


William Pugsley: Yes, and of course the statute is not so imperative as my hon. friend intimates. There are cases in which the statute says work may be done by day's labour. I presume that at that time it was thought better to do it in that way.


John Graham Haggart: Then we have a new interpretation of the Act by the minister that he is to decide whether work is to be done by tender or by day's labour. I never heard any doubt about the interpretation of the statute, unless the work is of such a character that it cannot be done by day's labour and then you get an order in council and state the emergency upon which the order was founded. There is no order in council in this case and no reason has been assigned here for doing it by day's labour.


George Eulas Foster: This is a most suggestive item. This was simply a question of the laying of sufficient pipe from the water supply in the City of Carleton across to Partridge Island at no great distance. A certain quality and length of pipe was necessary and sufficient excavation was required to put it beneath the frost line so far as the mainland is concerned and a trench in which to lay it on the bottom of the harbour between the mainland and Partridge island. Once on Partridge is-

land and you have simply to distribute the water in small pipes to a number of buildings there.


William Pugsley: All through rock of course.


George Eulas Foster: For that service up to date $65,000 has been expended. There has been no tender, contract or estimate so far as this House has been made aware,
' there is no order in council authorizing the minister to pay out his money for construction by day's labour rather than by tender and contract, and yet very much more than $5,000 has been expended each year. The expenditures for the different years run $8,000, $21,000, $13,000,	$8,000,
$7,000 and now we have this vote of $6,200. Whether this is comprised in the $7,000 I do not know but it seems plain and clear that the minister has violated the law absolutely, that he and his predecessors have taken the matter absolutely into their own hands and have done just as they pleased directly in the face of a statute passed to regulate these matters. In each of these years they paid out more than $5,000 without order in council, the only way in which it could be legally done, even supposing the ground is sufficient to warrant that method. I think we must look further into this than we have. The minister incidentally remarked that they had a great deal of trouble with pipes bursting. Why, if reasonable care was taken, was it not possible to buy the proper kind of pipe and to lay it so that it would not burst the year it was laid down or the year after, or the first year it is put in operation? Ordinary care in the selection and laying of the pipe would surely prevent this kind of breakage. The work has been performed without tender or contract, absolutely in the teeth of the law.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend will agree that the repairs would have to be done without tender as it was not possible to ascertain what the cost of the repairs would he.


George Eulas Foster: No one would object to that,.


William Pugsley: I have no objection to any inquiry and I presume the Public Accounts Committee have had the past expenditures before them in different years.


Oswald Smith Crocket: From whom was the pipe purchased, and how much of this money was expended for labour and how much for material, and were tenders asked for the pipe and other materials?


William Pugsley: I will have the information the next time we are in committee.


Richard Blain: Is it a common practice for the departments to obtain orders in council from the government to construct
public works, or is it rather a rare practice?


William Pugsley: I do not know how it was under my predecessors. The present practice is as far as possible to call for tenders, but if there are cases in which, though the amount is over $5,000, it is considered by the engineer or the architect to be better in the public interest that the work should be done by day labour, a recommendation is made to council setting forth the peculiar circumstances, and if council approves, authority is obtained to proceed with the work. Those occasions are rare, because most of the work is tendered for.


Richard Blain: Since the hon. gentleman has been in charge of the department, have any orders in council of that kind been obtained?


William Pugsley: Yes, there have been some.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Does not the statute provide that in all cases, when the amount exceeds $5,000, tenders must be called for, except in cases of urgency?


William Pugsley: No. It is not limited to cases of urgency. I think there are three provisions in the statute. If, in the opinion of the minister, and council concurs in that opinion, the work can be better done in the public interest by day labour than by contract, it may be so done.
St. John immigrant building-fitting up and furnishing Martello building for use as additional combined hospital and home, $2,000.


William Pugsley: This is chiefly for hospital beds and other fittings adapted to hospitals.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is this the first appropriation for that purpose?
Mr. PtTGSLEY. This is the first special vote for it, but I am under the impression that there was something expended last year.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Will this pay the whole cost of furnishing, with what has been voted?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What is the cost of the building itself?


William Pugsley: We have not purchased the building. We rent it for $1,673.50 a year.


Oswald Smith Crocket: From whom was it rented?


William Pugsley: The Messrs. Brannen. It used to be a large hotel, called the Martello hotel. .
Grosse Isle quarantine station-disinfecting apparatus, including building, $1,800.
*3211


William Pugsley: This is to complete the expenditure.


Mr. AMES.: What system of disinfecting apparatus did you put in?


William Pugsley: The French system called Dehaitrc Laveuse Desinfeeteuse.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is it portable or stationary?


William Pugsley: It is permanently installed. Then, we have a formaldehyde machine.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is this imported?


William Pugsley: It is a French machine, which we imported direct.


Herbert Brown Ames: Were any commissions paid to any Canadian?


William Pugsley: We imported it direct, without any payment to any intermediary.
Montreal-examining warehouse (old)-new roof, alterations to freight elevators, repairs, &c.-to provide for interest accrued at 5 per cent per annum on delayed payments of accounts rendered by Jos. Thibault for material supplied and work performed, $500.


Herbert Brown Ames: Why was the account delayed?


William Pugsley: A fire took place, and we had to make the repairs immediately, and we had not sufficient money available to pay the contractors.


Herbert Brown Ames: Was not the government able to raise the necessary money to pay Jos. Thibault as he did the work?


William Pugsley: Does not my hon. friend understand that I might have $10,000,000 available for different buildings, and if I owed $10 in respect to a particular building for which there was no appropriation, I could not pay it.


Herbert Brown Ames: Then I understand that the minister ordered this work to be done when there was no money available?


William Pugsley: The building was burned, and this work had to be done. We had some money available, but not enough.	j	HI ;
Quebec citadel-Governor General's quarters - repairs, furniture, &o. - additional amount, $11,600.


William Pugsley: This is the balance due for the alterations and additions which were made in view of the reception of His Eoyal Highness the Prince of Wales, during the Tercentenary celebration.


Mr. URIAH WILSON.: How much did it cost altogether?


William Pugsley: About $36,000.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: Will the hon. minister give the items? I am not objecting to


William Pugsley: proper expenditure being made, Put 1 do not see how $36,000 could have been expended. It looks as if this public function was taken advantage of, as such functions generally are, by a number of hangers-on for the purpose of spoils.


William Pugsley: I think not in this case. I can give the items. Carpentering and plumbing, new extension next to the river for bath room and servant's quarters, $6,000; closing up opening between the governor's quarters and the officer's quarters, $75; repairing roof of His Excellency's bedroom, $50; new porch at front door, $300; new deck on the terrace, $850; changing location of wine cellar, $25; repairing windows and drawers, $100; bath room next to officers' quarters, $25; fitting room adjoining His Excellency's old room with bath, $275; drainage, $500. The question of drainage gave us a good deal of concern. We had to make it perfectly satisfactory in order to suit those who were looking after the arrangements for the reception of His Royal Highness. Painting windows and doors, $250; papering bedrooms, $100. I am reading the estimates of the chief architect, who went over every thing very carefully.


Uriah Wilson: Has the work not been done?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Uriah Wilson: Why not give the actual accounts?


William Pugsley: My hon. friend will see that where there was a con trace let for a lot of different things, the contract will be for a lump sum, and I am giving the details so that the House may judge whether the amount was more than reasonable. Six bedrooms carpeted with 40 yards of carpet each, $660; carpeting front hall, $100; carpeting office, $100; carpeting drawingroom, $300; curtaining six bedrooms, $300, and another six, $150; covering with chintz five sofas, one couch and six easy chairs, $225.


Samuel Hughes: What has become of all these couches and chairs?


William Pugsley: 
Uriah Wilson: I don't want any more.


George Eulas Foster: Who had charge of the work ?


William Pugsley: Mr. Hutchison, the clerk of works at Rideau Hall. He went down and devoted his personal attention to this work at Quebec.


Mr. EDWARDS.: Did I understand that of this total $6,000 was for the extension of closets ?	-


William Pugsley: One of the items I gave was a new extension for bathrooms and servants quarters, $6,000. We called for tenders and the lowest tender received was $6,800 and the contract was let to the lowest tenderer.


Richard Blain: How much of this $36,000 was spent under contract after public call for tenders.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend will see that a large part of the expenditure was for furniture, and for that we did not publicly call for tenders. Mr. Hutchison was instructed to get prices from the different merchants and suppliers and to deal with those who gave the lowest prices.


Mr. J. D. REID.: How is it that in all these cases of public works the cost exceeds the architect's estimates ? I have hardly ever heard of a public building, since I came into this House, but the cost exceeded by from 25 to 100 per cent the estimate of the architect. The effect of this kind of thing is to deceive the committee in the passing of these estimates. We are now voting money for buildings in different parts of the Dominion, and next year we shall find that the cost is greater than the. architect's estimate. It seems to me that the architect of the department is liable to censure in having the minister state to us that a certain work can be done for a. certain amount, and we find out, when it is too late, that the architect is
wrong. I see it stated that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) himself is going to build an apartment building here.
I am glad of it, for it is a necessary thing in Ottawa. But when the hon. gentleman gets an estimate from the architect, I think he will see to it that the work does not exceed that estimate, or somebody will be held responsible. There is something wrong in the department when an architect will thus underestimate expenditures. He should not be allowed to retain his position if he is going to make estimates which mislead the committee on every public work that is undertaken.


William Pugsley: I hope the hon. gentleman (Mr. J. D. Reid) does not desire to do injustice to the chief architect, but certainly he has done him a grave injustice by the statement he has made. Does the hon. gentleman realize the force of what he has said? He says that in not a single instance has it been shown that the cost has not exceeded the estimate of the chief architect. He is entirely in error as to that.


John Dowsley Reid: Name one case.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman states that in this case the contract entered into exceeded the estimate by 25 per cent. The hon. gentleman is mistaken only to the extent of about 100 per cent. The estimate was $6,000; and had this been exceeded by 25 per cent, the cost would have been $7,500. As a matter of fact, it was $6,809.


John Dowsley Reid: Did not I understand the minister to say that the total amount estimated for the work to be done was $25,000, and that the actual cost was $32,000?


William Pugsley: That is taking everything.


John Dowsley Reid: I take the whole contract.


William Pugsley: Let me give another instance in which the hon. gentleman is astray. The chief architect's estimate of the cost of the Museum was $1,250,000. Tenders were publicly called for, and the lowest tender was $950,000, which was $300,000 less than the chief architect's estimate.


Mr. OSLER.: That was as bad the other way.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman (Mr. J D. REID) says that the estimate is always lower than the cost; in this case it was $300,000 higher.


Samuel Hughes: Is the Museum completed?


William Pugsley: It is not completed, but the contractor is completing his contract under his tender of $950,000, and completing it, I may say, in a most satisfactory and creditable manner. Now during the past year I have had the curiosity to compare

the estimates of the chief architect with the lowest tenders which have been received from time to time, and I have been struck with the fact that in the majority of cases the estimate of the chief architect has been very close to the amount of the lowest tender, or it has been a little above the lowest tender. If my hon. friend' is a member of the Public Accounts Committee, and if he will look at the contracts entered into during the past year, he will be surprised, and I think he will feel like withdrawing the imputation he has made upon the competency of the chief architect.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not withdraw one word I have said. I have been here for a number of years, and I have never yet known an instance where the minister came down with an estimate of a certain amount for a public building, that it has not been exceeded. Take this museum. Will the minister state how much has been paid out on that contract? He states now that the contract was given for less than the amount estimated by the architect.


William Pugsley: The amount paid out upon the contract has been on progress estimates, retaining 10 per cent, and when the work is finished it will be done for the $950,000.


John Dowsley Reid: No extras?


William Pugsley: No extras that I am aware of. Taking the work for which the chief architect made his estimate, and on which he called for tenders, the contract is being completed by Mr. Goodwin for $950,000. I do not say, mind you, that $950,000 is not very much less than the work is likely to cost, because the next tenderer was some $300,000 or $350,000 above Mr. Goodwin's, which 'was very close to the chief architect's estimate. But Mr. Goodwin is finishing his work under his contract.


John Dowsley Reid: When a government building like this museum is to be erected, the architect should be able to give an estimate including everything that is to be done in connection with the building, so that when the contractor hands it over, it will be completed without any extras whatever. But in every single case, in order to let the contractor out, in order that there may be unfair profits, there are extras added, and although the estimate made by the architect is said to include every thing, in every single case the work costs more than the original estimate. This museum that the minister Isays will not cost more than $950,000


William Pugsley: For the building?


John Dowsley Reid: Whatever was to be done to that museum. As I understand it, Mr. PUGSLEY.
when the plans were made out the estimate thereon meant that it should complete the building, everything that would be required. Yet we will see when the whole work is completed whether the words of the minister will turn out to be correct. I venture to say that when the whole work is completed, and the final statement is in the Auditor General's Beport, we will find it will cost very much more. It is stated there will be extras, and so on. Surely, when a man is making out an .estimate for a public building it should include everything. Why should there be extras to the amount of 25 per cent or 50 per cent more on every building that is being erected for the government? Will the minister mention one single building erected for the government where there were not extras, and where the people had not to pay more than they should for the building? No private individual would think of giving a contract for any building, with the expectation of extras coming in such as come in here in every single instance I do not take back one word of what I said before. Not only in the Public Works Department, but in every other department, these enormous extras are added to the original estimate. I say it is deceiving the committee, it is deceiving the members of this House, for any minister to- come here and state that a certain work is going to cost a certain amount, and then afterwards tell us that there are some unforeseen expenses, or some extras have to be added, by which the estimated cost has been exceeded 25, 50 or 100 per cent. I claim that a minister should compel his architect to state what that building is going to cost, and if he does not know his business well enough to make plans and specifications for everything that will be required in that building so that there will be no extras, he is not fit to occupy his position.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman is now shifting his ground. The hon. gentleman was finding fault before with the chief architect because he was astray in his estimates, evidently implying that he was not capable of estimating what would be the cost of the building. Now what the hon. gentleman says is that all these things in addition to the building, such as heating, plumbing, electrical wiring and lighting, should be included in the chief architect's estimate.


John Dowsley Reid: I never said that.


William Pugsley: Yes, what the hon. gentleman now says is that we often find that when these things come in afterwards they add to the cost of the building as originally given. That would not reflect at all on the chief architect, that is a matter

that must depend on the judgment of the minister and the policy of the department. If the minister tells the chief architect to prepare his plans and specifications in the first instance in such a way that the tenders should include everything, should include the heating, should include the electrical wiring, should include the lighting, and all the fixtures of every kind and description, then the chief architect would follow out those directions and he would ask for tenders accordingly. I may say to my hon. friend that in my opinion, so far as possible, it is desirable that that should be done, and since I have been minister, after consulting with my deputy, I have decided that in future, as I have done already in a number of cases, everything shall be included, so far as possible ; the contract shall include all these various things in connection with the building, in order that when it is taken off the hands of the contractor, the heating, plumbing, wiring, fittings and so forth shall be completed as well. _ In the case of the museum, my hon. friend is entirely wrong in saying that the cost will be different from what was estimated by the chief architect. His estimate was that the building just as it is now being constructed by the contractor under his "contract, would cost $1,250,000.


John Dowsley Reid: Are there any extras?


William Pugsley: What does my hon. friend mean? Does he mean heating, electrical wiring, fixtures?


John Dowsley Reid: No, I mean the original contract for the building. Have there been any extras added to that?
Mr. PUGSLEY No, there have been no alterations in the original contract, no extras in that sense. There may be other work to be done, there will be other work to be done, there will be electrical wiring, perhaps some drains to be dug, plumbing work which must be included. But there will be no extras in the sense in which they are ordinarily understood as between the contractor and the owner, where the contract has been altered, or things have been forgotten and extra work has to be done. If the contract does not call for heating, electric wiring, electric fixtures or gas fixtures and they are to be provided afterwards I would not call those things extras. I would call an extra something that we are supposed to include and provide for in the contract but which has not been provided for in the contract and which it is afterwards found necessary to provided for. You should no more call electric wiring, heating and plumbing extras than to call furniture that you afterwards put into your house an extra. If you have not provided for it in the contract it is not an extra at all in the sense that my hon. friend has spoken of it.


John Dowsley Reid: When we have had different estimates going through this House in the past we have been told that the amount that was estimated for included wiring, heating and so on, and in the end it turned out that it would not include these things.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend is wrong in that.


John Dowsley Reid: There are instances that I can turn up.


William Pugsley: I do not think my hon. friend can.


John Dowsley Reid: We will take this cash of the museum. If it was not intended that wiring and heating should be included I would not consider them to be extras, but even with respect to an original contract we have had extras added and the cost has turned out to be twenty-five to fifty per cent more than the original estimate. Of course, we do not know anything about the museum just now, but next year we will have it up because then the building will be completed. I am glad to have had this discussion.


William Pugsley: I am glad my hon. friend is not always unreasonable.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not want to be unreasonable. My hon. friend states that this building will only cost the amount of the contract) $900,000 odd.


William Pugsley: That is what is contracted for.


John Dowsley Reid: The minister states that there will be no extras beyond the contract. Next year we will see whether there have been any extras. There are usually some changes made, but in this case the minister states that there have been no changes whatever and that there will be no extras whatever on that building; in fact that there will be nothing to pay over and above the amount of the original contract, $900,000, except for the wiring and heating ?


William Pugsley: I did not say that. 1 said there would be nothing extra to pay for the w'ork that is provided for in the contract. There has been a change made in the tower but that had the effect of reducing the cost instead of increasing it. Do not let my hon. friend misunderstand me. In so far as the plan and specifications call for the work to be done I am not aware that there will be any addition to the cost.


John Dowsley Reid: Have there been any changes in the original plans for the museum which will entail any extras when the work is finally completed?


William Pugsley: None.


John Dowsley Reid: Well, that bears out what I have stated. When the final statements are submitted and paid by the Auditor General there will not be anything more paid than what the contract calls for ?


William Pugsley: That is on the contract, but do not let my hon. friend say tha.t the making of drains and the putting in of electric lighting are included in the contract.


John Dowsley Reid: Drains and so on are
outside of the contract, but what the minister states now is that there have been no changes made in the original plan or in the contract?


William Pugsley: That will add to the cost.


John Dowsley Reid: There have been no changes in the plan and no extras added to the museum; so that we will understand that when the final accounts are paid there will be no extras whatever charged against that building unless it be for wiring, heating, drains or something out of the building altogether.


William Pugsley: Outside of the contract?


John Dowsley Reid: No, outside of the building; never mind the contract.


William Pugsley: Is the hon. gentleman making the statement or am I?


John Dowsley Reid: You are.


William Pugsley: The information I have from the chief architect is that there have been no changes mad'e in the contract which will in any way add to the cost, but I do not consider that the work which has been done outside of the contract comes within the category of my hon. friend.


Mr.   BAEE@: Is the original contractor doing the wiring and plumbing or is that work let to another?


William Pugsley: The plumbing is in the contract.


Mr.   BAEE@: But the electrical wiring is not?


William Pugsley: No.


Mr.   BAEE@: Would not that have to be done before the plastering is done?


William Pugsley: Yes it will be.


Mr.   BAEE@: Then the contract is not let yet?


William Pugsley: No.


John Dowsley Reid: As far as I understand it, the contract included the plastering, plumbing, and everything complete except the electrical wiring and heating. Am I right in that, or does it include the electrical wiring?


William Pugsley: 


Mr. DEPUTY  SPEAKEE@: I am afraid I must interrupt the hon. member (Mr. J. D. Eeid). The item before the committee is the item of the Quebec citadel The museum may be referred to as a matter of illustration but a long or detailed discussion about it would not be in order.
Mr. PUGSLEY! I would be glad to answer my hon. friend if you will allow me, Mr. Chairman. The contract includes the erection of the building, painting, plastering, plumbing and everything except electric wiring, heating, fitting and furniture. There may be decorations which would be in addition. Carving, if there is to be any, would be an addition.


John Dowsley Reid: I think the chairman is right in his ruling as far as the discussing of this item is concerned, but when these estimates are going through at different times there is always an understanding that some item shall be left on which we can discuss other items. If we are to be held dcwn to the rule so that we cannot discuss anything but the item that is submitted at the time I think we had better have an understanding and then the items can be allowed to stand. The minister was kind enough, when these items were going through the other night to state that we could discuss any item on another item that was reserved. I submit now that if you hold us down to this rule it will make it rather awkward if we allow the item to go through upon such an understanding.


William Pugsley: I think perhaps that what took place was that my hon. friend wished to discuss the rents of the buildings in Ottawa and also the accounts for telephones. It was understood that he might discuss those. But my hon. friend will see that, it would be somewhat inconvenient if, on a discussion of items in the supplementary estimates, my hon. friend should enter upon a general discussion of some other building in regard to which there is noth-ing_ in these estimates, and in respect to which I would not, of course, have any information to render to the committee. But, I will be very glad indeed to give any information on any building that my hon. friend wants if he will give me notice. I am prepared to give any information in regard to telephones and rents.


John Dowsley Reid: I admit that the minister is right, but in this particular case I think the minister will admit that it was he who introduced this museum, that it was not I and that therefore I am not responsible for it.


William Pugsley: I introduced it as an illustration.


John Dowsley Reid: The Chairman was
calling me to order because I was discussing the museum. The minister should

be called to order for introducing it and not me.


William Pugsley: It is all right now.
Quebec immigration detention hospital in Savard Park, for patients suffering from trachoma and kindred diseases-to provide for balance due on contract for building sewers, fencing, sidewalks, &c., $2,400.


William Pugsley: That is to pay the balance due on the work specified in the item. The work is being done by Jinchereau & Lamonde, the lowest tenderers.


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


William Pugsley: 


John Dowsley Reid: How many tenders were received?


William Pugsley: I have not a memorandum of the number of tenders.


Herbert Brown Ames: What was to be done for the $55,850?


William Pugsley: The building is two storeys high, of brick, with a stone basement, 147 feet long by 57 feet broad, exclusive of the verandahs, which are 10 feet in width, one extending the full length of the building in front, and the full length of one end. The verandahs are two storeys in height. There is a projection from the main verandah 19 feet by 10 feet. The basement extends under the verandah which is supported on stone foundations. The basement floor contains dining room, kitchen, laundry, fuel and furnace room and store room. The ground floor contains wards, living rooms, bathroom, &c., and on the first floor there are wards, living apartments, laboratories, operating room, &c. The materials throughout the building are mostly fireproof.


Mr. PERLEY.: Will this complete the work?


William Pugsley: Yes.


George Halsey Perley: What will that make the total cost?


William Pugsley: Including the site it would be about $87,000.


George Halsey Perley: The minister said the contract was $55,850. What is the balance made up of?


George Halsey Perley: The Savard property was bought for $14,000 and some additional land for $5,000. If you add the heating, &c., and some additional work in connection with operating room, &c., and some sewer pipes, oosting $3,718, I think it will run up pretty well to the amount named.


Herbert Brown Ames: Were there any extras in the contract for the $55,850.


William Pugsley: The chief architect says not so far as he remembers.


Herbert Brown Ames: What was the original estimate for this building?


William Pugsley: I would naturally not have that information with me to-day as the building is completed, and this is to pay the balance. The estimate would appear in the memorandum of two or three years ago but I shall get the information.


John Dowsley Reid: The item might stand until we learn what the original estimate of the architect was. This is a good illustration of the point I brought up.


William Pugsley: It is a good illustration of my contention. The contract was for $55,850. That did not include the heating apparatus, hospital beds, certain sewer pipes that had to be provided, and certain work in connection with the fitting up of the operating room.


John Dowsley Reid: The minister has not stated the original estimate.


William Pugsley: No, because I have not that here. That, of course, would be presented on the first vote for an appropriation for the building.
Sherbrooke drill hall-amount due for contract and additional works, $42,000.


William Pugsley: We did not anticipate last year that the contractors would proceed so rapidly with their work. They have got along much more rapidly than we anticipated and this amount is necessary if we are to pay them before the close of the present fiscal year. I anticipated last year, from the best information I could get from the chief architect, that we would not require this money until next year but they have gone on much more rapidly than we expected.


Herbert Brown Ames: How much of this is due for the contract and how much for additional work.


William Pugsley: This is all due the contractor. The reason it says in the item ' for additional works ' is that the vote is taken in that way until the building is completed.


Herbert Brown Ames: What additional work do you expect to have outside the contract?


William Pugsley: There will be heating and boilers, electrical wiring and fittings, furniture, sidewalks and fencing.


Herbert Brown Ames: How much of the $42,000 is required for the contract and how much for additional work?


William Pugsley: The whole amount for the contract.


Herbert Brown Ames: The contractor may do additional work.


William Pugsley: He may, of course.


Herbert Brown Ames: How much of this is required on the contract?


William Pugsley: This is on the main contract, the $42,000.


Herbert Brown Ames: The minister said it was due for the contract and additional works. How much is for the contract and how much for additional work?


William Pugsley: I said this is the way we are taking the vote so the vote will appear that way until the building is finally completed, and out of that we could take an amount for heating but I do not intend to do that out of this vote; we intend to pay this entirely to the contractor on account of his contract for the building.


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


William Pugsley: 


Herbert Brown Ames: How much has already been paid on it?


William Pugsley: 


Herbert Brown Ames: Then this $42,000 will not complete the contract?


William Pugsley: No.


Herbert Brown Ames: The minister expects that all this $42,000 will go to the contractor for the work he has already under contract?


William Pugsley: Yes.


William Cameron Edwards: The contract calls for $32,000 and the minister is asking for $87,030 this year, besides which he got $20,000 last year.


William Pugsley: The total probable cost is $112,658.17.


George Eulas Foster: That leaves about $30,000 to make up. What is that for?


William Pugsley: The difference is for heating and boilers, electric wiring, fittings and furnishings, sidewalks and fences, contingencies and superintendence, the site, legal expenses, printing, advertising, &c.
Kingston artillery park - new gun-shed,


William Pugsley: This is to complete the work.


William Cameron Edwards: What is the character of that building?


William Pugsley: It is a one-story wooden building, 111 feet long by 32 feet wide, covered by galvanized iron shingles, and the front and end walls covered with galvanized iron clap-boards underlaid with resinous paper. The lowest tender was $3,475 and the contingencies were $225, Mr. AMES.
making the total probable cost $3,700. We had an appropriation for the current year of $2,500, leaving a balance of $1,300.
Strathcona public building - additional amount, $5,600.


William Pugsley: This is to complete the payment for the site.


Herbert Brown Ames: What was the total cost of the site?


William Pugsley: 


Herbert Brown Ames: Prom whom was it purchased?


William Pugsley: Dr. S. Archibald.


Herbert Brown Ames: Was he the agent or the owner?


William Pugsley: The owner.
Nanaimo public building-fittings, &c., $500.


William Pugsley: This is for fittings, post ifflce boxes and grills.


Herbert Brown Ames: Are the fittings for these buildings in the west all bought from the Office Specialty Company in Ottawa? I notice that nearly all the post offices in the vest are fitted up by this company. lias he government not a general contract with hat company under which fittings axe provided?


William Pugsley: There are two concerns
n the business in Canada and we ask for iriees from both of them, and let the con-ract to the lowest tenderer.
Dawson-Yukon commissioner's residence, $4,200.
This is to complete the payments.


George Eulas Foster: What is being done there?


William Pugsley: My hon. friend will perhaps remember that the governor's resilence was practically destroyed by fire and we have rebuilt it. The estimated cost of taking down the damaged portion of the milding and rebuilding the same was $21,929; furnishings, $10,000; heating, plumbing and electric wiring, $8,000; contingencies $3,271; making a total of $43,200. We have had appropriations of $38,999.21, and require $4,200.79 to pay the balance.


George Eulas Foster: What is the size of the house?


William Pugsley: It was erected eight years ago. It is a two story building, 55 x 50, with an L to it. It is finished in British Columbia fir, heated with hot air and lighted with electricity.


George Eulas Foster: How does the hon. minister manage, to bestow $11,000 worth of furniture?


William Pugsley: It may be cut down somewhat. It is bought in Victoria and

Vancouver, and the freight charges are very heavy. That is the estimate of Mr. Bertrand, who is our agent at Dawson.


George Eulas Foster: $10,000 on furniture is a pretty big item for a moderate residence.


William Pugsley: It is the official residence of the governor, and I am inclined to think that if my hon. friend were in Dawson, and began to get in furniture for a good sized dwelling suitable for Government House, it would take him the greater part of $10,000.	'


Samuel Hughes: What is the population of the Yukon, including the Indians -about 3,500 is it not?


William Pugsley: I do not know.
Ottawa public buildings-repairs, including ventilation and lighting, furniture, &c.-additional amount, $20,000.


William Pugsley: This is to make additional provision for the wages of the clerk of works, mechanical engineers' staff engaged in remodelling the plumbing, improvement of ventilation, also for repairs and other supplies.


George Eulas Foster: What is the total appro- | pnation?


William Pugsley: 
George Eulas Foster: What kind of staff has the hon. gentleman?


William Pugsley: My information is that we could not get along very well with less. The chief architect is the head in charge of the work, but we have a superintendent of buildings, Mr. Shearer, who is a very competent cind careful man. He is very careful with regard to applications for increases of salaries, and with regard to taking on additional men. I really think his staff is not larger than necessary, and the salaries are very moderate.


George Eulas Foster: How many men?


William Pugsley: About 230. This takes in not only these buildings but all the departments.
Ottawa public buildings, grounds-additional amount, $4,000.


George Eulas Foster: What does this make for grounds altogether?


William Pugsley: I am afraid I cannot give the details as fully as I would like because I got rather short notice to get
ready the information as to these supple-mentaries. So far as the $4,000 is concerned, there are unpaid accounts, $1,086, of vdiich I have the details, running from $1.45 up to $678. Wages for F-ebruary and March, $450; tools, repairs, &c., $215.40 ; pay-lists which the accountant has already paid, $2,048.


George Eulas Foster: * How are the grounds taken care of-by contract?


William Pugsley: By day's work under a foreman.


George Eulas Foster: Who has the supervision of the men?


William Pugsley: Mr. Shearer is in charge and there is a foreman under him.


George Eulas Foster: Is it part of Mr. Shearer's work to go around occasionally and see that the men are doing their work?


William Pugsley: Yes, he has the superintendence of all the men.


George Eulas Foster: Has his attention been called to the artistic work being done in the vicinity of the front entrance to the pathway up to the buildings?


William Pugsley: Does my hon. friend mean opening the ditches?
Ottawa public buildings-heating, including salaries of engineers, firemen and watchmen- additional amount, $10,000.


William Pugsley: The vote required was $10,000. Probable estimated expenditure: wages, $5,100 per month, for two months, $10,200; gas for heating, &c., at $400 per month, for two months, $800; paid Heney & Co. for fuel, February and March, $17,500.


George Eulas Foster: Was that by contract?


William Pugsley: Yes, after public tender. Making a total of $28,500, less the balance of February 10, of $18,400, leaving $10,000 to be provided.
Ottawa publio buildings-gas and electric light, including roads and bridges-additional amount, $17,000.


William Pugsley: The total amount required is $53,000 to the end of the month. The vote was $36,000. The accounts of the Ottawa Electric Company on hand, $7,314. Then for the quarter ending March 31, $7,300; lighting the Imperial Realty Company building to 31st March, $2,500; lighting roads and bridges, balance of six months, $910. Total, $18,024.


George Eulas Foster: Does that include rent?


William Pugsley: No.


George Eulas Foster: What are the arrangements for lighting?


William Pugsley: We pay a flat rate of $2.25 per lamp up to three thousand lamps, and $2 over that.


George Eulas Foster: What is a lamp?


William Pugsley: Sixteen candle power.


George Eulas Foster: How do you get at that basis?


William Pugsley: After investigation of the charges ordinarily made by electric companies. I think the rate is a reasonable one. We have about 1(>,000 lights altogether.


George Eulas Foster: Has the minister paid any personal attention to the distribution of lights? Is it possible we are uneconomical in the number used?


William Pugsley: I had occasion to inquire into the considerations which led us to make the present arrangement, and satisfy myself that the arrangement was a reasonable one. The details, of course, we must leave to our electricians, who are faithful and responsible men.


George Eulas Foster: Who is the head of the service?


William Pugsley: Mr. Johnston is the chief electrician.


George Eulas Foster: Does he see to it that useless lights are not used?


William Pugsley: Yes, he reports on every application for lights.


George Eulas Foster: How many lights are kept burning on the average?


William Pugsley: It would be difficult to tell that; lights burned in an office to-day would not be burned to-morrow.


George Eulas Foster: When the winter is over,
I suppose that many lamps are not used all summer long. Is $2.25 paid for every lamp that swings?


William Pugsley: Yes. Of course, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) will understand that if a lamp were kept burning winter and summer on a meter rate, it would cost much more than $2 a year.


George Eulas Foster: It would be interesting to know how many lamps are burned eight hours a day, how many six hours a day and so on. It must be that many of thern do not cost much to the contractor. Possibly you may be paying a very high rate for the light you are consuming.


William Pugsley: It is a matter for careful calculation by the electrician. I have no doubt that the matter was very carefully gone into when the arrangement was made.


George Eulas Foster: It is possible that, having made your contract, the thing is considered done-you are going it- blind, as it were. But it seems to me that a man, if this were his own business, would have somebody keep pretty sharp tab on it all to find out, as nearly as he could, the power he was Mr. PUGSLET.
using, and he would revise his contract if he thought he was paying too much. Of course, he might find that he was not paying too much, and so let it run. Is the minister taking any means of checking this business, so as to have information for his own guidance and for the use of this committee? If not, I would advise him to ask his officers-he has plenty of them; some are overworked, but some are not, and he could easily choose those who would not be overburdened with the duty-_ to make adequate investigation of this business and furnish him with information, which, I am sure, he would like to have and which, possibly, the House may ask for.


William Pugsley: I am told that there i9 a report. There is no doubt that it would be an advantage to have the electrician go into the matter carefully from time to time and see how we are faring. I will have the report brought down and laid on the table at a convenient time.
Ottawa public buildings-elevators, attendants, additional amount, $3,800.


George Eulas Foster: How many elevator attendants have we?


William Pugsley: Thirty.


George Eulas Foster: That is in all the buildings? And how many elevators?


William Pugsley: Twenty.


George Eulas Foster: What length of service dc these attendants give each day? *


William Pugsley: In the departmental buildings, ordinarily, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. In the House of Commons, from 7.30 a.m. to all hours of the night.


George Eulas Foster: Are they paid by the year?


William Pugsley: They are paid a monthly wage.


George Eulas Foster: What pay is given them during the recess when the elevators are not being used ?


William Pugsley: We only keep one during the recess.


George Eulas Foster: What do you pay them?


William Pugsley: One is paid $65, one $60, and 27 of them $55 each per month.


George Eulas Foster: Thirty days a month?


William Pugsley: That is by the month.


George Eulas Foster: It is prety monotonous work, pretty hard work. These elevator attendants ought to have a fair renumeration.


William Pugsley: What does my hon. friend think would be about the rate?


George Eulas Foster: I would not like to do it for any rate. There is nothing very interesting about it, going up and down a shaft.


William Pugsley: I may say that in some cases the elevators work later than 5 o'clock. In the Privy Council building, when Council is meeting, the elevator man has to remain until 6 o'clock.


George Eulas Foster: I think the government would not err if they paid their elevator men a fair wage.
()thiwa public buildings-telephone service -additional amount, $2,850.


George Eulas Foster: I would like some information about the system on which telephones are furnished.


William Pugsley: 
J. MACPHERSON,
[Stage Direction]
Local Manager.
George Eulas Foster: When was the $35 arrangement entered into?


William Pugsley: About 15 or 20 years ago.


George Eulas Foster: What diminution in the
price of the house and office phones has taken place in the city within that time?


William Pugsley: I do not think there has been any diminution.


Mr. LENNOX.: Does the minister know what the rate is with reference to a longer contract than one year? That letter mentions a yearly contract.


William Pugsley: I think there is no difference in the rate.


Haughton Lennox: He specifically mentions a contract for a year.


William Pugsley: He says the government can terminate at any time, while an ordinary customer must pay by the year.


George Eulas Foster: I have an impression that
the rates for the city in the last 15 years have diminished-the minister can easily get the information. But if that be true, there ought to be an equitable and proportional diminution in the $35 rate. The company was doing business with an excellent customer, to whom they now furnish over 300 phones. If, 15 years ago, they gave that as a fair rate, and if at that time business and residence phones were higher in the city, it is only fair that they should make a proportional reduction in the present rate. The minister might look into that and see. Any way, the government is an excellent and very large cus-

tomer, there is no competition in the business, and I think the company should take the general rule of business into account that the larger the customer the greater the consideration they show in the wares they have to sell. On the other hand, what is the rule upon which these phones are distributed? There are a great many of them, and I have information which leads me to think that there are a good many which can hardly be justified. What jiass of officials get phones?


William Pugsley: Answering my hon. friend's first remark, I will make inquiry as to whether there has been any change in the rates. But to-day, taking business phones at $45 and residence phones at $25, if we paid that rate, we would be paying $1,600 per year more than we do at present on the $35 rate all round.


George Eulas Foster: My point was in regard to the proportional diminution if there has been any.


William Pugsley: In regard to our getting a reduced rate because we are having a good many telephones, I doubt very much if we could get the telephone company to do that, because private individuals would at once complain. They would say:	You
are only charging the government a certain rate per year and you are charging us $5 or $10 per year more as the case might be.


George Eulas Foster: They might say that now.


William Pugsley: No, they cannot say that now because it is a flat rate that we pay for offices and residences.


George Eulas Foster: You said that you got them for $1,600 less?


William Pugsley: Yes, that may be.


Mr. BOYCE.: You are getting a compromise rate between the residence and office rate?


William Pugsley: Yes. I might say something as to the reasons for installing these telephones. It goes without saying that telephones will be put into the offices of the ministers, the deputy ministers and the various officials wlio would be required to be communicated with by telephone. I suppose that the hon. gentleman would rather have me say a word as to residence telephones?


George Eulas Foster: Yes, as to whether the number is required.


William Pugsley: We do not install a telephone in any office unless there is a requisition endorsed by the minister of the department. I am asking in all cases that a requisition from any department shall be in the form of a request from the minister for a telephone. I think that is only right. The minister would know whether Mr. FOSTER.
it is reasonable that there should be a telephone placed in such and such an office, and he endorses his approval on the requisition. With regard to residences, it is the same way. We have telephones in the residences of the ministers, of tihe deputy ministers, of the chief officials of the departments, of the secretaries of the departments, and in some cases of one of the messengers of a department. We have thought it was not unreasonable to put a telephone in the residene of the chief messenger who might be called up from time to time by his minister or some one connected with the department. I think, m a general way, that is the principle upon which we have gone.


George Eulas Foster: Is there only one messenger's telephone?


William Pugsley: I do not know whether there is more than one messenger in the department who has a telephone in his residence.


George Eulas Foster: You mean the chief messenger in each department?


William Pugsley: Not the chief messenger, but the messenger who might be chosen by the minister.


George Eulas Foster: One from each department?


William Pugsley: They do not all have them. It is only in very rare cases that there are telephones in the messenger s residence. I have a list which I will send over to the hon. gentleman.


Mr. GEO. GORDON.: It was claimed that the government pay as high as $50 for some telephones.


William Pugsley: A desk extension is $15 additional.


George Eulas Foster: Is the minister sure that in some of the rooms they do not have three telephones where one may do?


William Pugsley: I cannot think that is the case. I have had no such case brought to my notice, and in looking over the list it would not appear that such is the case. I may say that I have had requests for telephones which I have refused.


George Eulas Foster: I have no doubt of that.


Richard Blain: I see a good many telephones in the Public Works Department down at $55 apiece.


William Pugsley: There might be two extensions. There is a desk telephone in my own office and a desk telephone and an extension would make $55.
Rideau Hall, including grounds-improvements, furniture and maintenance-additional amount, $4,000.


William Pugsley: In the estimates of last year there was $35,000. There are unpaid accounts, as per the list which I have here, running from $9 up to $469, amounting altogether to $1,397.60. Then there are for linen, $666.24, wages for February and March, $2,500, and contingencies $439.35. We have a balance on hand of $1,199. This leaves a balance of $3,801 which we require to close up the accounts to March 31.


George Eulas Foster: What will be the total expenditure on Rideau Hall to March 31?


William Pugsley: That will make the total nearly $39,000.


George Eulas Foster: Any extraordinary improvements included in that?


William Pugsley: No.


George Eulas Foster: Any addition or improvements to Government house itself?


William Pugsley: No, just the grounds.


George Eulas Foster: No new furniture?


William Pugsley: Yes, there would be some dry goods, linen, curtains and glassware, but the main part of it was for improvements and maintenance. The principal part of it is for salaries, $17,000; that would be for general work about the grounds. Then we paid a little over $7,500 for dry goods, linen, curtains, glassware, crockery and kitchen ware, $1,396 for lumber, $842 for furniture, flags, and cleaning carpets and $1,698 for plants, bulbs, trees, &c.


George Eulas Foster: $17,000 for labour?


William Pugsley: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: For taking care of the grounds?


William Pugsley: For taking care of the grounds, including the salary of clerk of works, the conservatories, &c.
Dominion public buildings-heating-additional amount, $23,000.


William Pugsley: The expenditure from April 1 to December 15, 1908, was $79,500. There are contracts for coal not paid, amounting to $33,500, making a total of $113,000. There was a vote in the estimates last year of $90,000, leaving a balance of $23,000 which we are now asking for?
Arisaig harbour-repairs to wharf and breakwater, $500.


Mr. JAMESON.: What is the nature of that item?


William Pugsley: This is to complete the payments according to the pay-lists and accounts not covered in the vote of $1,500 in the main estimates. I had that reduced 102
to $1,100, stating that we would make a payment out of supplementaries for the current year.
Bailey's Brook-harbour improvements, $700.


William Pugsley: This is a balance. It is for reconstructing and extending the brush-work on the east side of the harbour.


Clarence Jameson: Does that complete the contemplated improvements?


William Pugsley: Yes, it will complete the present extension.
Glace Bay harbour-assistance towards harbour improvements, $900.


William Pugsley: This is to pay the balance.
Grand Etang-partial reconstruction of channel protection works, $3,300.
Mr. PUGSLEY I gave the particulars of this the other night to the hon. member for St. Antoine Division.
Little River harbour wharf-additional amount, $200.


William Pugsley: This is to close up the year.


Clarence Jameson: Is this in Digby?


William Pugsley: It is in Yarmouth.


Clarence Jameson: There is a Little River in Digby for which $2,500 was in the estimate last year.


William Pugsley: That is not here.


Clarence Jameson: Was that omitted from tjie estimates because Digby returned a Conservative instead of a Liberal?


William Pugsley: What does the hon. gentleman himself think?


Clarence Jameson: I am not replying to but asking questions.


George Eulas Foster: It is your thinker he wants to work.


William Pugsley: I have not thought of that at all.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: It is a question of extreme delicacy.
Portuguese Cove breakwater-strengthening structure, $2,000.


William Pugsley: This is to cover overexpenditure, to finish up the payments.
Scotch Cove (White Point)-breakwater-to complete payments, $9,350.


George Eulas Foster: What is the total expenditure on that?


William Pugsley: The total expenditure up to the first of January was $20,274. This amount is due the contractor. The contract is for $28,935.



South Lake, Lakevale-opening channel from lake to St. George's bay-inclusive of protection work-additional amount, $4,500.


William Pugsley: I gave the full particulars of that to Mr. Ames the other night.


Clarence Jameson: This work was undertaken before the money was provided?


William Pugsley: This is a case in which, owing to an error, the amount was reduced, but it was found to be absolutely necessary work in order to protect what had already been done. The engineer went on and finished it and this is the balance.
Upper Prospect-breakwater, $250.


Clarence Jameson: Where is this?


William Pugsley: This is in Halifax county.


Clarence Jameson: Is this to complete the work?


William Pugsley: This is to complete the payments, yes.
Sandy Cove breakwater-to provide for full and final settlement of outstanding accounts for labour and materials supplied in connection with construction of breakwater in 1903-4 by contractors Hayden & Oliver, $3,945.


William Pugsley: This is a case which I think I should explain to the committee. The contractors took the contract to build this breakwater. The report of the engineer is that after they had proceeded a certain distance with the work it was discovered that the soil was entirely different from what the engineer and contractors had expected it would be. The result of placing the foundation of the breakwater there was to give a certain direction to the current which began to undermine the foundation. When this was discovered, the contractors saw that to go on with the work meant inevitable loss to them and they were of the opinion that they had better forfeit their deposit and abandon their contract. The engineer encouraged them to go ahead with the work and finish it up and stated to them that he would so report to the department and ask favourable consideration. The contractors say that they understood from the engineer that he would recommend that they should be paid the actual cost of the work. He does not recollect that that took place, but he does recollect that he encouraged them to proceed with the work and does not deny that he led them to expect that the department would be likely to take an equitable view of the case. They went on and built the breakwater, doing a thoroughly good job, which is very satisfactory to the department. The result of doing the work was to bankrupt the contractors. Then the men who had done work upon the breakwater and people who had supplied1


William Pugsley: materials made a claim upon the department urging that as the government had got full value for what was represented by the actual labour and materials, the government ought not to allow these men to lose their wages or the value of the material supplied.


George Eulas Foster: When did they make their claim?


William Pugsley: At least two years ago. The department sent an accountant in November, 1906, down to the place where the work had been done to look into these bills for wages and materials, and the accountant certified that this amount was justly due. The engineer certified that there is no question whatever but that the actual cost of the work would be represented by this balance of $3,945.08, and we have the claims actually filed with us to that amount.


Richard Blain: What was the total amount of the contract?


William Pugsley: $12,900, but the actual cost of the work was that amount plus this $3,945. The matter came before me at the last session and I declined to recommend this claim because I felt it was establishing a precedent which might lead us into difficulties in the future, that the contractors had taken the work as being the lowest tenderers at the contract price of $12,900, that the men who did the work and supplied the materials trusted to the contractors, and that therefore, if the contractors were unable to pay, they would have to lose what they had put into the work. I declined to bring it before the House at the last session of parliament. Since that time the matter has been still further urged upon my attention, and I looked again into the report of the engineer, and I concluded that, in view of the fact that the work was honestly done and thoroughly done, if we do not pay, it means that these poor men who have worked on this public work will lose the fruit of their labour, and the men who supplied the materials will lose the price of them; and also, in view of the fact that the contractor was going to throw up his job when he encountered this unexpected condition of affairs, and was pursuaded by the engineer to go on and complete the contract with the expectation-not a very strong one, I admit-[DOT] that the department would look on the matter equitably, I concluded that it was not unreasonable to ask parliament to vote this money, and I hope the committee will concur in that view.


Clarence Jameson: To whom will the money be paid?


William Pugsley: It will be paid to the men according to the claims filed in the department.

Dorchester wharf-addition, $5,500.


William Pugsley: This is to build a very important extension of the wharf, some 200 feet long, 94 feet high on the average, and 52 feet wide on the top. It is a very important work; it is under contract, and this is to complete the payments.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What is the total cost?


William Pugsley: $17,724.83. There is a great deal of business being done there, and it is increasing. This work was necessitated by reason of the business being largely done by steamers instead of by sailing vessels.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Who was the contractor?


William Pugsley: Downey & Downey,of Curryville, New Brunswick.
Richibucto harbour-to pay John Jardine, contractor, in full and final settlement of all claims in connection with his contract of November 16, 1905, for extension of breakwater-pier on the north side of harbour, $5,395.34.


William Pugsley: 
Oswald Smith Crocket: Are these extra amounts based on the schedule prices?


William Pugsley: Yes, but the larger portion is at $1.25 per cubic yard, all the resident engineer would allow.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Was Mr. Jardine authorized or directed by any officer of the department to build this addition or extension after the letting of the contract?


William Pugsley: No, he was not authorized to build the extension, and that is the reason the department could not pay for it, and that is why we come to parliament. It is a useful public work, and it is only right that the contractor should be paid for it.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Does the minister state that Mr. Jardine did this additional work without communicating with the department and getting the authority of the department to do it?


William Pugsley: That is correct.


Oswald Smith Crocket: And then he presents a claim to the minister and asks for this extra payment?


William Pugsley: Yes, if parliament approves.


George Eulas Foster: That is pretty dangerous work.
St. John river and tributaries-construction of wharfs in tidal waters-additional amount, $4,650.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I understand that this amount, added to the amount already voted in the main estimates, makes $19,650 for the construction of wharfs in the St. John river for the year ending the 31st March, 1909.


William Pugsley: Yes.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I understand there were four or five wharfs ordered to be built by the department last summer in the counties of Queens and Sunbury, and that without tender or contract. Can the minister tell us what is the position with regard to these wharfs? I would like to know what the total cost of each of these is to be.


William Pugsley: At Chase's Point, $4,110; Oromocto, $4,379; Majorville high water wharf, $4,996; Gowan's, $2,750; Rothesay, $1,964; Long Island, $869; Meaford, $543.

Total, $19,611, and the appropriation was $15,000, leaving a balance of $4,011, and we are asking for $4,075.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Will this appropriation *complete all these wharfs?


William Pugsley: These amounts are required to make the payments up to March 31, and I hope , they will complete these works, but am not sure.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I would like additional information with regard to a number of wharfs for which tenders were called during October last. The minister gave a list some days ago of nine wharfs for which tenders were called on October 9. In the call for tenders, November 12 was fixed as the last day when tenders would be received. I put a question on the Order Paper the other day, and was rather surprised, in view of what had transpired in Committee of Supply when the item of $20,000 was going through, at the amount of the estimated cost of these wharfs, as reported by the minister in reply to that question. 1 find that the estimated cost of the nine wharfs ran all the way from $4,861 to $19,561, and that the total estimated cost of the nine wharfs was $97,587. Those tenders were called, as the minister has informed us, upon plans and specifications prepared by the department on October 9, and the tenders were to be received up to November 12. Tenders were received for several of these wharfs, and notwithstanding the fact that in all cases they were considerably below the estimated cost, none of them were accepted. I would like the minister to explain why it was that his department, on October 9, just in the middle of an election campaign, called for tenders for the construction of so many wharfs in that constituency, and as soon as the election was over decided not to go on with the work. I would like to know also if it is the intention of the department during this year to call for new tenders for any of these wharfs?


William Pugsley: The reason why tenders were called for before the election was because there was not time to call for them earlier. They were called for last fall and there was no particular reason why we should wait till after the elections.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The necessity arose very suddenly.


William Pugsley: No, my hon. friend must be aware that while the estimates were submitted early last year, for reasons which, I suppose, our hon. friends opposite thought good and sufficient, they did not seem quite willing, for some time at all events, that the estimates should go through without considerable discussion, and, may I say it without offence, some little opposition. The result was we did not Mr. PUGSLEY.
get Supply until very shortly before prorogation. Parliament rose on July 20. I gave instructions immediately to have the plans and specifications prepared so that tenders could be invited. I did so because the information I had was that these wharfs were necessary in the public interest, and it would be desirable to have them put under way during the past winter. As soon as the plans were prepared by our engineer in St. John, Mr. Scammel, tenders were called for and in most cases they were somewhat below the estimates, but not very much below except in two instances. I had not myself gone carefully into the specifications, nor would I be supposed to do that, not being an engineer; but I did not anticipate that the plans would be very different from those which, when I was a member of the provincial government, we had prepared for wharfs constructed on the St. John river. When the tenders came in they struck me as very excessive. I could not conceive it possible that tenders would be called for wharfs that would cost so much beyond what the provincial government had succeeded in getting wharfs built for on the St. John river and its tributary lakes.


George Eulas Foster: It arose from the condition of the political atmosphere at that particular time.


William Pugsley: No, it arose by reason of the very different kind of plans which the engineer in my department at St. John had prepared, plans for a more substantial wharf-really a coast wharf instead of a river wharf.


George Eulas Foster: Which showed good judgment on the part of the engineer.


William Pugsley: I do not know. Some engineers are in favour of very substantia] wharfs, and it may be good economy in the long run; but at all events, I assumed that we would get a class of wharf similar to what the provincial government had been in the habit of building. There were two cases in which the tenders were very much less than the engineer's estimate, and I had these parties seen by one in whom I had confidence to ascertain if they really understood the plans and were prepared to to enter on the work. They said they had misunderstood the plans and could not possibly do the work at the price they [DOT] tendered, and I did not call on them to enter into contracts which would have ruined them. They were farmers from Queens and Sunbury. I decided to call for new tenders and ordered new plans to be prepared. I have communicated with the Chief Commissioner of Public Works in the New Brunswick government and have asked if he would allow me to have the benefit of the experience of his provincial engin-

eer who has had a great deal to do with the building of these wharfs, so that we might have plans prepared for wharfs of the same class as the provincial government is in the habit of building, and which run in cost from $1,000 to $2,000. He has consented, very kindly, to allow me to have the benefit of the experience and services of the engineer. I am going to have the engineer of my department in St. John, Mr. Cawmill, confer with him, and we expect to. get up a series of plans for the wharfs which will enable us to build a large number of these wharfs at a cost not to exceed the appropriation asked for in the main estimates. With regard to the different wharfs _ to which the 'hon. member has referred, it is my intention to call for tenders for these, unless it is pointed out to me that some of them are not necessary in the public interest. It may be that some information will come to me that will lead me to alter my opinion, but, as at present advised, I think they are all necessary in the public interest; and it is my hope-and my expectation also-that, during the coming season, the plans will be completed and tenders will be called for, I have the hope and expectation that the cost will not exceed from $1,000 to $2,000 for each wharf. I think we can get wharfs suitable for the St. John river and tributary lakes which will answer every purpose at a cost not to exceed on the average $2,000.


Oswald Smith Crocket: And the $20,000 voted will completely cover the cost of these nine
wharfs ?


William Pugsley: I should hope to get plans which will enable us to give contracts for not exceeding $2,000 on the average for each wharf.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) has given what, no doubt, may be considered a very plausible explanation of the department's refusal to accept the tenders for these wharfs. But I do not think he has very satisfactorily explained why it was that the department called for tenders for the construction of these wharfs upon such plans and specifications as were prepared. He, surely, must have authorized that call for tenders, and, before authorizing it, he must have been aware of the plans and specifications which had been prepared and of the estimated cost of each of these nine wharfs. I do not think the minister will deny that he was aware of these estimates, they having been made by the engineers of the department, no doubt at his direction. Those estimates for the several wharfs were as follows:- $19,561,	$10,954,	$18,733,	$11,381, $8,067,
$6,701, $9,072, $4,861. And now, the minister who authorized the calling for these
tenders, and, no doubt, personally directed that this call should be issued at that par ticular time and with a full knowledge of these estimates of cost, comes before the House and states that the department was not warranted in contemplating the construction of wharfs of that character. This seems a most extraordinary proceeding on the part of the minister. The minister authorized that call for tenders for no other reason, I have no hesitation in saying, than that of influencing the electors of these constituencies as an election bluff. It seems to me that the minister now occupies rather an unenviable position before the public of the constituency affected, in view of the statement he has made that the department should not have thought of constructing wharfs in these waters which would exceed in cost $1,000 or $2,000 each. I am content to let the statement of the minister, as made, go before the electors of Queens and Sunbury; and I have no doubt that they will bear in mind in that connection the promises which were made by the minister and his candidate in that constituency with reference to these works. I only hope that the minister will do as he has stated-call for tenders for these wharfs during the present season, and I can say to him that the electors of that constituency-


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Crocket) thinks they are all necessary public works?


Oswald Smith Crocket: I have no hesitation in saying that some of them are.


William Pugsley: 'Some of them.' Then, why does the hon. gentleman wish me to call for tenders for them all?


Oswald Smith Crocket: I am not in a position to state whether they are all necessary or not. But I do trust that, in view of the fact that they were promised in that way to the electors of that county, the minister will deem it his duty to do at least something towards implementing the promise which he has given to the electors of the constituency, even though it be to give a $1,000 or $2,000 wharf where an $18,000 or $19,000 wharf was promised.


William Pugsley: At present we are considering the question whether these works are reasonably necessary and whether it is proper to vote this money for the purpose of completing them. So far as the opinion of the people of New Brunswick is concerned, I think they have not hesitated to express their opinion of my conduct, nor have they hesitated to express their opinion of the criticisms of my hon. friend (Mr. Crocket) and his associates. My hon. friend is not unaware of the fact that, during the election, his friends went up and down the counties of Queens and

Sunbury declaring that this was only an election dodge and that there was no intention of the building the wharfs. And they went further and declared that the provincial government would build these wharfs, that it was unnecessary to look to the Dominion government, and that the proper thing to do was to support Mr. Wilmot and strengthen Mr. Hazen's hands in Queens and Sunbury, because he would be the next representative from New Brunswick in the Dominion government, he would be Minister of Public Works, and between the two governments it would not be necessary to go to Mr. Pugsley for these wharfs. The hon. gentleman says that these tenders were called for by me with the knowledge that the prices would be excessive, because the estimates called for wharfs more expensive than it would be necessary to build. My directions, after this vote passed parliament were that proper plans and specifications should be prepared and tenders called for for the work. I did not see the estimates when prepared by the engineer in St. John. I do not think he sent them to Ottawa. He followed my directions to make plans and specifications and call for tenders. I supposed that the tenders would be at reasonable figures. When I found that they were much larger than I thought they ought to be, I gave direction that the cheques should be returned, new plans and specifications made and new tenders called for.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Then, the minister called for tenders without regard to the estimated cost of the works if I understand his statement?


William Pugsley: I think my statement was clear.
Public works-chargeable to income-Quebec-harbours, rivers and bridges-general repairs and improvements, $20,000.


William Pugsley: This is a general vote. The additional amount is required.


Mr. GERVAIS.: For the last two or three years, the city of Montreal has been requesting this government to build a wharf at St. Helen's island, opposite the city. Honourable members are aware that very large numbers of people visit St. Helen's island every summer. I understand that Mr. Michaud, the local engineer in charge of the Montreal works, has been making a report to the Department of Public Works about the necessity and the cost of building a wharf and a shelter on St. Helen's island, opposite the city of Montreal. I think that should be done this year. Over half a million of people visit the island yearly, most of them working people belonging, to the poorer classes, and something should be done to make proper landing facilities on the Mr. PUGSLEY.
island. I think that about $2,000 should be given for this purpose, out of the large aggregate sum now being asked for to improve the harbours and rivers generally. For instance, I notice that we are asked to vote $4,000 to repair a jetty at Nicolet. Then, I think we might take a portion of the money that we are asked to vote to build ice piers at Riviere St. Jacques in the county of Laprairie. The Minister of Public Works should give us some explanation why he has not proceeded before now with the work of building a wharf and shelter at St. Helen's island for the benefit of over half a million people.	1 f j


William Pugsley: I think the question
is deserving of an answer from me, and I will endeavour to explain why I have not been able to accede to my hon. friend's request. He has pressed the consideration of the matter upon my department. What my hon. friend desires is that the government should build a wharf at St. Helen's island. Now I have not felt that I could justify this expenditure, particularly when there are so many pressing needs for public works in other directions. This wharf at St. Helen's island would be for the accommodation of the people of Montreal who wish to visit the island as a summer resort; it would be rather for the accommodation of the ferry between the city and the island. I have not felt that I could regard this wharf as a work so much in the general interest of navigation as to justify me in asking parliament to make an appropriation for it. However, I have not closed my mind entirely against it; I can say to my hon. friend that I will give the matter careful consideration.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: As a matter of fact, the corporation of the city of Montreal ha^ been asking for that improvement for a number of years, I know that they have been sending report after report to the government asking a sum of money sufficient to do some work blasting and build such a wharf and shelter. It seems to me that this work on St. Helen's island is just as much needed as are a great many of the improvements along the river St. Lawrence which the government has decided to make, for instance, the improvements at the Riviere St. J acques, at St. Louis, at Ste. Anne des Monts and so on. The people of Montreal are contributing a large portion of the revenue of this country, and some consideration should be given to the request of the city council of Montreal. I do not know why the request, the demands, the requirements, of the city of Montreal should be ignored for the benefit of all these little villages along the St. Lawrence river. The city of Montreal is contributing, not only largely to the national exchequer, but in every department of industry it is; con-

tributing to the prosperity of this country, and deserves far more consideration than it has received. We are asking this wharf for the benefit of the workingmen of the great commercial metropolis of Canada, and the-Minister of Public Works is not doing justice to them in ignoring their request made through the city council. I would like to know why the representations of the city council of Montreal should be disregarded tc the advantage of the farmers of Laprairie, to the advantage of the farmers and traders of the Rivifere St. Francois, for example. I call upon the hon. members here representing the other divisions of Montreal to support my request. In Montreal we have built up for the benefit of the whole of Canada a port and a channel which are worth to-day $50,000,000, to which the general government has not contributed one farthing. We have been deprived of this asset of the city, which has now been taken over by the general government, and when we are asking for the expenditure of a small sum of $15,000 or $20,000 for the benefit of the workingmen of Montreal, we are told that we cannot get it. For the last three years the representations of the corporation of Montreal have been disregarded, have been unheeded, I do not know why, and I would like to know why. I think that some better explanation should be given to the House, and one more satisfactory to the people of Montreal than the one we have heard.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like to hear from the Postmaster General on that.


George Eulas Foster: There is an easy reason why my hon. friend from St. James division, Montreal (Mr. Gervais) has not had his request granted. He looks so good natured and he smiles so pleasantly when he is making his demands, that the minister thinks he is not in earnest.


John Dowsley Reid: I would ask the Postmaster General if he is in favour of this request of the hon. member for St. James division, Montreal (Mr. Gervais).


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman has no right to demand that a member speak.


John Dowsley Reid: I think he should express an opinion upon that.


William Pugsley: Let us get through with the Quebec items.


John Dowsley Reid: The Postmaster General knows about Montreal.


William Pugsley: He does not feel like making a speech just now.


John Dowsley Reid: He is trying to avoid this question.


Honoré Hippolyte Achille Gervais: I would like an explanation from the Minister of Public Works why this work has been delayed for the last three years. We are surely entitled to
some consideration. There are some other members from the island of Montreal present and I will allow them to express their own opinion about the matter.


William Pugsley: I told my hon. friend that I would consider his request still further. The reason the appropriation has not been made is that this being a ferry wharf to accommodate the tourist travel or the people who go in the summer season from the city of Montreal to St. Helen's island, I had not felt that it had the same merits or the same claims upon the federal treasury as a wharf which might be more in the interest of general navigation. However I will give very careful consideration to the strong representations that my hon. friend has made.


John Dowsley Reid: I think the Postmaster General should express an opinion upon this question himself. I really feel that the Postmaster General should tell us his idea so that we would be able to judge as to whether the request made by the hon. member for Montreal, St. James (Mr. Gervais) is justified or not. Otherwise, we would take it for granted that what the hon. member for St. James is asking is not a fair request.
Nicolet harbour-repairs to jetty at mouth of river, shelter, shed and dredging, $4,600.


George Eulas Foster: Let us see what that is about.


William Pugsley: This is chiefly for dredging at Nicolet.


Herbert Brown Ames: Who has the contract?


William Pugsley: The contract for dredging has been awarded to the Canada Improvement Company, the price being, for rock, $4, and for other materials 22 cents per cubic yard and $3 for rock and 20 cents for other materials when cast over.


John Dowsley Reid: Who is at the head
of the Canada Improvement Company?


William Pugsley: I do not know, but I think it is Mr. Moore of Montreal.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is that the same as T. F. Moore & Company?


William Pugsley: I do not know whether it is Mr. Moore or Mr. Cohen; I think it is one or the other.


John Dowsley Reid: Are they in the dredging business?


William Pugsley: Yes, they are dredging contractors.


John Dowsley Reid: Do they own dredges?


William Pugsley: Yes, they have a large fleet of dredges.


John Dowsley Reid: I have heard of Mr. Cohen, but I have never heard of the Canada Improvement Company.


William Pugsley: They have been in existence for three or four yeaTS.


John Dowsley Reid: Had they been doing work for the Public Works Department before?


William Pugsley: Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: Under the name of the Canada Improvement Company?


William Pugsley: Yes.
River Yamaska-landing pier at St. Michel d'Yamaska, $4,000.


John Dowsley Reid: We want some explan-aion of that.


William Pugsley: The total cost of the work is $10,500, there was an appropriation last year of $2,000, there was voted in the main estimates for the coming year $4,500, and we require a supplementary vote, to pay for the work to be done up to the close of this year, of $4,000.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is that work being done by day's labour?


William Pugsley: Yes. The cost of the site was $500.


Herbert Brown Ames: I understand the minister to say that $2,000 was voted for this work at the last session of parliament?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Herbert Brown Ames: You have spent $6,000 when you had $2,000 voted?


William Pugsley: Yes. The estimate of the probable expenditure is $7,200.


Herbert Brown Ames: Is the $4,000 you are asking for to pay accounts already incurred?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Herbert Brown Ames: Does it not seem strange to the minister that he should ask for $2,000 to build a wharf and that he should deliberately spend $6,000, not by contract but by day's work? Is it not a rule of the department to stop the day's work when the appropriation is exhausted?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Herbert Brown Ames: And has the government spent $6,000 with an appropriation of $2,000? Have the men been paid out of this $4,000 that we have now before us?


William Pugsley: No, this is for the purpose of paying them.


Herbert Brown Ames: When was the work done?


William Pugsley: They are still working at it.


Herbert Brown Ames: But was not the bulk of the work done before the frost came last fall?


William Pugsley: A good deal of it is done.


John Dowsley Reid: 


Herbert Brown Ames: Then this money was spent in September, October and November during the election time after the appropriation had been entirely exhausted. The men were kept at work in the expectation that parliament would ratify it six months later. Is it not the rule of the department that work being done by day's labour stops when the appropriation is exhausted? Surely that is what is stated in the instructions which the chief engineer sends to the assistant engineers throughout the country. They are distinctly cautioned to on no account exceed the estimate. If it were a contract I could understand it, but when it is done by day's work why did the minister keep the men at work until an expenditure three times the amount of the original vote of this parliament was incurred? Why did the work not cease when the vote was exhausted?


William Pugsley: I may say to my hon. friend that he is quite right in his statement that the instructions of the chief engineer to the resident engineers are to stop the work when the appropriations are exhausted, but in this particular case the opinion of the resident engineer, and it was so reported, was that it was necessary to continue the work in order to save that which had already been done. I was surprised and somewhat annoyed when it came to my notice that the work had been continued, but it was the opinion of the resident engineer that it was necessary in order to save from waste and destruction the work which had already been done. I am asking for this appropriation to pay for the labour which has been done under the direction of the resident engineer, and with the approval, of course, of the chief engineer.


Herbert Brown Ames: Will the minister give the items making up the $4,500. How much represents overdue wages and since how long these wages have been overdue?


William Pugsley: I do not believe I could give that just now, I have not the details of it.


Herbert Brown Ames: Then I think the item should stand in the meantime because that is a case where, although the amount is small, the principle involved is serious. Parliament votes a certain sum and when it is an election year workmen are kept on long after the money voted has been expended.


William Pugsley: I am willing to allow it to stand.


John Dowsley Reid: The minister came before the House last year and said that $2,000 was required to complete this wharf. Now he says that they spent not only the $2,000 but $4,500 more last year.


William Pugsley: Does he say that I came down and asked $2,000 to complete it? The hon. gentleman should not make these statements unless he is sure. If my hon. friend looks up * Hansard,' he will not find that I made any such statement to the committee. What does my hon. friend say about that?


John Dowsley Reid: Did he not say that $2,000 was all that would be required during last year.


William Pugsley: The hon. member said that last year I stated I wanted $2,000 to complete this work. I venture to say he will find no such statement in ' Hansard.'


John Dowsley Reid: Perhaps I was wrong in that. I want to state that the minister came down and stated that $2,000 was all that would be required to be spent last year.


William Pugsley: The minister made no statement about it. As a matter of fact, if I remember rightly, all these items went through in about five minutes without comment or question.
Item allowed to stand.
Some resolutions reported.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Robert Laird Borden: Before the House adjourns, I would like to inform the Prime Minister that if the House is to be moved into Committee of Supply to-morrow, we propose to discuss the report of Mr. Justice Cassels and the investigation before him, if that would meet the convenience of the government.


Wilfrid Laurier: I had expected that my hon. friends would wait until we brought down our policy upon that report. I had hoped to be able to give the information to my hon. friend before this, but owing to my illness I have not been able to do so. I undertake that we will have it early next week.


Robert Laird Borden: The right hon. gentleman would prefer that we should postpone the discussion?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes, until we have announced our policy.


Robert Laird Borden: The only thing is, of course, that we are going to have a good deal of work crowded into the latter part of the session, and I would like to have as early a date fixed as would be convenient. Next week we are to take up the Grand Trunk Pacific loan, I think on Tuesday.


Wilfrid Laurier: I will undertake to lay our policy on the table not later than Tuesday.


Robert Laird Borden: Would it be possible to arrange for a week from to-morrow?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: We will take up Supply to-morrow?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: What department?


William Stevens Fielding: We will continue with the estimates of the Minister of Public Works.
At six o'clock, the House adjourned.



HOUSE 0E COMMONS,

[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 25, 1909.