[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 113) to incorporate the Dominion Development Railway Company.-Mr. Smith (Nanaimo).

Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved:: That from this date to the end of the session, government orders, on Wednesdays, shall have precedence immediately after questions to he put by members.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: There are, of course, a good many items of considerable importance still standing under the head of public Bills and orders. I am afraid that, if Wednesday is taken, these will be consigned to the scrap heap. Has the Prime Minister thought of that?


Wilfrid Laurier: I am afraid there is not much help for that circumstance. As my hon. friend is aware, all the notices of motion remaining on the list have been gone over at least eight or ten times, and many of the items under public Bills and orders have been called twice. Looking over the notices of motion, I believe that not many of them are very contentious, and I still believe and hope _we can get through public Bills and orders on Monday evening.


Mr. LENNOX.: I would urge upon the Prime Minister not to cut these gentlemen off without notice. I do not know that I am right in reading this motion as taking effect forthwith?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


Haughton Lennox: To-morrow will be Wednesday. If the Prime Minister would agree that this should not go into effect until a wceek from to-morrow, I should have nothing to say against it.


Wilfrid Laurier: Very well. At the request of my hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) I will agree that this shall commence with Wednesday the 15th of February.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.



RECIPROCITY WITH THE UNITED STATES.

Wilfrid Laurier: We had intended to go on to-day with the reciprocity debate, but I arranged wiui my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden,


Mr. GRAHAM.: Before the orders of the day. are called, I wish to make correction of an answer given to a question put by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), with reference to the cost of the Transcontinental railway to December 31, 1910. The figures furnished to me yesterday represented the amount of money paid out to the end of last year, but did not include certain sums that have been paid m January, or that will be paid, but which belong to last year. The corrected fi<mres give the total cost of the transcontinental railway to December 31, 1910, as $93,920,956.16.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
["Mr. Speaker, I do not want to oppose the second reading of this Bill, but I should like it to receive its second reading only upon the understanding that before passing this House the spelling of the word * Hudson ' would be changed to * Hudson's.' I do not want to take up the time of the House talking about trifles, but I cannot understand -what object there is, especially in an official proceeding such as the passing of a Bill through this House, in changing the good old, well-established spelling of the name Hudson's Bay. It is nearly fifty years ago since I was taught, as a schoolboy, that our word Hudson's Bay was always spelled with the ' s,' whereas the United States\n\nriver Hudson was spelled without the ' s '. I think that is a very good reason, if no ether existed, why we should adhere to the English method of spelling this word. It is a different word, and, however much we may admire modern improvements in spelling, we cannot change the name of the great company which had its charter now nearly 250 years ago, and which has made famous the world over the name Hudson's Bay. I think the very circumstance that we have our own expression, while the United States have theirs, that it is the English language we speak, and, therefore, that _we ought to look to England for our standards of orthography and geography, affords in itself reason enough why, in an official proceeding of this character, we ought to adhere to the expression Hudson's Bay, whatever newspapers and whatever other peojde may do about it."]
Mr. PUGSLEY.: As my hon. friend the Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir bred-erick Borden) is now present, I would invite my hon. friend from St. Anne Division, Montreal (Mr. Doherty) to repeat in his presence the objections vvhich he voiced on a previous occasion to the selection of the site for the new Montreal barracks, the particulars of which I was not able to give.
Montreal, new barracks, $100,000.


Mr. DOHERTY.: When this item came up on the two previous occasions we understood from the Minister of Public Works that the barracks were to be constructed at Longueuil, and that one of the important purposes of this barracks was to place a unit of the permanent force there, and to provide a military school for the benefit of the Montreal district. I inquired then whether the officers who take an active interest in militia matters in Montreal had been consulted, and had approved of the location of these barracks at Montreal or what their judgment had been. For myself, while I do not undertake to pronounce a judgment on that matter, I did venture to point out that a military school situated so far away from the residences of the majority of the young men who would in all probability attend this school, was open to some objection, that it was a place difficult of access, and would hardly meet the want that has been felt in Montreal. If 1 am not mistaken, it has been found that the military school situated at St. Johns does not afford the oportunity that-was expected for the young men, who I am sure we would all be glad to see taking an active part in the operations of our militia, and who we want to see afford-
~A	nrmrvrt.Ymifv of Qualifying


Mr. FIELDING.: themselves to perform their duties effec; tively. The situation of the school at St. Johns was found to be such as to prevent a large number of young men taking advantage of it, inasmuch as they are all engaged in business activities, and it is impossible for them, without great inconvenience and considerable loss, to absent themselves from the city. Now to overcome that objection it was suggested that we should have a military school in Montreal, but a military school at Longueuil can hardly be called a military school in Montreal. Individually, I am not familiar with the precise site on which it is proposed to erect these barracks, but I do know that the access from different portions of Montreal, I think I may say from those portions where the majority of those who want to use the school would come from, is not convenient or easy. If this school is to be available for the class of young men who are to attend it, I think it would be important that its courses should take the form of evening instruction, and if they do take that form, it will be exceedingly difficult, in many cases impossible for young men to go over to Longueuil early enough in the evening to have any reasonable time to devote to their lessons and get back home again at a reasonable hour. I do not oppose the erection of the barracks, but I am pointing out what I think is desirable, namely, that the minister should take the judgment of those officers in the Montreal district who know the needs and requirements of the class of young men whd, are to attend this school.


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia and Defence).: I think the points of view presented by my hon. friend from St. Anne (Mr. Doherty) are entitled to the greatest possible consideration, ^and they have not escaped the consideration of the department. I can say that the officers of the garrison of Montreal, or perhaps more important still, the military district of Montreal, have been consulted, some of them at any rate, about this matter. As a matter of fact, they are interested in the establishment of a military school at Montreal, and have been for a long time I have had an opportunity of discussing the matter with a good many of the more prominent men, and I will say at once that while they do not all approve of the location at this point-there is no one place perhaps in the city of Montreal on which they would all agree-I think, however, I can safely say that in a general way the officers of the city of Montreal, and of the military district of Montreal, will be satisfied with this location. The difficulty of accessibility that my hon. friend has referred to is an important one. But the same difficulty would exist if, for instance, the school had been located at Pointe aux
Trembles, which was one of the places talked of. We own a large rifle range at Pointe aux Trembles, a few miles below the city of Montreal, although it may now be within the eitv limits.
That was talked of, and the present proposal is more agreeable to the officers generally, as far as I know, than the location at Pointe Aux Trembles would be. Then there was a suggestion as to Lachine, another point some distance to the westward of the centre of the city, quite as far away as the present proposed location. That proposal would have been as good as the present proposal but no better. So, upon the whole, even from the point of view of accessibility I think the present location is fairly satisfactory. Accessibility will be measured by time. How long does it take from a given point, the post office, or some central point in the city of Montreal to get to a given place? I understand that by way of the Victoria bridge at all times of the year, and by crossing the river by ferry in certain seasons of the year, the time occupied in going from the centre of Montreal to Longueuil is only a few minutes, and that the tendency is towards improvement in that regard. There is the Southern Counties railway, and there is the street railway giving direct accommodation with the centre of Montreal-better communication than there is with our rifle ranges at Pointe Aux Trembles. I think there is no serious difficulty on that ground. As far as officers outside of the city are concerned, it cannot make any difference to them and these military depots are of quite as much importance to the country militia as to the city militia.
As to evening schools and that sort of thing, I do not know what the course of instruction would ibe, but it would always be easy for us to arrange a course of instruction at hours which would suit professional and business men in the city, and an effort will be made to do that wherever the location may be. We had also to consider, Mr. Chairman, another matter of importance, and that is the question of expense. The government own this land. It was owned by the British war office, and it was handed over to the Canadian government at the time of confederation. It is a block of land between 100 and 200 acres in extent and, -as a matter of fact, it is costing Canada not one single dollar as against the problem we had before us of purchasing between 100 and 200 acres of land in the city of Montreal, or near Montreal at a cost of $300,000 or $400,000, and perhaps $1,000,000. It seemed to me that that was a point that could not be disregarded. It is a matter of very considerable consequence, and I felt that a very difficult problem had been solved when I found this land practically waiting for us, and I thought I was acting in the public interest

as well as in the interest of the militia, to have adopted it as a site for our barracks at Montreal.
I may say that in addition to my own judgment I consulted the best military authorities we had. I consulted General Sir Percy Lake, who was here at that time, and he entirely approved, and I think I may say that it is the unanimous opinion of the Militia Council, and of the best authorities here and in Montreal that we should have pursued the course we have.
I think that perhaps covers the points raised, but I understand my hon. friend from Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Hughes) to raise a question as to the overflow of certain portions of this land at certain times when the river is high, and as to the unsanitary conditions which might arise therefrom. It is a most important question, and it has received and is receiving the careful consideration of the department. I believe that with a very slight expenditure of money in erecting a dyke all these difficulties of overflow can be met. There is only a small portion of the land which has ever overflowed at any time, and that can be protected by a proper dyke as is done at many points on the other side of the river about Montreal itself. As to the sanitary conditions, I am informed that the greatest difficulty is with regard to the water, tout, of course that is a problem which can be solved and must be solved. As to the question of getting rid of sewage there is a difficulty, but we are able to solve that difficulty, and it will toe done in accordance with the most up to date principles governing matters of hygiene.


Mr. GEOFFRION.: I desire, to correct a mistake which has been made by several hon. gentlemen who have spoken on this question. They speak of the site of the barracks as being in Longueuil. For instance, T heard my hon. friend from St. Anne (Mr. Doherty) referring to it in that way. It should have been referred to as Montreal South. Montreal South is a distinct municipality, and I have received two or three letters from gentlemen protesting against it being confused with Longueuil. They do not want it to be called Longueuil, they want it to be called Montreal South because it is a distinct and a very, active municipality. As regards the transportation question, as the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Frederick Borden) has just said, access to it is easy enough now by any of the three routes available-the steam railway, the electric railway, and the ferry boat. Unless you located the site in the very city of Montreal you could not get a better place or one more quickly accessible than the site of Montreal South. If you desired to locate at Pointe Aux Trembles or any other place outside of Montreal you would have to go a long distance Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.
out before you could get as large a space as you get at Montreal South. You cannot get a more healthy place than Montreal South. It is on a higher level than the city of Montreal unless you get up on the mountain, it is higher than Longueuil, and it has a magnificent water-power to get water from. I do not think there is a place in the province of Quebec healthier than Longueuil and Montreal South. The water which flows on the south side of the 'St. Lawrence is freer from impurity than the water in the other portions of the St. Lawrence in the vicinity of Montreal. The minister has said truly that the question of expense is a very important one. The government own 180 acres of land there which they can get for nothing, which has been there doing nothing and giving no revenue at all. If they bought the same quantity of land somewhere around the city of Montreal I do not think they could get it for less than $300,000.


Frederick William Borden: 


Victor Geoffrion: Yes, and that is a very important consideration. I would point out to my hon. friend (Mr. Doherty), that the men who will use that school do not all come from the city of Montreal, but live in the military district. I do not think the government could have made a better choice.


Mr. HUGHES.: Is it of convenient access for the officers and men living in the city of Montreal P


Victor Geoffrion: Certainly. There are four ways to get there: an electric railway service every 15 minutes, a steam railway, a ferry boat, and in winter the ice bridge.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I must apologize most profoundly and most humbly to the outraged inhabitants of Alontreal South, that I "should have been guilty of describing them as citizens of Longueuil, I had thought that Longueuil was a fairly goed, an eminent name in this country, but as a good Montrealer, 1 can sympathize with the desire- of all Canadians to connect themselves with the name of that great city. I trust my hon. friend (Mr. Geof-frion), will convey to his outraged constituents my humble apology. I would plead by way of mitigation that the Alinister of Public Works told me the barracks was to be built in Longueuil.


William Pugsley: I said the barrracks was to be built at Tete du Pont, and my hon. friend (Air. Doherty), should know where that is.
Air. DOHERTYi Well, perhaps the residents of the city of Alontreal South would rather be described as living at Tete du Pont than at Longueuil. Be that as it may, I would not venture to put my judgment

against that of the high military authorities who are said to have pronounced in favour of this location. I do not want to make any invidious comparison, hut I think it will have to be conceded that the greater number of those who will use the school, live in the city of Montreal, and from that point of view, it is not unreasonable to urge that the convenience of the greater number should be a major consideration in this matter. After all, there is not much object in having a school if you do not have the scholars, and if our militia is to be what we desire, then we should endeavour to put at the disposal of these patriotic young men who devote their time and energy to the service of their country, every facility for qualifying themselves in the best manner. There is no doubt that the question of economy is also important, and it has been pointed out that this land now belongs to the Crown, and that it would cost a great deal of money to purchase property in Montreal. But, Montreal is fairly large even without going to Pointe aux Trembles or Lachine, and w7ithin its municipal area there are to be found properties of very varying value. If the purpose to be served can only be properly served by putting the school in tfie city of Montreal, then the country ought to be willing to spend the monev. To build an establishment of this sort in a place where it will not serve its purpose, simplv because you can build it cheaply, is like going to a bargain counter to buy things you don t want, simply because you get them under the regular price. Certain!'-if we cannot get the school to serve its purpose then we had better save our money.


Mr. WILSON (Laval).: Does the hon gentleman want the school to be built within the limits of the city of Montreal ?	.


Charles Joseph Doherty: My desire is that the school should he built in a place sufficiently accessible to the majority of those who will use it so as to produce the best possible results. I do not say that it is absolutely necessary that it should be within the limits of the city, but you can get outside the city limits without going across the St. Lawrence river. True, as we have been told, there is a railway, a ferry boat, and a tramway running to the south shcq-e, but the ferry boat starts from the extreme end of the city which makes it * 3 ^on" journey for the residents of bt. Anne, or St. Antoine, or the North End, and, the feny boat only runs at eer-tam intervals. Then, the ferry runs from Montreal to the very much despised Long-ueuil, and after you get to Longueuil, you are still quite a distance from Montreal South I doubt very much if a large mini-her of the officers and men could sret from
their residences to the ferry and across the river in less than an hour or an hour and a quarter. As to the steam railway, I would suppose that the trains are not run at hours which would enable those attending the night school to get from the city to the school and return the same evening. I am informed by those who use the tramway, that at certain hours of the day, (in the evening particularly), the tramway runs once every 40 minutes, and if one car is missed, you have to wait 40 minutes for another, which of course, would be an obstacle to attending the evening school by that means of access. On the whole, it appears to me that the location of the school would be highly inconvenient for a large number of the young men, unless they should be prepared to sacrifice their time at the occupations by which they earn their livelihod. I understand the minister to say that the officers of the district, so far as he consulted them, were not agreed on any one site in Montreal, and I would be glad to know if they did not at least agree that it would be desirable to have some site in Montreal or in the^ immediate vicinity of the city. Is the minister aware that the public press in Montreal has spoken upon this subject and that ' La Presse,' a newspaper which certainly is not unfriendly to the present administration, but which has given them a very consistent support, had an article on this subject since the matter came up in this House, in which it pointed out briefly, but with great force, the objections I had been making. Furthermore, that newspaper'takes the responsibility of saying that the place is in a most doubtful condition from the point of view of health and the further responsibility, which 1 would not take, of saying that the officers or men connected with the permanent force, condemn the site as being in most doubtful sanitary condition. This respond sible journal, I presume after inquiry, has felt justified in making these statements, and I need not say that they have not been inspired by me. The fact that this paper takes the responsibility of making these statements, should furnish ground "for the minister to at least, promise that the grounds for these assertions shall be looked into, and that it shall be made quite certain that from the point of view of health, there is no objection to the site chosen. '


Frederick William Borden: I will repeat what I have said in regard to the latter point: all questions relating to water supply and sanitation have received, are receiving and will receive most careful consideration. I do not think there is any difficulty with reference to these particular points. As to the question of accessibility and the view which officers in Mont-

real take of the site, several of the prominent senior officers of Montreal have told me that they prefer this site to some sites within the city of Montreal which have been mentioned. As to the means of getting to the place and the statement that there is only one car in 40 minutes, these are growing times, and I am rather inclined to think that when the military barracks and school are situated at Montreal South there may be a car once in every 20 minutes, or perhaps once in every 10 minutes. So I do not think that is a very serious difficulty.
As to the relative numbers of officers and non-commissioned officers who require facilities for teaching or training living in the city of Montreal and in the country, 1 think a very much larger number live in the country and therefore if we satisfy the outside portion of the militia we are accomplishing a good deal. The fullest steps will be taken to consult the convenience of officers and non-commissioned officers residing in Montreal. I cannot see why evening classes might not be held at the new school at Montreal South; there will be no difficulty in getting there before 8 o'clock or 7.30, and in getting home after 10, probably 25 or 30 minutes would be all that would be necessary to get from Montreal to school. Then it is quite common to hold classes in the great central drill hall in Montreal, and there is no reason why a detachment of instructors should not to be sent into the city at any time to suit the convenience of any officers who find it inconvenient to go to the barracks. So, taking it for all in all, I think this will be found to be an entirely satisfactory solution of a very difficult problem, one of the most difficult I have had to contend with since I became Minister of Militia. We have been talking about establishing this school at Montreal for over 14 years, and I am looking forward with a great deal of pleasure to the day when my hon. friend will have these buildings constructed and this school and barracks successfully established.


Samuel Hughes: Last year two or three officers wrote me concerning this proposed site. Their objections were first the inaccessibility of the site, and second, the condition of the ground. It was pointed out by these gentlemen that part of the ground is very low and that part of it is a sticky clay, so that on dewy mornings, unless it were well drained, it would be a rather unfavourable ground on which to drill. I have made inquiries from some of the gentlemen representing that part of the country and they tell me that that condition extends only a short distance along the river bank and that the ground is higher and more sandy further back.


Frederick William Borden: 


Frederick William Borden: That is true, it is very high ground, most of it.


Mr. MONK.: I happen to be acquainted with the topography of that place, and I think there is some misunderstanding. Montreal South is a thriving suburb and the land just near the St. Lawrence is a rather favourable site, but it gets lower as you go back, and if the property in question is somewhat remote from the river there will be considerable expense in draining it. Why has the site been changed? Because at one time the government had decided practically upon a different and to my mind a very much more convenient site. Why the department should have left that site aside in order to take one much less convenient, one would like to know.


Mr. BRODEUR.: Does my hon. friend say there was a site selected by the government before this one?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The government at one time selected a site on the western slope of the mountaiu, and it is absurd to talk of a price of $400,000 or $500,000 for that site, because that property was sold lately for $150,000 and could have been bought for less when the government had it in view. If you calculate what it will cost to build at Montreal South on account of the sanitary condition of the ground there, you will find that this government, however desirous it may be to economize, might have spent $150,000 in buying the site on the slope of the mountain and still have saved money. It is a matter of almost public notoriety that the military officers in Montreal highly approved of that site. I understood that the minister himself (Sir Frederick Borden) had visited it and pronounced it unequalled.


Frederick William Borden: What place?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The site chosen at North-mount, not very far from the Hunt Club.


Frederick William Borden: I never chose it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Well, we thought it was a sure thing because we heard that the order in council had been passed.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There never was such an order in council passed


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Does my hon. friend deny that there was a question of this site?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There was question of several sites, but there never was any order in council passed selecting that site.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That may be, but it was rumoured in Montreal that the matter had been put through with the approval of the Governor General. The site I refer to is situated within a few minutes of every part

of the city. Every car leaves there and you can get there ior 4 cents at any hour of the day or night.


Frederick William Borden: So every car leaves there with a transfer.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: When you embark on this new railway, the Montreal and Southern railway, and get to the other side, my hon. friend knows there is still a great distance to go before vou reach this place.


Frederick William Borden: The electric road runs right alongside this property.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: At any rate, it is quite a distance to reach from the ferry, or the starting point of this new electric road.


Victor Geoffrion: You can start from McGill street, in the centre of the city.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: How often does my hon. friend go there?


Victor Geoffrion: I go there every week and I take the cars on McGill street,


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend knows perfectly well that you have to get over there before you can take the railway, and you do not get a transfer. You have to go to the foot of McGill street and there take the car, and it takes you 40 minutes to get to Longueuil. I am not aware what the fare is.


Victor Geoffrion: It is 5 cents right to the grounds, and there is a car every 3 minutes, not every 40 minutes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is my hon. friend quite sure the fare is only 5 cents?


Victor Geoffrion: Quite sure.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It seems to me impossible to compare the two places. For the people of the city-and those who will avail themselves of the school will mostly come from the city-and for students from the country it would be vastly more convenient to have the site within the limits of the city than on the outside. I am not versed in strategy, but perhaps my hon. friend from Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Hughes) could give us some pointers on that; but I should think that in the case of war it would be better to have the school on the top of a mountain than on low ground on the other side of the river and close to the United States. Of course, I am not talking from a naval point of view.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It would have this advantage, that a navy could get there.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: By the time we shall have done the sanitary work required there and other necessary expenditures, we shall have expended more than one-half of what we could have bought this place for on the slope of the mountain. We understood at the time that experts from the department, ' 100
high up in the military organization, had visited that site at Northmount and had unanimously recommended it. The department has largely increased its expenditure. We are spending over $7,000,000 this year and our expenditure will soon be up to $10,000,000, as compared with the $1,200,000 which we expended some years ago.


Charles Avila Wilson: In what riding is Northmount?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is just alongside the riding of my hon. friend.


Charles Avila Wilson: There are many ridings alongside of mine. It is alongside the riding of the hon. gentleman.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend is altogether too cunning. He knows very well where it is, and must not imagine that in a matter of this kind it is anxiety to have the military school in the county of Jacques Cartier which leads me to make these observations. I am very much interested in Montreal South, as I am a land owner there, and also very much interested in the progress of Montreal, and I certainly did not dream it was in the interests of the county of Jacques Cartier that I supported the very reasonable view taken by the hon. member for St. Anne (Mr. Doherty).


Frederick William Borden: There never was any lot of land chosen by the department as a location for a military school in Montreal. There was a lot at Lachine, and I do not know whether it is this one to which my hon. friend refers.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: No, to Northmount, which is on the western slope of the mountain.


Frederick William Borden: There was a lot, part of the way up the mountain which I visited myself at one time, but which the general officer then, General Lake, told me was altogether too small and would not suit the purpose at all. I went and visited the lot myself, and it seemed to me not large enough. It was some 50 to 60 acres at the most, and would have cost over $200,000.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It has just been sold to a religious order for $150,000, and property has considerably advanced.


Frederick William Borden: I am speaking of the price put upon it at that time. It seemed to me altogether beyond a reasonable price-I do not mean for the land, but to be paid by this department for that quantity of land. I wish to emphasize the point that there never was a lot of land in Montreal or anywhere else selected for this purpose until we had decided upon this.


Samuel Hughes: How is this property situated for rifle ranges?


Frederick William Borden: It is exactly opposite the Pointe aux (Trembles rifle range which point is accessible by ferry, and the rifle ranges will answer the purposes of the permanent force there perfectly well.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I cannot refrain from expressing my gratification at finding that my hon. friend from Jacques1 Cartier (Mr. Monk) is showing himself more and more in favour of military and naval expenditure -provided that the expenditure be made in his own county. He did not so express it, but the lot of land he had in mind when he spoke a few minutes ago is situated in his county, and he was. willing to have military expenditure made there. Perhaps my hon. friend's attitude in opposition to military expenditure might be pleaded as justifying our refusal to select the site to which he refers-it might frighten him to see military works in his county. I should have been rather afraid that my hon. friend would take umbrage at such a thing being done. I am glad he is coming back to the idea that we might establish that school in his county, and I congratulate him on his conversion. Now, there is no doubt that the place selected is a suitable place for such a military school. The school that we have had, that at St. Johns, is situated at some distance from Montreal. It has been, and is to-day, rendering great service. Still, it was certainly desirable that we should have a military school near Montreal. For some years the question has been discussed and military authorities have been considering the question. I am glad that my hon. friend (Sir Frederick Borden) has been able to select so good a site for this purpose. A number of sites were suggested to the government. The Minister of Militia has given his best consideration to these, and has come to the conclusion that the site on the other side of the river, at Montreal South, near Lon-gueuil, is the best available. There is a special reason which, I think, should commend it to the House, and that is the land already belongs to the government. It had been advertised for sale, if I remember well, some years ago, but we could not get the price we expected.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: You can get $100,000 for it now.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is a very suitable site, and one easy of access to the people of Montreal, more so than almost any place that could be selected on the Island of Montreal. At one time, there was not much communication with Longueuil from the city of Montreal. But there is now constant communication by vehicles crossing the reconstructed Victoria bridge. And the property of the government is just opposite the ferry boat landing, the ferry giving a Mr. HUGHES.
15-minute service during the summer. There is also railway communication. I think that, in all respects, it is the most suitable place that could be chosen. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier says that the government will have to incur large expense in drainage works and other improvements. But if we were to purchase the property the hon. gentleman has in mind there would be the same expense.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Everything is there now.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Besides, it is not near the river as is the site which has been selected.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Has the government sold any part of its property in Montreal South?


Frederick William Borden: Not since I have known anything about it. I think there are one or two schools situated on it that have been there for many years. But nothing has been sold of late, and nothing will be sold.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Has anything been sold in the last two years?


Frederick William Borden: No.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Has the government purchased any other property in Montreal South?


Frederick William Borden: No.


William Pugsley: I think that covers all the items under vote No. 139. Perhaps we might take up No. 140 under which there are two or three military items for Ontario . that stood over.
Kingston Royal Military College, additional dormitory accommodation for cadets, $30,000.


William Pugsley: Does any hon. gentleman desire information as to this item?
If not, it might be considered carried.


Mr. CROTHERS.: We should have more information from the Minister of Militia before this is carried.


Frederick William Borden: I have a memorandum on the subject from the commandant of the college; but I have not it here, because I understood the reciprocity debate was coming on to-day, and so did not bring it. I am not prepared, therefore, to go on with this item; so it would be better to let it stand. I will be prepared, when it comes up again, to give all information.


William Pugsley: Better let all the military items stand.
Public Works-Uhargeable to Income-Generally-Construction of immigration buildings, $15,000.


William Pugsley: This is to construct buildings of a smaller class required to

meet the necessities of localities, which necessities arise very often without long warning. Hon. members can understand that, as the western country is filling up very rapidly, cases of this character arise.


Mr. BLAIN.: How much was spent out of this vote last year?


William Pugsley: We erected a building at Unity,. Saskatchewan, did some work in the Halifax detention hospital, constructed a building at North Portal, on the international boundary, put up small buildings at Wilkie, Battleford and Saskatoon, leaving unexpended of last year's vote $7,707.40.


Richard Blain: Where may we expect this to be expended?


William Pugsley: 
William Pugsley: This is a general vote for experimental farms all over the Dominion.


Richard Blain: I think the minister should give us a statement of the places where these expenditures will be made.


William Pugsley: I could not do that, but I can say where the expenditures were made last year. We expended last year at Nappan, $343; Rossland, $39; Brandon, $864; Indian Head, $515; Lethbridge, $15; Agassiz, British Columbia, $780; Ottawa experimental farm, $11,251; additional office building, $7,517.


Richard Blain: I asked the minister how he proposed to expend the amount we are now voting.


William Pugsley: I cannot give the details, for the reason that it has been customary each year to take a vote for $25,000, and those expenditures are made upon the request of the Minister of Agriculture.


Richard Blain: Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture could give us an explanation?


Mr. FISHER.: This item is larger than it was last year, because of the fact that the number of farms has increased. We have added to the number of farms by purchasing a new property, The first year while that property is being equipped 100}
it is paid for out of another vote, which appears in the estimates under the heading of Agriculture, Arts and Statistics. But when the farms are established, then any additional buildings or repairs that are required are paid for out of the vote in. the Public Works Department which is; now under discussion. I have not with me at the moment the details how it is expected to expend this amount of money in the next year, but I will be able to give them when the Agricultural estimates are down. The buildings at the Central Experimental farm here require considerable additions and repairs, which will have to be made. Some of the houses here have got into a bad condition, and must be attended to.


Richard Blain: Does that mean that my hon. friend was neglecting his duty?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, it means that we have been carrying them along as far as we reasonably could without making extensive repairs. But the time has been reached when an overhauling has to be done. We have expended a little from time to time. For instance, the house of the director at the Central Experimental farm will require next year a complete overhauling. Dr. Saunders has been careful not to expend anything that was not absolutely necessary, but something must now be done. This item applies, not only to the Central farm, but to all the branch farms. There was a time a few years ago , when this item was only $10,000 a year; last year it was $20,000, and now we ask for $25,000. I may mention another item of expenditure. Some years ago we undertook to lay down cement walks around the buildings of the Central farm, for the reason that such walks would last practically forever. Formerly we used to lay down wooden sidewalks, which had to be repaired frequently.


Mr. THORNTON.: Is it customary, after an experimental farm has been established and equipped, to charge necessary repairs to the Department of Public Works?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We have a vote in the estimates under Arts, Agriculture and Statistics for additional branch farms that we may buy; we make the purchase of those farms out of that vote. Then as soon as the farm gets into working order, we cease to take the necessary expenses out of that vote, and this vote would apply to it as to the older farms.


Charles Jonas Thornton: How many farms have been established this year?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This last year we have only established one new farm at Scott, in the province of Saskatchewan. I hope
-"3159

before winter is over to get one or two more. I have also purchased two farms in the province of Quebec within the last few months. One of these is completely equipped as it was purchased, the other will require considerable to be laid out upon it, but this vote will not be applicable to that. But as soon as the farms are purchased and the necessary buildings -are erected, then this vote would be applicable for repairs.


Mr. BEST.: Does the minister get_ an estimate of the cost of the new buildings and improvements on buildings, or does he ask for a lump sum?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The sum is based upon the estimate of the farm staff as to what will be required in the ensuing year.


John Best: Then it is only what you *expect to need?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This is an estimate of what we want to provide for.


Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster).: Can the minister tell us whether this vote includes any provision for a dairy building at Agassiz, or if that has been otherwise provided for?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The changes at Agassiz which my hon. friend refers to will be taken out of this vote.


James Davis Taylor: Is it the intention to erect a dairy building there and pay some attention to dairying in connection with the Agassiz farm?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It. is intended to so rearrange and reorganize the buildings there as to establish a good dairy farm.


William Pugsley: Before you take up the next sub-item, I would like to say that the other day the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Sharpe) asked whether any of the departments had purchased land from the Grand Trunk Pacific Development Company, and I told him that I was not aware of it, and said that nothing had been purchased by my department. In answer to a question, 'he told me that he had the Department of Agriculture in mind. My hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture being present, 1 would be very glad if he would be good enough to make a statement, so that it may go on ' Hansard ' for the information of the hon. gentleman.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: A little over a year ago I entered into negotiations for the purchase of a piece of land near the station of Scott, *on "the Grand Trunk Pacific railway between Saskatoon and Edmonton. I am speaking now from memory, but I think there are 223 acres of land which I purchased from the Urand Trunk Pacific Development Company. This area was part of the land which Mr. FISHER.
the company had acquired from the government under the arrangement with them for town sites along their line. I secured it from them at exactly the same price as they paid to the government, plus the interest between the time that they purchased from the government and the time at which I purchased from them, so that it was practically just taking back the land which had been granted to them under the arrangement for town sites. The land is immediately adjacent to the town site of Scott. It comprises a quarter-section, and the portion of another quarter-section, which lies between that quarter-section and the railway track. The railway track is the northern boundary, the main road out of Scott to the south is the eastern boundary, and it. comprises, I think I am correct in saying, 223 acres, all of it absolutely virgin soil. None of it had been ploughed or touched until we did work on it last summer, and it is of the highest character and quality as prairie soil. I hope to be able to establish a station there, which will be of great value to the communities subservient to it. I am giving this explanation in answer to the question that was asked.
Fire escapes for Dominion public buildings, $5,000.


William Pugsley: This is to meet the demands for fire escapes upon public buildings throughout the Dominion. Sometimes there is a demand from the people occupying the buildings that fire escapes should be placed upon them, and sometimes the local by-laws require it. We did not spend the whole amount last year; in fact, only $478, but the chief architect tells me that it is desirable to obtain a vote for this amount so as to make provision for fire escapes as they may be required.


Richard Blain: Is there any public competition in the supplying of these?


William Pugsley: Sometimes, when the work is considerable, but ordinarily the work on each building costs only $100, or $150, or $200.


Richard Blain: What system of fire escapes does the minister adopt? There is a considerable number of these in vogue in Canada, and I presume that the minister has arrived at some decisions with regard to them.


William Pugsley: They are all of iron, and they are all of the usual character. At Long.ueuil public building the work was done by the Capital Scale, Brass & Foundry Iron Company; they made the fire escape of iron and erected it at a cost of $195. At Clinton there was a balcony fire escape erected at a cost of $107, and at Cornwall there was a fire escape erected at a cost of $348. I have not the particulars of that, but it was the ordinary class of iron fire escape.

Public buildings, generally, $10,000.


William Pugsley: This is to make provision for public buildings throughout the Dominion. It is an item which has been voted from year to year, and it is for demands that are made with respect to matters which are not otherwise provided for. Last year, up to the 27th of December, out of this vote there were paid the following amounts:-
Travelling expenses, clerks of
works and officials	
Photographic supplies	
King's Printer, printing and
stationery	
Telegrams	
Sundries

Total	$ 7,594 39
Leaving unexpended on the 28th December, 1910, a balance of $2,405.61. This is used for travelling expenses, stationery and printing, telegraphy and other miscellaneous items.


Richard Blain: Would the minister explain what the stationery and printing are required for?


William Pugsley: They are required for the chief architect's office and the clerk of works offices.
and the Imperial buildings and the government operates the elevators, whereas we occupy only a part of the Trafalgar building, and the owner runs the elevator.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I understood the minister to say that the foundation of the driveway was solid concrete. I have been told that it was gravel and crushed stone rolled. Which is it?


William Pugsley: Solid concrete.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: There is a new iron fence on the parliament grounds for which I cannot find an appropriation in the estimates.


William Pugsley: I am glad to have an opportunity of explaining. The old fence upon Mackenzie avenue was no longer necessary, and we moved it together with the stone foundation to the parliament grounds ; using the services of our own men, and doing the job at comparatively little expense.
Heating, including salaries of engineers, firemen and watchmen, $133,000.


Richard Blain: Have increases of salaries been given?


William Pugsley: In quite a number of cases.
Tobacco curing, experimental stations, $5,000.


William Pugsley: This is a revote. We obtained $5,000 last year, but it was not expended. The Department of Agriculture are again asking for it this year. The idea is to use it for the establishment of tobacco experimental stations.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: ATe there any such stations now, and if so, where are they situated?


William Pugsley: I might give my hon. friend the details of the expenditure in connection with this service made during the fiscal year 1909-10. At St. Cesaire, Quebec, there was erected a drying room, with two metallic ventilators, and a curing room, at a cost of $610. At St. Jacques de L'Achi-gan, Quebec, there was a curing barn erected, also a drying room and ventilators at a total expenditure of $586. At Colchester, Ontario, there was a curing barn erected, with a basement, two drying kilns, a Tack of two arches for heating, cement floors, excavation, costing $2,636 30. At Ottawa there was some work done at a cost of $310, all out of this vote.
Ottawa public buildings, elevator attendance, $26,000.


Mr. REID (Grenville).: Do not the owners of the leased buildings provide the elevator attendance?


Richard Blain: How are they given?1


William Pugsley: We give such increasesr as we think are justifiable upon the report of the foremen of the heads of the department.


Richard Blain: Have any been refused increases?


William Pugsley: Yes. We try to reward merit, and give fair compensation for service rendered.


Richard Blain: Who are judges of that?


William Pugsley: We obtain reports from the chief architect and the foremen or superintendents, and the recommendation comes to the deputy minister and finally to the minister.


Richard Blain: On what grounds were increases refused last vear? Can the minister give a list of the applications for increases made, the number granted, the number refused, and the grounds for refusal ?	_


William Pugsley: I will get the information as far as possible, but of course, an application may be refused without the grounds being stated.


John Dowsley Reid: Last year the total amount paid for this service was $118,000, and this year you are asking $133,000.


William Pugsley: It depends on the lease. Mr. PUGSLEY. That was for the year We occupy the whole of the Regal building ending 31st March, 1910, and the present

estimates are for the year ending 31st March, 1912, and there are additional men and increases of salaries which would account for the difference.


John Dowsley Reid: Was the $125,000 asked for last year expended?


William Pugsley: It is anticipated that it will all be expended by March 31, next.


John Dowsley Reid: How does it come that there is this large increase of $8,000?


William Pugsley: I can give the estimate. Coal is estimated to cost $62,655.


John Dowsley Reid: Is coal higher?


William Pugsley: Anthracite coal $6.90, slack bituminous $4.70, cannel $8.75, and blacksmith $7.


John Dowsley Reid: You are paying higher prices?


William Pugsley: Those are the prices of the lowest tenderer, Messrs. Heney & Son. Then there is the heating of the Canadian militia building and wages.


John Dowsley Reid: What additional buildings are you going to heat, and employ officials in, this year?


William Pugsley: The Regal building, the Naval building, the new Museum, and the building which has been erected as a peat testing depot. Wages of the heating staff including coal men, wood men, &c., $46,556. Then there are contingencies which cover things for which it is impossible to provide with absolute certainty, $7,585, the total being $133,000 which it is assumed by the chief architect we will require for the year ending March 31, 1912.
Repairs, including ventilation and lighting, furniture, &c., $225,000.


John Dowsley Reid: An enormous amount is paid each year for new furniture for these buildings, and a large staff of men is employed under this item. I have been informed that about two-thirds of them do nothing at all, they simply draw their pay.


William Pugsley: Would the hon. gentleman give the names of any in regard to whom he is so informed?


John Dowsley Reid: The .hon. gentleman is not sincere in saying that, it ii ridiculous.


William Pugsley: I am perfectly sincere for this reason that if he has reliable information of any men on the staff of the department lying around not earning wages, I would have it looked into, and if the charge were substantiated have the men dismissed.


William Pugsley: 


John Dowsley Reid: I do not believe the minister is sincere when he Says he would have them dismissed.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I am afraid the hon. member must not doubt the sincerity of the minister.


William Pugsley: I forgive the hon. gentleman.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not want to break the rules of the House, but I wish to say what I think.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Urder.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman will not give me the names anyway?


John Dowsley Reid: At all events there are several hundred men employed under this item, and, as I am informed, one-half or two-thirds of these men are simply there drawing their pay. The minister asks me to give their names. In the first place it would take up two or three pages of ' Hansard ' to give the names of all the men I believe are not employed. But in addition to that look at the enormous amounts paid out every year for furniture in this building. In the last five years over $1,000,000 have been paid out simply ior repairs and furniture, for the buildings here in Ottawa. Is this expenditure of about a quarter of a million dollars a year to continue forever, or is there likely to be a reduction of this vote?


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman will see that this vote is not entirely for furniture. It is for repairs for furniture and also for ventilation and lighting, and different items of that kind.


Richard Blain: It does not include the supply of any electric current or gas?


William Pugsley: No. The buildings are very large, they contain many "rooms which are all lighted and regarding which there must necessarily be a great deal of work to be done. There is necessarily a great deal of furniture requiring repairs, and new furniture must be bought from time to time. It would be impossible for me to go into all the details. That is a matter for the committee on public accounts. If my hon. friend wishes to inquire into any particular expenditure, he can have that inquired into in the Committee on Public Accounts, where the vouchers will be produced and the officials examined and the fullest information given. As regards the employees of the department, I cannot speak as to each individual, but I do know that we have a very reliable superintendent in whom my chief officers and myself have every confidence, and I would not believe, unless my hon. friend could vouch for it personally, that there are any number of men on the staff

who simply lie around and do not earn their wages. I can give the committee a statement of how this money will toe disposed of. To the clerk of the works staff for the men engaged under the clerk of works, $96,252.61; to the mechanical engineering staff, $38,688; for the purchase of lumber, paints, oil, glass, &c., and such ready-made furniture as cannot be constructed in the government workshop, $90,000, making a total of $225,000.. This also covers general repairs and maintenance in connection with gas, water, boilers, machinery, lavatories, &e.


John Dowsley Reid: I must disagree with the hon. minister when he says that the proper place in which to toring up this matter is the Public Accounts Committee. We all know that in that committee we can only bring up item by item, and the hon. minister knows that he, when he is there, and two or three of his assistants, do all they can to block investigations.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend made that remark so often that he does not seem to realize its offensive nature. I have never observed, whenever I have been before the committee, any indication of any desire to block investigations. I am sure the hon. gentleman can have there every opportunity of investigating every one of these items if he so desires.


John Dowsley Reid: I am sure there are many members on both sides who will agree with me that facilities have not been given toy the minister and those associated with him to get at the bottom of facts.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend must know' that I have only been myself in attendance on the committee at one of its sittings during this session. How, therefore, could I have assisted in blocking investigations?


John Dowsley Reid: There have only been one or two items in his department brought before that committee this session, which explains why the hon. minister was not there. I am speaking however, of past sessions. He knows quite well, that when we on this side were endeavouring to find out if there were not unnecessary expenditures in his department, there were always difficulties thrown in our vray. We asked for a special committee to investigate the department, as was given in the case of the Marine and Fisheries Department, but we were refused. If a similar committee were appointed, my own impression is, that it would show that the Public Works Department is in even a worse condition than was the Department of Marine and Fisheries. My hon. friend must know that there were good grounds for an investigation. He must have felt that in the case of certain expenditures in
his department, there was no doubt robbery and rascality.


William Pugsley: Nobody observed that but the hon. gentleman himself. [DOT]


John Dowsley Reid: Men on both sides admit it, and the press as well. From the Atlantic to the Pacific the newspapers have been showing up these things in the Public Works Department. There was therefore, ample ground for an investigation into that department, but of course, that investigation was never given. If the hon. minister would agree to give such a commission as was appointed to investigate into the Marine and Fisheries Department, we could let all these items go through without discussion. Will he now, should we propose to have an investigation of that kind, consent to give it and thus save all these discussions on his estimates ?


William Pugsley: accounts before the Public Accounts Committee, he would not for worlds have these vouchers presented


Richard Blain: Why not?


William Pugsley: Because he would have convincing evidence under oath that there could be no objection to these accounts, and that would cause him grave disappointment.


John Dowsley Reid: No one would be better pleased than I if it could be known that all the accounts in the Auditor General's Report represented payments honestly made in the public interest. But the minister knows that it is impossible for any person to judge whether these accounts are right or not. All we can do is to look over them, and if we see an item that looks suspicious bring it before the Public Accounts Committee. And the minister knows that seventy-five out of a hundred cases brought before the Public Accounts Committee have certainly looked very bad under investigation. He knows also that the facts discovered by the Public Accounts Committee would justify a general investigation into the department. Take this Bathurst dredging of which the minister was speaking. He knows that it was admitted in the Public Accounts Committee that through a mistake, $30,000 or $31,000 was spent that would not have been spent but for that mistake.


William Pugsley: That all appeared before the Committee on Public Accounts.


John Dowsley Reid: I admit that. It was shown that a wrong


William Pugsley: A wrong on the part of whom?


John Dowsley Reid: Some one in the Public Works Department.


William Pugsley: No, it was a mistake on the part of the Great Northwestern Telegraph Company. If the hon. gentleman will call the manager of that company, that can be established.


John Dowsley Reid: There were other cases. For instance, the St. John dredging [DOT]-the Mayes matter. There was a commission paid there that went to the middleman wrongfully.


William Pugsley: Not wrongfully.
Mr.,REID (Grenville). I am giving these items to show that we were justified, and are justified now, in asking a commission of investigation. There was the case of the saw-dust wharf where the middleman again appeared. The minister could not conscientiously state that that was a fair bargain in the interest of the country.


William Pugsley: Absolutely.


William Pugsley: -


John Dowsley Reid: Then I believe that the minister is the only man on either side of this House that believes it. Then, we have the Gaspereau dredging, where the minister had the report of his own engineer, stating 20c a fair price and gave it out at 90 cents a yard. These are just a few instances. Now, here is an expenditure of $225,000 a year. How are we going to investigate that before the Public! 'Accounts! Committee ? Why it would take the whole session. The first thing, some one will want to know-what I have been trying to find out-what becomes of the old furniture. We are constantly putting in new furniture ; what becomes of the old:


William Pugsley: It is sold at public auction.


John Dowsley Reid: Is there a statement of that?


William Pugsley: Certainly, a full statement.


John Dowsley Reid: That part of it may be all right. Then we hear reports of there being more men than are necessary.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend must not believe all he hears.


John Dowsley Reid: But I believe what I hear repeated under oath in the Public Accounts Committee. If the minister would give us this investigation by Judge Cassels, or some man of that character, all this would be cleared up, and, if it were proved to be as the minister represents it, it would be to his credit and it would save a lot of discussion on these items. I, for one, do not believe that this large expenditure is necessary. It did not cost that much years ago, and it has been increasing year after year since this government came into power.


William Pugsley: It would be the easiest thing in the world for my hon. friend, if he has any reason to suspect that the accounts included in this vote of $225,000 are not correct, that more men are employed than are needed, that higher wages are paid than ought to be paid, to call the proper officials before the Public Accounts Committee and learn the exact facts. The difficulty with my hon. friend is that he does not seem to wish to avail himself of the Public Accounts Committee to investigate these matters. He has referred to two or three cases whieh he gives as evidence of the great need of investigating thoroughly the Department of Public Works. He cites the dredging at Gaspereau, also what is known as the Mayes matter, and the dredging at Dalhousie. Is that all?


John Dowsley Reid: It would take me all the afternoon to give all the cases.


Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds).: These are only samples.


William Pugsley: When you consider that there has been an expenditure of from $12,000,000 to $15,000,000 a year by the Public Works Department, I think I ought to be well satisfied that the hon. gentleman, with all his industry, with all his digging and delving into the accounts, has only been able to call attention to three items.


John Dowsley Reid: I could easily give more.


William Pugsley: When the hon. gentleman names these three off-hand, he, of course, gives the three that are of the most striking character. And what are they? Take the Mayes contract. It is said that a gentleman associated with him received a certain amount from the contractor, Mr. Mayes. In order that there should be any wrong-doing in connection with that which reflected on the department when it was presided over by the late minister


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The point of order has been raised of the relevancy of this discussion. The item before the committee is-
Repairs, including ventilation and lighting, furniture, &c., $225,000.
Any arguments used should be made to apply to that subject as closely as possibles


William Pugsley: I think probably you are right. I was attempting to follow my hon. friend; however, I am content to let the matter rest as it is. It is desirable that we should all promptly obey your honour's ruling.
Telephone service, $19,000.


John Dowsley Reid: Last year I raised the question about the prices of telephones, because in some places we were paying much higher for them than in other places.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman stated, if I remember rightly, that we were paying more for telephones in the government offices than private individuals were paying in the city of Ottawa; but I was able to show him that, taking all the services together, we paid less proportionately than was paid by the private citizens of Ottawa.


John Dowsley Reid: I notice, for instance, that we are paying $35 for a telephone in the office of the secretary of the Governor General, in the East block; we are paying $40 for the telephone of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, $40 per telephone in the House of Commons, $65 a year for the telephone in the office of the Speaker. Now, it strikes me that the government should have a regular annual rate for all telephones, the same as private citizens in the city of Ottawa. It may average
a lower price, as the minister says, but I do not understand why the charges should be made in this way. For instance, in this building, for the Speaker we pay $65, for the leader of the opposition, $55; messengers. $35; Committee on Agriculture, $40; distribution office, $40; sergeant at arms, $35, and so on. Then you go over to the Justice Department, and you pay $40.


Mr. CROSBY.: How many telephones are there?


William Pugsley: Altogether, 453. Desk phones, for instance, are subject to an extra charge.


Adam Brown Crosby: It would be interesting to know how it comes that you have 453 telephones.


William Pugsley: I can give the details. In the Department of Agriculture there are 18; Auditor General's office, 11; Census Department, 2; Customs Department, 11; Dominion police, 13; Exchequer Court, 2; Finance Department, 11; Governor General, 11; Geological Survey, 10; House of Commons, 20, including those for the opposition as well as for the government side; Indian Affairs, 8; Inland Revenue, 14; Interior Department, 56; Justice, 18; Labour Department, 6; Mounted Police, 4; Minister of Finance, 32; Militia and Defence, 46; Parliamentary Library, 3; Post Office Department. 16; Privy Council, 12; Public Works, 58; Railways and Canals, 23; Secretary of State, 15; Printing and Stationery, 16; Trade and Commerce, 9; Senate, 7. I have all the details here, but it would take me till midnight to read them.


Adam Brown Crosby: 58 for the Public Works Department; that seems to be a great number.


William Pugsley: These telephones are used in all the chief branches of the Department of Public Works, including, for instance, the shipyard and the workshop.
Rideau Hall, including grounds, improvements, furniture and maintenance, $35,000.


John Dowsley Reid: Is the department thinking of erecting a new building for the Governor General in the place of the present Rideau Hall?


William Pugsley: My hon. friend may remember that previously to my becoming minister there had been a proposition to put a new facade upon Rideau Hall, and to undertake considerable improvements, and a vote had been taken, I think, of $100,000 for that purpose. Tenders had been called for, and shortly after I became minister the tenders were opened, and I think the proposed cost reached the sum of nearly $300,000. I was of the opinion that, while extensive improvements are needed, and while Rideau Hall, as it is at

present, is not creditable to this country- I say that advisedly-it is not creditable to this great and wealthy country; yet I did not feel that we could justify an expenditure of $300,000 in making additions and improvements to the present building. I am not speaking now for the government, because the government have not considered this matter; I am merely giving my ow7n opinion. I think probably it would be better to sell the present property, which, at a reasonable estimate, if cut up into city building lots, would easily bring $700,000. That is the opinion which the Ottawa Improvement Commission have expressed to me, and they have made, at my request, an estimate which I think is moderate. I would erect a new government house upon some commanding site in the vicinity of Ottawa, and I would erect a building which would be a credit to this country, which would be fitting for the future Governors General who come here, and satisfactory to the people of this country for the next hundred years. However, this is only my own opinion. I mention it to the hon. gentleman as a partial answer to his question, and also as an explanation why we did not go on with the proposed improvement at Rideau Hall pursuant to the vote of parliament. As I have said, that amount seemed to me more than I would be justified in placing in the estimates under the circumstances.


John Dowsley Reid: I may frankly say that when I go down to Rideau Hall and look at the buildings, I think they are a disgrace to this country, and not befitting the high office of Governor General. But what I object to is that every year the government comes forward with large sums for repairs _ and improvements to Rideau Hall. I think the amount the minister is paying annually for repairs would pay the interest on the cost of a fine new residence such as he mentions.


William Pugsley: This money is not all being expended on the building; it is also for renewals, repairs to furniture, &c.


John Dowsley Reid: It may be this year, but I think the minister will agree with me that there have been in the past and probably will be in the future amounts expended on that building for repairs. Instead of repairing that old building I think it is time for the minister to consider the question of providing new quarters and getting rid of these premises, probably in the way he says. If he can get $700,000 out of that property I cannot see why he should have to ask parliament for any appropriation to provide a new building. Does the minister think that amount would not be sufficient to erect a new building on another site?
Mr. PUGSLEY


William Pugsley: It ought to give a very fine building.
Dominion buildings, furniture, $15,000.


Mr. BRADBURY.: Has it been definitely decided to erect a new building on Sussex street?


William Pugsley: Yes, that is the definite decision.


George Henry Bradbury: I think it is a serious mistake for the government of this country to erect a magnificent building back on Sussex street. You have already started building on the park by erecting a hotel there, which, I think, was a great mistake, but now that it is there, I would suggest that it is only proper that this new block be built along the face of the park right from the hotel, and facing west. I think then we would get the benefit of the building, and as you have already purchased the property on Sussex street, you could do away with Mackenzie avenue, and continue the park out to Sussex street. You would then have a magnificent park with the 'buildings now there removed, the new building would be seen by everybody if it were placed along the face of the park. This would be a very great improvement upon the present policy of the department. I think it would be a serious mistake to spend $1,000,000 or $2,000,000 in erecting a great building back on Sussex street, and I hope the department will never agree to a policy of that kind. I believe they could erect this building along the face of the hill and it would be a very great improvement on what they contemplate doing, and it certainly would be a magnificent site for offices. Then we would have the parliament buildings all within view of the bridge. As you have started to build on that park I do not see why you should not continue as I suggest it would be very much better than what you propose.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend is the last contributor to the new ideas as to the proper location for the departmental buildings. I have had a great many suggestions, but I have felt that as parliament, before I became minister, made an appropriation for the payment for the ground between Mackenzie avenue and Sussex street, and as a very extensive area of land has been bought, it was my duty to go ahead and provide for the construction of the building upon this ground. 1 might suggest other places in the city which, in the judgment of some people, perhaps in the judgment of myself, might possess advantages which that site does not present, but that is the site which has been approved of, it is the site which has been bought and paid for, and it is now owned by the government. Perhaps it is inaccurate for my

hon. friend to say that the buildings are to be erected on Sussex street. They "are also to have a frontage upon Mackenzie avenue, and upon this park, and run through to Sussex street so that there will be a frontage on both streets. I am afraid I cannot hold out any hope to my hon. friend that the site will be changed. The present plan is to go ahead, and build upon the site which we have bought and paid for.


George Henry Bradbury: I can only say that I think.it is a serious mistake on the part of the government.
Dominion buildings, lighting, $140,000.


William Pugsley: This is an increase of $5,000 owing to the increase in the number of buildings.


Mr. JAMESON.: I suppose that under the head of lighting one might refer to the electric wiring of this building, and particularly to that in the library. I am not sufficiently skilled to say whether it is defective or whether there is any danger of fire from it. It appears that in certain places at least it has a very exposed look, and we know that a few days ago there was a fire in the corridor leading to the library. It occurred during a time when there was a number of people about to see that it was extinguished. I do not know whether it was due to any defect in the wiring of the building, but it is a matter worthy of consideration. Perhaps the minister could assure the committee that in the condition of the wiring there is no risk to the valuable collection of books in the-library.


William Pugsley: The chief architect tells me that h'is attention was called to an incipient fire which might be regarded more as smoke than blaze and the best judgment he has been able to form is that probably there has been a little waste paper and somebody has thrown a match down while lighting his pipe or cigar. He does not think that it came from any defect in the electrical wiring. However, the suggestion is one that is worthy of careful attention. It is of importance that the wiring should receive careful attention. We have an expert staff whose duty it is to look after these matters, and I shall see that the hon. gentleman's remarks are brought to their notice so that if there is anything that requires attention it will be looked into.


Mr. DANIEL.: The minister had a fire in his own office. Was noi that from electric wires crossing one another or something of that kind?


William Pugsley: I thought it was.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Well there must have been some looseness about the wiring in that case.
Mi*. PUGSLEY. Yes, there is a danger always.


George Taylor: I think there is more danger of spontaneous combustion than from defective electric wiring. I was downstairs at the long distance telephone when an hon. gentleman who sits close to the minister asked me to look into the room which is just beyond the long distance telephone. I looked in, and I am sure that if there is not spontaneous combustion in the building pretty soon it will be a miracle. This gentleman told me that the same condition is to be found all over the building.


William Pugsley: What room is that?


George Taylor: Just back of the telephone.


William Pugsley: I suppose there was a lot of waste material in it?


George Taylor: It was not fit for a pig pen. That is the care that is taken of the building, and yet my hon. friend says that there are experts looking after it. All he has to do is to appeal for confirmation to an hon. gentleman who sits near him, and who knows the condition to which I refer because he spoke to me himself about it. The care which is taken of this building is the same as that which is taken of the grounds.


William Pugsley: If there be any fault it would be with the -staff of the House of Commons, and not with the staff of the ' Public Works Department. I will have the matter brought to the notice of the super intendent of the House of Commons building.


Mr. RHODES.: I am not an electric light expert, but I can see that wires are strung in the various rooms of this building in a haphazard manner and not in accordance with the requirements of the underwriters. Of course, this building was erected years ago when fireproof construction -had not reached its .present development, and I believe it worthy of the attention of the minister to see that an electric wiring expert should go carefully over all the wiring in the building.


William Pugsley: We have an electric expert constantly engaged in that work. So long as the wires are properly insulated there is no danger, but nevertheless the remarks of my hon. friend will be noted by the chief architect, and if possible, greater precaution will be taken.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In room 68 there are from 10 to 15 electric lights hanging by long cords which .are all intertwined, and it would seem to me to be dangerous.


Clarence Jameson: I have been told by those who seem to know that the wiring

of the building at present is not up to the underwriters requirements.


William Pugsley: We do not insure our buildings, and therefore, the underwriters' experts do not examine them. The chief architect tells me that the electrician reports it is up to the standard of the underwriters.


Mr. STANFIELD.: To my knowledge there is wiring in the new wing that will not pass the underwriters' inspection.


Adam Brown Crosby: In the Public Accounts Committee last year the hon. member for North Ontario discovered, notwithstanding all the obstacles that were thrown in his way, that $5,000 or $6,000 of the money of the people was wrongfully paid for electric lighting of the Woods and the Canadian buildings. When this discovery was made we were promised that not only would the contract be cancelled, but that suit would be entered against the Imperial Realty Company to make them refund to the public treasury the overcharges they made. Has that money been refunded?


William Pugsley: Two years before I became minister the agreement was entered into, and I understand that then the chief architect thought it was better to pay by the meter so that the department would be charged for the electrical energy actually used. I believe that for a while the meter would be less than the flat rate. On principle I am entirely opposed to a flat rate but so long as there is a flat rate and a meter rate I suppose it is the duty of the department to get the cheaper rate. In the case of a public utility such as electric lighting-and I wish to say this publicly for the information of the city of Ottawa and the electric lighting company-it is in my judgment a gross injustice that the ordinary householder should be obliged to pay a meter rate which is higher than the flat rate which a large consumer of electricity such as the government can get. I believe there should be one rate, and one rate only in the case of public utilities of that kind just the same as in the case of the railways, which cannot give a cheap rate to the large dealer.


John Stanfield: The railways make a carload rate.


William Pugsley: Yes, but they must give the same rate for ten carloads as for one. However, that may be, when I became minister there was rendered to my department by the Imperial Realty Company, bills upon a meter basis and those bills were accompanied by bills, on their regular account forms rendered by the electric light department of the city of Ottawa, presided over by the city treasurer, Mr. Ellis, showing the indebtedness of the Imperial Realty Company or James W. Woods as the case Mr. JAMESON.
might be, to the city, for the amount of current consumed, based upon the meter rate. These bills were marked ' settled ' by the electric department of the city ; they were receipted as vouchers and they accompanied the bills which the Imperial Realty Company rendered to my department. Thus the city of Ottawa furnished those bills as being the vouchers based upon the meter rate of the amounts which the Imperial Realty Company asked my department to pay. After I became minister, the deputy minister was changed, the present deputy minister became the principal official of the department. If it had come to my notice or to the notice of the principal officers of my department that we were being charged by the Imperial Realty Company not the identical amounts which the Imperial Realty Company was paying to the electrical department of the city of Ottawa-


Mr. SHARPE (Ontario).: What would be the object in making out the cheques to the Imperial Realty Company, why not direct to the city of Ottawa?


William Pugsley: I do not know.
Mr. SHARPE (Ontario! Would not that arouse suspicion?


William Pugsley: No, because I would never dream that the treasurer of the city of Ottawa would issue a false voucher.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: It is only fair to the city treasurer to state that the president of the Imperial Realty Company went to him and personally asked him to furnish the amount of electricity that was consumed on a meter basis. He said he did not know what purpose it was to be used for, he had been personally requested by the president of the company to furnish the amount on a meter basis. He did not get paid for it, and did not do it with intent to deceive the department.


William Pugsley: So also the Imperial Realty Company say they did not do it to deceive the department.


Adam Brown Crosby: But they did deceive the department.


William Pugsley: But the fact is that Mr. Ellis, the treasurer of Ottawa, furnished these vouchers not simply as the amount consumed, on a meter basis, but as accounts showing the indebtedness of the Imperial Realty Company to the city of Ottawa for these amounts.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: On an ordinary form.


William Pugsley: On the account forms they always send out showing the indebtedness of the Imperial Realty Company to the city of Ottawa for the electric current consumed at the meter rate and upon a

meter basis. It may be true, as my hon. friend says, that the treasurer of Ottawa did not intend that this should be used to deceive the department.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: He says he did not.


William Pugsley: I am bound to believe him. I would be sorry to suspect people of dishonesty in face of their statements and without knowledge to the contrary, but the Imperial Realty Company say the same thing, that they did not intend to deceive the department. As a matter of fact they got the money and got it upon vouchers signed by the city of Ottawa upon the quantity of electric current consumed and charged upon the meter rate. And this is the important thing, that ever since I became minister and ever since the present deputy became deputy minister, these vouchers were rendered, and my department paid to the Imperial Realty Company the identical amount of these vouchers rendered by the electrical department of the city to the Imperial Realty Company as proofs to show that that was being paid to the city of Ottawa, the whole charge being based upon a meter rate. When the matter came on for investigation, as my hon. friend says, before the Committee on Public Accounts, evidently my hon. friend from North Ontario was furnished, and I am glad he was furnished, with the information which the proper officials of the city of Ottawa had withheld from my department.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: It was not until I saw the suspicious looking documents in your file.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman had access to all the files, we glady furnished them. When towards the latter part of the investigation it came to my knowledge that there was a difference between what these vouchers showed and what it was alleged had actually been paid to the city, and that these vouchers had been rendered to my department from time to time as being evidence of what the Imperial Realty Company was paying to the city, I asked the deputy minister to inform the committee that I would proceed to cancel the contract and to recover whatever amount had been paid by the department to the Imperial Realty Company in excess of what the Imperial Realty Company had paid to the city. In due course, after parliament rose, I had a request made to the city of Ottawa to furnish a statement of what amounts had actually been paid by the Imperial Realty Company.	That statement was not
furnished.	I then directed the deputy
minister to hand the matter over to the Department of Justice to look into the
whole question, and if the department was of opinion that there was a cause of action against the Imperial Realty Company, either individually or jointly with the city of Ottawa, to take proceedings for the purpose of recovering the difference.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Have you had a report yet?


William Pugsley: No report has come to my knowledge as to what action has been taken by the Justice Department, but I understood some time ago that they had been requested to allow the matter to stand until counsel for the Imperial Realty Company, then absent, returned to Ottawa. I have not recently heard what further action has been taken by the Department of Justice.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The minister was going to lay on the table the two letters that constituted a contract between the Imperial Realty Company and the government.


William Pugsley: I will see that they are brought here.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: We would like to see them so as to form our own opinion as to the liability of the Imperial Realty Company. Speaking of the electric light and these accounts, the minister attempts to shift the responsibility on the shoulders of the city treasurer. In my humble opinion the Minister of Public Works or his department is a party to any fraud that has been committed.


William Pugsley: I have not said there was any fraud, I did not use the word fraud.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: That was the inference from your remarks.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend as a lawyer knows that-there may be such a thing as a legal fraud which would give the right to recover money without actual intentional fraud.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The mere fact that these alleged statements were rendered by the city to the Imperial Realty Company and be the Imperial Realty Company to the government would alone excite suspicion in any person's mind. Why the necessity of keeping two sets of books and why pay the cheques to the Imperial Realty Company and have them transfer them over to the city of Ottawa? A person viewing that transaction would at once have his suspicions excited that there was something radically wrong, that a middleman must be getting a rake-off somewhere, and consequently if any one in the department had the slightest conception of the method of conducting business properly

and economically he would have investigated the matter. Why were not the cheques made payable direct to the city of Ottawa? If there was' any fraud or wrong committed on the department the department itself is partly guilty. What is the cost of lighting all the public buildings here in Ottawa?


William Pugsley: There are in the public buildings lamps to which the current is supplied by the Ottawa Electric Company to the number of 15,929. Under the contract, the first 3,000 are charged at the rate of $2.25 per annum, making $6,750.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: That is yearly.


William Pugsley: It was originally a 10 years' contract. It has now expired, and has not yet been renewed. Then there are 12,929 lamps at $2, making $25,858. That is in addition to the lighting in the buildings, owned by the Imperial Realty Company. We have made a change through having cancelled the contracts under which we pay to the city a flat rate of $2 per lamp, that is for the Canadian building and the Railway Commission building. That includes all the electric lighting.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Is there any meter basis or is it all flat rates ?


William Pugsley: All on a flat basis.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Is the contract let by tender ?


William Pugsley: No.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Does the minister not think that since the city has a municipal plant as well as the Ottawa Electric Light Company, we might. get a more advantageous rate by inviting competition ?


William Pugsley: There are just two rates in Ottawa, one flat and the other meter, and the two plants charge the same rates. When we made this change from meter to flat rate, we asked the city for the lowest rate and they gave it at $2.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The government contract is worth nearly half a million dollars. If they let that >by tender, could they not get a more advantageous rate ? Is it the intention to renew the contract for ten years ?


William Pugsley: We are continuing under the expired contract at present. There are some questions pending for consideration which will have to be decided before we renew the contract.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Is it the intention to ask for tenders before renewing the contract ?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: 


William Pugsley: No. There are two rates, a flat rate and a meter rate. I do not think it would be right for my department to go to these companies and say: True, you have your flat rate and your meter rate, but this government is too poor or too mean to pay the same rate that other people pay, and we want you to reduce it. I would not be a party to doing that.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: That objection might hold to any contracts the government might make.


William Pugsley: Not at all. This is a public utility.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 32) to incorporate the Security Trusts Corporation.-Mr. Martin (Regina).
Mr. NESBITT.: I have a letter from the hon. member for Regina, who introduced this Bill, and who is not piesent, suggesting the name ' The Security Loan and Trust Corporation.' I do not know whether that will be satisfactory to my hon. friend from Winnipeg (Mr. Haggart) or not.


Mr. HAGGART (Winnipeg).: The hon. memher for Regina, when, he was here, mentioned that suggestion of his clients. But the only change is the introduction of the word ' Loan.' I think the policy of this House is to confine the trust business to trust companies, and the mortgage and loan business to the mortgage and loan companies


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I have no desire to press the Bill if the hon. member for Winnipeg does not wish it pressed.


Alexander Haggart: I think it had better stand over. No doubt, the hon. member for Regina and myself will be able to agree.
Progress reported.


MONTREAL PARK AND ISLAND RAILWAY COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 45) respecting the Montreal Park and Island Railway Company.-Mr. Ecrement.
Mr. BICKERDIKE.: As the promoter of the Bill is not present, perhaps it would be better that it should stand over, as it is suggested that some amendments be made to the Bill.
Progress reported.


McCLARY MANUFACTURING COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 75) respecting the McClary Manufacturing Company.-Mr. Beattie.
On section 1,
Edward Walter Nesbitt: I would like to discuss this Bill before it passes, but the hon. member who introduced it is not here. I suggest we report progress.
Progress reported.


ALBERTA RAILWAY AND IRRIGATION COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 51) respecting the Alberta Railway and Irrigation Company.-Mr. CrotheTS.
On section 1,
Air. HERRON.: I object to this clause in its original form and move the amendment of which notice has been given:
That subsection (c) of clause 1 be amended by striking out the word 'Spring Coulee' in the first line and inserting in lieu thereof the word 'Cardston.'


Richard Blain: If there is to be an amendment to the Bill, I would suggest that it be allowed to stand over until the promoter is present, I am not objecting to the amendment, but, as the amendment may not meet the wishes of the promoter of the Bill, and as that hon. gentleman is not present, I think that, in fairness to him, the Bill should be allowed to stand.


John Herron: The Bill stood over for consultation between the promoters and myself. They have not done anything. I have told them I was here to go on with the Bill. Apparently, they have not made any arrangement to have it stand over. If there is anybody interested in the Bill, I am prepared to go on with it.


Mr. GUTHRIE.: I think the Bill should stand in the absence of the promoter. When the matter came up in the committee this amendment was moved. I think the Bill is a Canadian Pacific Railway Bill, and the representative of the company said they had considered the change proposed in the amendment of my hon. friend, but there were very serious engineering difficulties in the way, and they did not desire to have a change made. I think that, as the promoter is not here, it would be well that the Bill should stand over. If my hon. friend from Peel (Air. Blain) has not already moved it, I move that we report progress.


[Stage Direction]
Alotion agreed to, and progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 60) respecting the Lake Champlain and St. Lawrence Ship Canal Company.-Air. Geof-frion.
On section 3,
Mr. HENDERSON.: Has the Minister of Railways approved that section? It seems a very important one?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Yes, it was approved in the committee the other morning.


Hugh Guthrie: This is an old charter. In former years, before there was any development required for electrical purposes, this clause was not inserted in such a Bill [DOT]as this, but, during the past four or five years, they have been inserting this clause, and this Bill stood over that it might be inserted.
On section 4, consent of municipality.


Air. SPROULE.: I understood that the regular clause was to be inserted in this Bill. Under that clause, not only must the consent of the municipality to the works referred to be expressed by by-law, but this was to be ' upon such terms as may be agreed upon.' I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Victor Geoffrion: ' I did not catch what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) said.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When we discussed this Bill in committee it was decided to add to it die usual clauses attached to all Bills of this kind; that is, that the company could only enter a municipality upon receiving authority by by-law of the municipality, and upon such terms as might be agreed upon between the company and the municipality. This provides for the bylaw, but it says nothing about terms -with the municipality. That is not according to the clause we have been in the habit of putting in such Bills for the last couple of years, and which were carefully considered and decided upon by the committee.


Victor Geoffrion: I do not exactly remember what was agreed upon ; my "hon. friend says something was agreed upon. I think it was only discussed in committee, and the promoters of the Bill consented to all the amendments which were proposed. Now we come before this committee, and the hon. gentleman says it was agreed that some other amendment should be made. I do not remember any such promise on the part of anybody. I think the clause the chairman has just read is sufficient. I do not see why we should drop the Bill at this stage, after all the consideration we have given it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The committee discussed this Bill, and it was left to the chairman to put in the two clauses that we usually put in these Bills ; and what I complain of is that they have not been put in.


Hugh Guthrie: 
CANADIAN NORTHERN ONTARIO RAILWAY COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 69) respecting the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Company.
Edward Walter Nesbitt: The other evening the Minister of Railways asked that this Bill stand. I have not seen him since, and I would not like to go on with it without seeing him.


David Henderson: On what grounds did he ask it to stand?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: It was proposed to add an amendment, and the amendment has not been added.


David Henderson: I thought the amendment was agreed to in the Railway Committee.	.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: , No, it was not brought up. The .amendment proposed was as follows :
The company shall not construct or operate its railway along any highway, street or other public place without first obtaining the consent expressed by by-law of the municipality having jurisdiction over said highway, street or other public place, and upon terms to he agreed upon with such municipality.
This is going through Ontario largely, and the amendment may not .be necessary. It is subject to the Railway Act, and the Railway Act refers all these questions to the railway board.
Progress reported.


SECOND READING.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 108) respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. McCraney.
Victor Geoffrion: 


ONTARIO AND MINNESOTA POWER COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
On the motion for the second reading of Bill (No. 109) respecting the Ontario and Minnesota Power Company.-Mr. Conmee.
David Henderson: Unfortunately, I am not able to read this Bill. It is printed in French, and I would like to be permitted to peruse it. It is only printed in French, and I think we should have it printed in English before we take the second reading.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I am informed by the clerk that it is printed in English, that the Order Paper contains a typographical error.


David Henderson: It is too late, almost now, to get a copy of the Bill. I wanted to get a copy of it, but I could not get it. It was not on my file, so that I could get hold of it. It is rather late now to have the Bill handed to me at the last minute. I think we might almost say that it has not been printed.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The objection is that it is not printed in English?
Mr. HENDERSON According to the notice paper it is printed in French, but not in English.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: That is a typographical enror. It should be English instead of French.


David Henderson: It is not printed in French?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: No.	"


David Henderson: Well, then, I take the exception that it is not printed in French.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Stands.


SASKATOON AND HUDSON BAY RAILWAY COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
On the motion for the second reading of Bill (No. Ill) to incorporate the Saskatoon and Hudson Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Carvell.
Sir ALLEN AYLESWORTH.: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to oppose the second reading of this Bill, but I should like it to receive its second reading only upon the understanding that before passing this House the spelling of the word * Hudson ' would be changed to * Hudson's.' I do not want to take up the time of the House talking about trifles, but I cannot understand -what object there is, especially in an official proceeding such as the passing of a Bill through this House, in changing the good old, well-established spelling of the name Hudson's Bay. It is nearly fifty years ago since I was taught, as a schoolboy, that our word Hudson's Bay was always spelled with the ' s,' whereas the United States

river Hudson was spelled without the ' s '. I think that is a very good reason, if no ether existed, why we should adhere to the English method of spelling this word. It is a different word, and, however much we may admire modern improvements in spelling, we cannot change the name of the great company which had its charter now nearly 250 years ago, and which has made famous the world over the name Hudson's Bay. I think the very circumstance that we have our own expression, while the United States have theirs, that it is the English language we speak, and, therefore, that _we ought to look to England for our standards of orthography and geography, affords in itself reason enough why, in an official proceeding of this character, we ought to adhere to the expression Hudson's Bay, whatever newspapers and whatever other peojde may do about it.


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

[Stage Direction]
The order for private Bills having been exhausted, House resumed in Committee of Supply.
Mr CURRIE (Simcoe).: Before going on with these items, I observe that my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) is spending a great deal of time on the estimates of his department The Minister of Public Works, we know, is a very hard-working man; he is active, he gets his estimates down here, he attends to them every night, and endeavours to get them through. There are other ministers of the Crown who are in charge of departments fust as important as the Department of Public Works. I am sure that the House would be very much pleased to see the estimates of some of the other ministers brought down here and discussed openly and freely, and it would be largely to the benefit Of the country if such were the case. For instance, I think we should have a few nights on the estimates of the department of the Minister of Finance, so as to relieve the burden from the Minister of Public Works. Then there is also the hon. gentleman (Sir Frederick Borden) in charge of the Department of Militia and Defence, and I know that the House is desirous of discussing his estimates for three or four nights. We never have the pleasure of having him with us at all, and I am sure I am voicing the sentiments of members on this side of the House when I say that the estimates of some other department should be taken up as well as those of the Department of Public Works. The estimates of the Public Works Department pall on the taste, and I think it would be well, the next- night when estimates are taken up, if we had, say, the Department of Militia and Defence under fire. Then, again, as I 101
have said before, we would like the estimates of the department of the Minister of Finance, and we should have a few nights with the Department of Agriculture, which deals with the largest interest and industry of the country. We like to discuss these items with the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Air. Fisher), as he is always willing to discuss them ad libitum and to give us a great deal of information. I feel convinced that the country is yearning and panting to hear from the Minister of Agriculture, and there are a great many members in the House on this side who are interested in farming matters, and who would like to have the estimates of the Department of Agriculture under review for some time. I cannot hope that the government will bring forward any estimates except those which they please, but 1 am sorry that they are placing the Minister of Public Works in the limelight every night and putting him to the front, so that we may smash him and do all kinds of things to him, when the other ministers ought to carry their end of the log just the same as he is carrying it. I hope that we may have a chance of discussing estimates other than those of the Department of Public Works.
Ottawa public buildings, lighting, $140,000.


Mr. GOODEVE.: When the committee rose at six o'clock the hon. the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) had made a very carefully worded statement in which he endeavoured to place the responsibility for the rake-off that had been made by the Imperial Realty Company on the city of Ottawa and the Imperial Realty Company rather than on the Department of Public Works. If that statement, as made by the minister, were borne out by the evidence in the Public Accounts Committee I do not think there would be any doubt in the minds of members of this House that both the city of Ottawa and the Imperial Realty Company were in collusion to defraud this government out of a large sum of money and as such should be prosecuted. Indeed, when the minister said he had placed the matter in the Justice Department he left the inference that such was his idea. While not attempting to defend the Imperial Realty Company I must say that my conception of the evidence before the committee was that the responsibility rested solely with the Public Works Department and not with them. The evidence showed -although we could not get the correspondence bearing on it-that there evidently had been a contract of some kind by which the Imperial Realty Company was to furnish the light to these particular buildings at a fixed rate, based on the rate paid by other consumers in the city. They were justly entitled to get whatever rate, they could from the original supplier o4 the power, and in the result they got *



much cheaper rate than they charged the government and they had a rake-off of a very large sum of money. If it is the belief of the minister that there was wrongdoing then he should have taken more active steps than to merely place the matter in the hands of the Justice Department, where it rests. We had a very similar transaction where the department installed an elevator in one of the public buildings when the lease stipulated that it should be installed by the proprietor of the building, and that case we were also told had been sent to the Department of Justice. We have to-night seen the Minister of Public Works with a remarkably tender conscience and with a remarkable idea of fair play and justice, holding up his hands in holy horror at the thought of asking a rich corporation to send in a tender for the supply of electric power. He told us that he would not for one moment be mean enough-I think that was the word he used-to ask for tenders for supplying all the power necessary for lighting all the public buildings and running the elevators in these buildings.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend misunderstood me. What I said was that the companies had two rates: a meter rate and flat rate, and I did not think I would be justified in asking them to reduce the rate so as to bring it below what was charged to other people.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: We are therefore to understand that the Minister of Public Works, having full charge of the people's money would not endeavour by asking for tenders, to get the best possible price for a service which costs a very large sum annually. The minister is very solicitous about an electric light company, the stock of which is selling at $163, or 63 over par, and which is paying very large dividends, to its shareholders. The minister in his tender solicitude for this company refuses! even to ask for tenders as an ordinary business transaction. I happen to have some knowledge of how this matter is dealt with in my part of the country where they develop a large amount of electricitv and sell the power to mining companies and others. The power companies sell at both -flat and meter rates, and yet there is not a single one of these large power consuming companies in the whole of my province which is paying the ordinary flat or meter rate. They all buy it at a fixed rate per horse-power per annum and they get their supply by tender at the lowest price. There is absolutely no reason as an ordinary business transaction why the Minister of Public Works should not follow the every day business custom and endeavour to buy the power which the government requires for these services at the lowest possible rate. There is absolutely no reason why tenders Mr. GOODEVE.
should not be asked for. It is very remarkable that the minister should all at once display such an extremely tender conscience lest he should offend these people by asking them to tender for power supply at a reasonable' rate to a large consumer like the government.


William Pugsley: I have no tender feeling towards the company or the electrical department of. the city. I would be quite willing to get from them the lowest possible rate that can be obtained, but what I said was that I did not think it right that the government should take advantage of its position to try and get a lower rate than other customers in the city have to pay. Some get a meter rate and some a flat rate, and if we ask for a flat rate, or a meter rate we are entitled to get the same rate as other large consumers of electricity. But we have no right as a government to get our electricity, whether by flat rate or meter rate, at one cent less than the ordinary consumer pays. My regard is for the consumers and every dollar which the government may take out of the companies is so much money charged against the ordinary consumer. There should, in my judgment be the same rate to the poor man as to the rich, to the private individual as to the government. That would be the ideal system, but if there is to be a flat rate and a meter rate then I believe these rates should be under the control of the Bailway Commission and the government should not get a lower rate than any other consumer of electricity.


Richard Blain: How many companies can supply power?


William Pugsley: Two, the electrical department of the city and the Ottawa Electric Company.


Richard Blain: Did the minister ask prices from both?


William Pugsley: Yes, and the flat rate is the same for both. The Ottawa Company supply this building at $2.25 for the first 3,000 lamps and $2 for all the lamps above that. The city of Ottawa supplies the other buildings at a flat rate of $2, so that the rates of the two companies are practically the same.


Richard Blain: Did the Minister ask the price at which these two companies would supply the current?


William Pugsley: They were conferred
with.


Richard Blain: Public competition?


William Pugsley: No.


Richard Blain: Whv not?


William Pugsley: Simply because there are only the two companies and we asked

them for the best rate they could give and we got it. We have done exactly what I would do if I owned a large building in the city that required lighting. They should have one price for all, whether a meter or a fiat rate price.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: Does the minister mean seriously to tell me that if this company was asked to give a special wholesale rate for a large consumer it would -affect in the slightest degree the rate that they make to the ordinary consumer? In this very transaction we find that the Imperial Realty Company, whilst charging the government the regular meter rate, was getting a very much lower rate so that they had a rake-off of $3,000 or $4,000 a year on this building alone. Surely he does not expect this House to believe that the mere asking for a tender for a large supply of power at a low rate would affect the rate charged the ordinary customer. I am amazed that the minister should advance such an absurd argument.


William Pugsley: In this case it is alleged that the Imperial Realty Company had a flat rate, and that the bills which were rendered by the city to the Realty Company and again by the Realty Company to the government were based upon a meter rate. I do not understand that there are two flat rates or two meter rates, but that there are two rates, one a meter and one a flat. If this company, as I think it should be, is subject to the control of the Board of Railway Commissioners or the board of the province of Ontario, which I think has also jurisdiction over electrical matters, the board would allow the company a fair and reasonable profit upon its investments, and therefore, the cheaper the rate at which the government could get its electricity the higher the rate which would have to be charged the ordinary consumer in order to enable the company to make a reasonable and fair profit. The government ought not to be able to get and ought not to seek to get electric lighting or gas lighting, whether by flat rate or by meter rate, at a lower cost than the ordinary consumer pays, whether by flat rate or by meter. That is my position and that is why I have not called for tenders, but have asked the electric company and the city to give us the lowest flat rate.


Richard Blain: Were they both the same?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Richard Blain: Then why was the selection made.	.


William Pugsley: The Ottawa Electric Company is supplying this building with light. The city already had their wires in the other building, and we thought as they were giving as low a rate as the Ottawa company we ought to continue with them.
101i


Richard Blain: The hon. member for Kootenay (Mr. Goodeve) must not be surprised at the position taken by the minister because his policy and that of his government is entirely in opposition to public tenders. Therefore, we must expect that when my hon. friend is dealing with a matter of this kind he will not ask for public competition. We tested the House upon that question, and my hon. friend the minister is on record. I have a motion here which was moved and voted on in the House:
That all the supplies purchased for the use of the various departments of the government should be procured on the basis of public tender and contract, under the direction of a competent purchasing commission, and with regard primarily to quality and price.
I suppose supplies would mean electrical current the same as other purchases. That is the policy the opposition laid down on the floor of the House on many occasions. The minister voted against this motion, and having voted against a policy of public competition he is very fearful lest two companies in the city of Ottawa might, get in competition with one another and; forsooth the government might get a cheaper price than some poor individual ins the city. Did any one ever hear of such a policy? Why does not my hon. friend be-frank in dealing with a matter of this kind, and put the transaction beyond suspicion by asking these two companies to give tenders? He had a splendid opportunity to. have public competition, he had one company competing with another in the capital city right at his hand, yet he ' says:	Oh, no, we must not do that, we
might get something cheaper than we ought to. That part of it is a brand new doctrine; the other part is an old story, the policy of the hon. gentleman and his government is in opposition to public competition, and here is a splendid exemplification of the policy; indeed it will point out to the country the difference between the policy of this government and of the opposition. My hon. friend need not be at alt concerned about the citizens of Ottawa.


William Pugsley: I venture to say that during all the years the Conservative party was in power they never asked for tenders for electric lighting, and my hon. friend cannot find a single case in any part of the Dominion where they called for tenders for lighting by electricity or gas. They took it for granted that the ordinary charge to the public was the fair and reasonable charge to pay, and he cannot say we are paying one cent more than the large consumers in Ottawa are paying.


Richard Blain: When my hon. friend's party were in opposition they constantly condemned the Conservative government, because we did not ask for public competi-

tion, that was one of the chief planks in the platform of the party.


Mr PUGSLEY.: Not in electricity and gas. I think I am safe in saying that in 1896 the government owned the plant. When my hon. friend asked why, when there are two plants in this city, we did not invite competition, the only excuse he has to offer is that if he did, the department might possibly have got its_ lighting done cheaper than some individuals would. Might I ask him if he proposes to continue that kind of policy.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: This is no new policy of the Department of Public Works, because when discussing an item regarding the museum in the city, the minister said that the contractor had tendered too low and that the departments, in order to make up the loss, gave him extras without calling for tenders, and that contractor is still going on supplying extras on that building from year to year. With regard to the particular item under discussion, the Realty Company had a meter rate with the electric light company while charging the government a flat rate, and were making a large profit. It would appear to me, that a company, in fixing a flat rate, would base it on the maximum quantity of light that could be used and would consequently, charge more than if they charged only for the actual light consumed. If for no other reason, it would be advisable for the government to see if they could not get tenders to supply the light by ampere or horsepower for government purposes.


William Pugsley: It is very difl&cult to satisfy hon. gentlemen opposite. We have been condemned because we did not get a flat rate and now we are being condemned because we did insist on a flat rate. In reply to the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain), I may say that, as at present advised, I shall continue to do what we have done, namely, find out what is the best flat rate and then give the contract to the company which charges the cheapest. In this particular case, both companies have the same flat rate, and so we divided the contract between them.


Richard Blain: The two companies will know just how to handle the hon. minister in the future.


William Pugsley: Just as they know how to handle all other consumers of electricity.


George Taylor: What has become of our own electric apparatus which we had for manufacturing light in the building here ? It gave us good light, and gave it to us cheap.


Richard Blain: 


William Pugsley: The chief architect tells me that was in operation about 20 years ago, and was done away with when the Conservatives were in office.


Adam Brown Crosby: Before recess, I asked the minister about .the contract for the Woods building and the Canadian building, and he answered everything I did not ask him about. He talked about flat rates and meter rates. I remember that when the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe), was trying to find out what the Realty Company paid the city of Ottawa for lights in order to compare that with the very high price they were charging this government, the minister and everybody else in his department did everything possible to prevent our getting that information.


William Pugsley: I deny that most positively. That question came up some time ago, and the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe), said I was in the committee room when objection was taken to the production of the written contracts between the city and the Imperial Realty Company. I replied that I was not at that meeting. Through the kindness of the hon. member for Kootenay (Mr. Goodeve), I was enabled to see the appendix 3 of the proceedings of that committee, and in looking over the proceedings of the 22nd of April, -that being the day when that contract was asked for, and the Chairman ruled it out-I find I was not present. At a later meeting of the committee an attempt was made by the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe), to give hearsay evidence of that contract which had been ruled out, and I objected. Any law student of a month's standing will say that I was absolutely correct.


Adam Brown Crosby: I was present, and I have pretty good eyesight, and I am prepared to state that the minister was present. But that has nothing to do with the argument. Whether he was present or not, he is responsible for the Public Works Department, and the department did everything they could to prevent the Public Accounts Committee from getting any idea what the Realty Company were paying the city of Ottawa for the light they are furnishing this government. But the department, instead of acting in the public interest, and giving us an opportunity of ascertaining what we were paying in overcharge for light, did everything they could to prevent us from getting the information. We all remember that after it had been fully discussed in the House, the Deputy Minister of Public Works came into the committee the next morning and went on the stand, and the first thing he said was : We have decided, not only to cancel the

contract, but to bring an action against the Realty Company to compel them to return the money. Now, the Minister of Public Works stated just before recess that no doubt they had paid more than they ought to have paid ; but he said there was a document furnished by the treasurer of the city of Ottawa which was handed him by the secretary of the Realty Company regarding the price of light ; they discovered that this document was a false document, and yet it was upon this document that the Department of Public Works issued their cheque. Consequently somebody was obtaining money under false pretenses. Then the Minister of Public Works tells us that he has handed that matter over to the Justice Department. I say it was the duty of the Public Works Department to take up this question themselves and find out who is to blame, and compel a return of the money to the public coffers. He says now he has turned it over to the Justice Department, and he really doesn't know whether they are going to do anything or not. The department has paid over this money on the strength of a false document ; I do not care whether it was issued by the treasurer of the city of Ottawa, or at the instance of the secretary of the Realty Company ; the fact is that the cheque was issued on the strength of that false document. It is not flattering to the Public Works Department that they should have issued a cheque on a false document. Now, I want to know from the Minister of Public Works whether they intend to go after the Realty Company, or the city treasurer of Ottawa, I do not care which, whichever one is guilty of making this false document. I want the minister , to tell us whether any effort is toeing made to punish those who were guilty, as shown by that investigation. We were never able to discover in the Public Accounts Committee what price the Realty Company were paying the Ottawa Electric Light Company for the light they were furnishing to the government. I say that the Public Accounts Committee is not a place where the government should stand on fine legal points, when we are endeavouring to get at facts vital to the public interest. There should toe no objections raised in the Public Accounts Committee, particularly by a minister of the Crown, whose duty it is to guard the public interest. But our experience has been that, no matter what minister is before the committee, he acts as if he had received a large retainer in order to protect the witness who is there for the purpose of giving information. I want to know where this is going to end. I want to know whether the minister is going toi continue the farce, or whether he intends to take any steps to force these parties to return the money.


William Pugsley: I only repeat to my hon. friend that the papers in the case have been handed over to the Justice Department, with the request that they will look into the case, and take such action as they may think proper to take. The Justice Department is the proper tribunal to which -to send cases of this kind.


George Taylor: I think the minister is in error when he stated that the Conservatives were in power twenty years ago when this change was made about the electric lighting. I was here twenty years ago, and my hon. friend was not ; and I know that at that time the government generated the light in this building, and then the plant was moved down below the hill on the edge of the river. The power was at work when the change of government took place, and it was the late Mr. Tarte who* made the change, and put in these lights, we have now. Those are the facts, and the minister was trying to mislead the House when he stated that the change was mad * twenty years ago.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER, The expression 'Hying to mislead the House ' is not in order.


George Taylor: If the expression ' misleading the House ' is not in accord*-ance with the rules of tire House, I withdraw it. I say the minister misinformed the House when he made that statement,


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: It was not the
expression ' misleading ' that was out of order, but the expression ' trying to mislead.'


William Pugsley: The information I gave was furnished to me by the chief architect, I could have no personal knowledge of the matter myself.


George Taylor: The change was made in 1897, according to the records, and that is not twenty years ago.


William Pugsley: The chief architect can remember that they had an electric light power in 1891, which would toe about twenty years ago, tout he is not able to state when it was changed.


George Taylor: The change was made in 1897, and the architect will find it in his books.


William Pugsley: If it is important, the chief architect will look into it.


George Taylor: Let the minister ask his chief architect if the late Mr. Tarte did not put in the present lights.


William Pugsley: Mr. Ewart says he cannot remember when the government ceased to develop electric light. But if it is important, I will have him look up the records.

Mr, TAYLOR (Leeds). Let the minister *ask his chief architect if it was not the late Mr. Tarte, the then Minister of Public Works, who put in these lights we have here now,


William Pugsley: Oh, yes, but it does not follow that the doing away with the electric power station took place then.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The Minister of Public Works has taken the ground that large users of public utilities should be placed upon the same footing and pay the same prices as the smaller ones, and that the government should be placed upon the same.footing as a private individual. Now I do not think the great majority of business people in this country would consent to that proposition, but whether it is sound or not, I would like to commend the Minister of Public Works to the Minister of Railways, who, during the deliverance of his budget speech on the Intercolonial railway last year, and the year before, complained to the House that the government was compelled to purchase its supplies for the Intercolonial at the same price as everybody else, although it was a large purchaser of supplies, and if it were not compelled to publish the price at which they were purchased in the Auditor General's Report, they would be able to obtain goods at a lower rate than the general public. He advanced the argument that the accounts of the Intercolonial railway should not be published in that report, because the company would then be able to purchase its supplies cheaper. Only three days ago, in this House, the hon. member for Argenteuil (Mr. Perley) brought up the case of an excursion train being taken from Levis to Montreal and return, a distance of some 326 miles, and that tickets were sold on that train for $1.50 each, or less than one-half cent a mile return, whereas the rate confirmed by the Railway Commission, and the minimum rate to be charged by other lines of railway was $2.70 for the same service. There was a case of a public utility, but the Minister of Railways justified the smaller charge on the ground that he was serving a larger number, that a larger number of tickets was sold, and that the government was making money out of the transaction. So on these two points the Minister of Railways is diametrically opposed to the Minister of Public Works.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The statement made by the Minister of Railways was an extraordinary one. He said it was not his place to try to beat any one down, or get them to lower their figures under what they were charging others in a contract like this. The principle has been recognized by this government that it is their duty not to expend public moneys, where the expenditure exceeds a certain sum, without asking Mr. PUGSLEY.
for tenders. Both sides of the House have put themselves on record in a resolution to that effect. Therefore it is not for the Minister of Public Works to say, I am not going to ask this company or any other company to furnish us with light at a lower rate than they are furnishing it to other customers. His duty is to ask for tenders, and if the company is prepared to tender at a lower rate than they are selling to others, on account of the larger contract, then it is for that company to say what they will tender for, and if they tender to serve the government lower than other parties, it is the duty of the minister to accept that tender.


George Taylor: I would ask the Minister of Public Works to furnish the House with the date when the late Mr. Tarte made the change, and installed, the lights we have now. I would also like him to say what was done with the plant the government then owned. Was it handed over to the parties who are now furnishing the light? We had a good plant and wiring, what became of them?


William Pugsley: I will get the details for my hon. friend.


John Dowsley Reid: In 1896 when this government came into power these buildings were lighted with gas. At that time the government were paying more for gas than they should, as the price of gas has gone down since. At that time the cost of lighting all the public buildings in the city of Ottawa, according to the Auditor General's Report, was $23,483, in 1896, when the Conservative party went out of power. At the present time, under the Liberal party, it is costing this country $53,000 per year to do exactly the same service as was done in 1896. In addition to that we have now electric power, should we not get that electric power much cheaper than gas?


William Pugsley: That has not been my experience.


John Dowsley Reid: Then the minister must have been dealing an awful lot in gas and very little in electricity.


William Pugsley: I have used a good deal of both.


John Dowsley Reid: Does the minister mean to tell this committee that gas is cheaper than electric power ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: Then why is so much electric power being developed ? There is not a man in this Dominion but who believes that gas is dearer than electric power; otherwise it would be used. *


William Pugsley: I can .tell the hon. gentleman that in the citv of St. John, I used gas before I had my house wired for electricity. I am satisfied that electric light cost me twice what gas had formerly cost.


John Dowsley Reid: We are speaking of Ottawa, and not St. John. I do not know anything about St. John, but I know that power in Ottawa is sold at probably $15 per horse-power.


William Pugsley: No.


John Dowsley Reid: Well, others can get it if the minister can not. Any manufacturing industry in Ottawa that wants power, can get it for that.


William Pugsley: You may get it undeveloped at the dam for $15.


John Dowsley Reid: That is what it is any place. In Ottawa it is only $15 or $20 per horse-power. I would like the minister to explain how it is that he is now spending $53,000 for lighting these buildings, when it only cost $24,000 when gas was used. If that goes on each year, where are we going to end? I would like the minister to tell the committee one single item in regard to which he has decreased the expenditure or effected economies since he became minister. Can he name one single instance ? If he does, I -will guarantee to name several where he has increased the expenditure a good deal more, and in connection with these increases, I believe that there has been grafting, robbery and that kind of thing going on. Will the minister name one ?


William Pugsley: We are just at the present time discussing the lighting of the buildings throughout Canada.


John Dowsley Reid: I am speaking of Ottawa.


William Pugsley: Neither in respect of these buildings nor in respect of the lighting of the buildings in the city of Ottawa, can I show a decrease for the reason that every year the number of rooms which is being occupied for the different departments of the government is increasing. Since 1896 there have been a great many hands, possibly a thousand, of clerks added to the different departments for the purpose of attending to the expanding business of the country. My hon. friend has heen asleep during the past fourteen years, he does not know that the country has been growing with marvellous rapidity, that its business has doubled, almost trebled in that period of time. The hon. gentleman forgets all that.


George Taylor: The clerks have, but the business has not.


William Pugsley: Beyond the buildings which were occupied in 1896, we have two large buildings on Slater street, the large building on Bank street, the building on O'Connor street, the building on Queen street, and the Corry building, near the railway station. All these buildings are occupied in addition to those which were occupied in 1896. They have to be lighted and that adds to the expense. We have additional charges for gas and electricity. But let my hon. friend go any day to the committee on Public Accounts, when experts are there who know these things, and find out whether we are spending for them one single dollar more than we ought to spen'd.	.


George Taylor: We have had that in the Public Accounts Committee.


William Pugsley: With regard to these expenditures, my hon. friend cannot expect me to decrease the cost of lighting, heating, elevator men or messengers, as all these services are increasing so ranidly. But, if my hon. friend chooses on some proper occasion, to ask as to economies, I could tell him of a great many economies which have been introduced since I became Minister of Public Works. We are making some very large savings in connection with some very important, works throughout Canada.


John Dowsley Reid: The minister tells us now, that we should go to the Public Accounts Committee, and see whether there is anything wrong with regard to these items. On this very item, when it came up last year, he asked us to go to the Public Accounts Committee. We went to the Public Accounts Committee on this one item. The minister himself, admits that the item was investigated in the Public Accounts Committee. A gentleman he had there practically acting on behalf of the person who had charged the rates, was willing to second the motion


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman is absolutely in error.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like to know if it is not a fact.


William Pugsley: I had nobody acting there, and there was nobody acting there, as far as I know, for the Realty Company.
Mr.	REID	(Grenville). The	ministerknows well enough that in these investigations	he has	the hon. member	for Carleton,	New	Brunswick	(Mr.	Carvell),
practically fighting like a tiger to try to prevent us from investigating anything.


William Pugsley: That is absurd.
Mr.	REID	(Grenville). There is no
doubt about that. Every hon. gentleman

knows it. He is there fighting in order not to get out the facts. As far as I am concerned, I believe he is there to uphold the rascality that is going on


William Pugsley: I think that language is wholly unjustified, and unjustifiable, and that the hon. gentleman ought to be ashamed of it himself.


John Dowsley Reid: I am not ashamed to make the statement, because I know it to be a fact.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman ought not to use language of that kind with regard to a member of this House. I will call your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the fact that the hon. gentleman has charged that the hon. member for Carleton, New Brunswick (Mr. Carvell), goes there, according to his belief, for the purpose of preventing the truth from coming out in the committee.


John Dowsley Reid: I have no hesitation in saying


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Order.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman ought to withdraw that expression, which is entirely unjustifiable.


John Dowsley Reid: I said that my belief was that he goes there deliberately and tries to block investigation into these cases. I believe that and as long as I believe it, I do not see that there is anything unparliamentary about it. In so far as saying that it is unjustifiable


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: A point of order has been raised. The hon. gentleman is at liberty to explain his words, but until the point is decided, he may not be permitted to continue his remarks.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not know what the point is, Mr. Chairman.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I will ask the Minister of Public Works to re-state his point of order.


William Pugsley: The point of order is that the hon. gentleman was making a most improper reflection upon the hon. member for Carleton, New Brunswick, one that he ought not to make, and one which he ought to withdraw.


John Dowsley Reid: Why ?


William Pugsley: Because it is an exceedingly improper remark.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The same remarks have been made over and over again in this House, and, if I understand the rules of order correctly, any member of the House may make them without violating any rules of order. He did not say positively Mr. REID (Grenville).
that he does go there, but he said: That is my impression, that is my belief.


John Dowsley Reid: That is what I do believe too.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think such a remark permissible. He may be -wrong in his judgment, but he cannot be hanged for his belief.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Objection has been taken to an expression made with regard to the member for Carleton, New Brunswick, going to the committee. When an hon. gentleman's words run over a long sentence and no specific word is objected to, it is not easy to rule. Any expression conveying the meaning or idea that the hon. member for Carleton, New Brunswick, was doing dishonourable or improper work, in the committee, would be out of order. If the hon. gentleman's words conveyed that impresion, they would be out of order.


John Dowsley Reid: You know, Mr. Chairman, what I said, and you know what I meant.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: If the hon. gentleman did use the expression that the hon. member for Carleton went to the committee with the intention of covering up rascality, it would be wrong.


John Dowsley Reid: I did not say that. What I said was


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. gentleman has a right to state what he said, and whatever he says he said will be accepted as his statement.


John Dowsley Reid: What I said was that when the hon. member for Carleton was in the committee he was at least not assisting us to get at the facts in the way he should. I am not reflecting on the hon. member for Carleton personally because every person knows that any law"-yer could be employed, without reflecting on his reputation, to defend a murderer or anything else.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. gentleman has a right to state what he said, but until the point is finally decided he has not the right to proceed with an argument. As the hon. gentleman put it, I do not think his statement now is out of order.


John Dowsley Reid: Thank you.


William Pugsley: But the hon. member (Mr. Reid) makes a still worse reflection on the hon. member for Carleton, because he now asserts he went there as a lawyer.


John Dowsley Reid: No, no.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I did not so understand him.


George Taylor: He said any lawyer could defend a criminal.


Air. BARKER.: The Alinister of Public Works declared that the hon. member (A1 r. Reid) ought to be ashamed of himself, and I submit there can be no doubt as to the impropriety of that expression.


William Pugsley: I understood the hon. member (Mr. Reid) to say that the hon. member for Carleton went to the committee for the purpose among other things of covering up rascality, and if he said that I thought he ought to be ashamed of himself. The hon. member (Air. Reid) says now he did not say that, but he intimated that the hon. member for Carle-ton is employed.


John Dowsley Reid: I did not say that.


Air. COAVAN.: You have already ruled Air. Speaker that the hon. member for Grenville has not made an improper reflection on the hon. member for Carleton and therefore the Alinister of Public Works is not justified in making such a statement.


John Dowsley Reid: I did not say the hon. member for Carleton was employed to go to the committee.
Air. DEPUTY SPEAKER, If the expression that the hon. member ought to be ashamed of himself was intended to convey the idea that he had been guilty of dishonourable conduct, then it would be out of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Withdraw.


William Pugsley: I think I will withdraw, but wait a moment. If the hon. gentleman from Grenville solemnly assures "this committee that he did not say that the member for Carleton went to the committee to hide rascality, then I feel I should not have used that expression towards the hon. member for Grenville and I withdraw it.


John Dowsley Reid: Will the minister deny that wdien this fraud was exposed in the Public Accounts Committee last year the committee practically unanimously agreed that it should be condemned and the minister cancelled the contract and admitted he had not made a good bargain. How would it be possible for the Public Accounts Committee to investigate every item of the expenditure of $100,000,000. I appeal now to the Alinister of Finance because I believe he wants to help these items through and desires to see honest expenditure. The Alinister
of Finance must know that there was rascality shown up in the Public Accounts Committee, and I would ask him, as I asked the Alinister of Public Works this afternoon, to appoint Judge Cassels a commissioner to investigate the Public Works Department, just as he investigated the Alarine and Fisheries Department. Judge Cassels' report would satisfy not only the members on this side but the public of Canada generally. Of course when I preferred this request to the Minister of Public Works he raised the objection that everythingvhad been straight and that we had not shown any wrong-doing. The Deputy Alinister of Finance is present at every meeting of the Public Accounts Committee watching the proceedings, and I am satisfied the Minister of Finance will not stand up here to-night and declare that everything has been found straight and right in the Public Works Department. I think the Alinister of Finance will admit that we have proven that rascality and graft has been going on in that department. Would it not be in the interest of the public to have the Minister of Finance grant a commission of inquiry? Should he do so, speaking for myself, I am satisfied the members of this side would cheerfully let the items go through, if we were promised an investigation by Judge Cassels, an upright and honourable man who is in no way connected with the members on this side of the House. Cannot the Minister of Finance grant that simple and reasonable request and let us see how it will work out? I appeal to him to do so.


William Stevens Fielding: I ivas not present when my hon. friend made that request to the Alinister of Public Works, and I did not hear the minister's reply, but I think if was probably a wise and proper one.


Air. NORTHRUP.: I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.


John Dowsley Reid: But the Minister of Public Works said there was nothing wrong in the Public Works Department.


William Stevens Fielding: That was a good reply,


Richard Blain: Yes. and the same reply was made as to the Alarine and Fisheries Department.
That was the defence always g'veu by the government, that there was nothing the matter with the government; everything was all right. But when a commission investigated the department it found that there was no conscience in that department at all. It is useless for us to go over the condemnation meted out to the government by gentlemen appointed by themselves to investigate one department. Mv hon. friend has the same excuse now. The Alinister

of Public Works said there was nothing wrong, that no investigation was required, and the Minister of Finance states: Whatever the Minister of Public Works said this afternoon I will endorse. That shows the great faith the Minister of Finance has in the Minister of Public Works. It is well known that the people of Canada are not satisfied with the various departments. Something went wrong with the department of the Secretary of State (Mr. Murphy). I am not charging him, because I suppose most of the wrong-doing occurred before he assumed that position, but that hon. gentleman said that the investigation in the Printing Bureau proved the country had lost $70,000 by irregularities in the department. These are the things that have' .aToused suspicions in the country. The hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Reid) has asked for a general investigation into the Public Works Department. If there is nothing wrong in that department my hon. friend will not suffer. One department had to bring bookkeepers from New York at a cost of $50 and $75 a day per man and expenses to look into the bookkeeping of the department. I thought that Canada was as well versed in bookkeeping as the United States, but the minister was careful not to allow any Canadian to look into that department. He said in effect that there was nobody in Canada equal to the occasion. They found all this wrong-doing. The opposition now want an investigation into my hon. friend's department. The hon. minister states there is nothing wrong, but we are very suspicious that there is. If there is nothing wrong my hon. friend will not suffer. Why not have a general investigation, which will avoid all this detailed criticism? In the Public Accounts Committee it was found that a man who had been supplying goods to this government without public competition bought an article for $325 and sold it to the government for $960. Before we secured the cost price we had a discussion in the committee and hon. gentlemen opposite said: Do not allow this gentleman to tell how much this article cost him, that would be prying into his private business, and a resolution was put to the committee to that effect. The Finance Minister, whose duty it is to take care of the finances of Canada, voted against allowing that man to tell how much it cost when he was making a profit of 187 per cent. I would think the Minister of Finance would be glad to shift some of the responsibility on the Minister of Public Works, who bears it so gently.
These are some of the wrong-doings that have been found by the investigations made by this side of the House and by gentlemen appointed by this government. The hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Reid) is asking for the appointment of a public commission to investigate this department generally, avoiding these detailed investi-Mr. BLATN.
gations here, a commission which will be able to lift the lid when the government are not there to hold it down. I thought the minister was going to accede to that request, but I misjudged him, as I have done before. I hope now, that having heard this statement of willingness from this side to assist him in satisfying the public, who are rather suspicious of my hon. friend's department, perhaps not suspicious of himself, he will grant the commission. Tonight we asked to have public competition in the supply of light. He says: Oh, no, that is against the policy of my government; we do not want public competition. We want to ask people to give prices, and he says he is a little fearful lest we shall get a lower price than the private individual. If the minister grants an investigation and it is found that there is nothing wrong he will have support in the future from this side that he cannot have now, when his department is surrounded by suspicion.


John Dowsley Reid: I am surprised the minister did not state whether he believed there .had been anything wrong in the Public Works Department. He must have got information from his deputy minister, and these facts must have been brought to his attention. The very item we are on was before the Public Accounts Committee last year, and I would ask whether the minister heard the result of that investigation? At the same time last year there was another investigation about a firm in Montreal, the Lymburner firm. The minister must admit that that firm was getting about 200 per cent profit. Every one on this side expected that when it was shown that that firm was charging such prices the Public Works Department would cease doing business with them, but to our surprise we again find the name in the accounts of this year. On finding the high prices charged by this film we got the accounts and we found that the goods were bought from Lymburner, and certified by a man named Lymburner. We brought him here and found that he was a shareholder and director of the company from whom the department were buying these goods, receiving money as dividends from the firm from which he was buying goods as agent of the department-and he must have been receiving good big dividends, judging by the prices the government paid. He was appointed at $1,300 a year by the Public Works Department as inspector to certify that goods he was purchasing from his own company were correct and the prices fair and just. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance, who is leading the House tonight, and should answer, if he considers-


William Pugsley: WTould the hon. gentleman allow me to ask him a question? Were not tenders and prices asked for from

two or three different firms, and was not the tender of Lymburner, Limited, the lowest?


John Dowsley Reid: The way in which these tenders were asked for


William Pugsley: Please answer my question.


John Dowsley Reid: As far as my memory serves me, the Lymburner, Limited, were not the lowest tenderers.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman's memory does not serve him rightly because they were.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In the matter referred to, public tenders were not called for. There was a letter purporting to contain a tender sent by the firm of Millen & Thom, for the sum of $520 for repairs to be done a certain elevator in the .old examining warehouse in Montreal, the exact date of which letter I have forgotten. But ten days later another letter came from the firm of Lymburner, Limited, tendering for. the same work for the sum of $506.50, which was immediately accepted. These were the only tenders received; but according to the evidence of both the Lymburners there were 20 firms in Montreal capable of performing the same kind of work.' Under those circumstances it is perfectly just and right to say that no tenders were called. Even if it could be said that tenders were called, the evidence on the face of it would go to show there was collusion.


John Dowsley Reid: After a statement of this kind, does the Minister of Finance think it unreasonable that we should ask for an investigation? Is he willing that irregularities of this kind should be allowed to continue in any public department and' the finances of this country wasted in this manner? This is only one sample, we have named others, and if the Minister of Finance wants more we can give them. I would like him to say if, from the investigations which have taken place in the Public Accounts Committee and from what he has heard in this House, he thinks that everything has been going on right in the Department of Public Works. If not will he give us this one chance to show the real condition of affairs; and if the Public Works Department can show a clean sheet after such an investigation, we shall be quite willing to let the Department of the Secretary of State and the others go scot free. If the hon. the Minister of Finance is not afraid to speak, he ought to have no hesitatibn in giving a reply.


Mr. KYTE.: With respect to the transaction referred to by the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Rhodes') I beg to remind the committee that the circumstances were not all disclosed in my hon. friend's statement. Mr. Lymburner, the inspector, said that he sent out four different notices to parties engaged in that kind of work, that he received only two tenders, and that the contract was awarded to the lowest. And Mr. Lymburner has stated that he had ceased to be a director of the company the moment he became an employee of the 1 department.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: On the contrary, the evidence on oath of that gentleman was that he is still a director and has been since the incorporation of the company.


Mr. GERVAIS.: A shareholder.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: And a director.


George William Kyte: He had been at one time the managing director.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: And is still a director.


George William Kyte: And is still a stockholder of the company.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: And a director.


George William Kyte: Furthermore it was disclosed that the work was done at the lowest cost at which such work could be done in Montreal. Nor was there any attempt made by the hon. member for Cumberland, who was conducting the investigation, to prove any overcharge. I am .confident that the evidence when reported to the House, will disclose that the work was done at the lowest price obtainable and that Mr. Lymburner had certified that he had no other interests in that company than that of a stockholder.


William Barton Northrup: This incident is an illustration of the old saying that the unexpected generally hannen's. The result of this discussion has been, in my judgment, to give us in the last fifteen minutes the most important announcement made on the floor of parliament in the last 15 years. Ever since 1896, we have been taught to look on the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) as the watchdog of the treasury, the one man in the cabinet whose honesty was to be depended upon to prevent the squandering of public money in the departments of colleagues less scrupulous than himself. To-night, however, the Minister of Finance repudiated the idea that at any time he was ever the guardian of the treasury and states that he is merely the receptacle of the opinions of his colleagues. If anv one of his colleagues says: ' Everything is right in my department ' then, according to the Minister of Finance, his sole duty is to accept it. Now, I have either correctly or incorrectly given the statement made by my hon. friend. There is no member of this House who would be less willing than myself to misrepresent him in any way: and if I have in any degree misunderstood and consequently misrepresented his statement,

320S
I shall with pleasure give way and allow him to correct the understanding I took from the statement he made on the floor of this House.


William Stevens Fielding: I am not quarrelling with the hon. gentleman's version of what I said. My statement will appear in ' Hansard ' and will speak for itself and I am willing to be judged by it.


William Barton Northrup: Unfortunately it is impossible for us to have the ' Hansard ' report at this moment, but every hon. gentleman present who heard the statement made will judge the Finance Minister by it, no matter what ' Hansard ' may say. I say that the statement he made when appealed to by my hon. friend from Grenville (Mr. Reid) to consent to an investigation into certain departments on the grounds alleged by my hon. friend, namely, that the conditions, the transactions and the figures of these departments justified investigation-when that appeal was made, the Minister of Finance had but one answer. That answer was this:	I have been told
by my colleagues that these figures ars correct. Am I right or wrong in that statement?


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman says he does not care what ' Hansard ' may sav. I do. ' Hansard ' will report what happened, and I am content to be judged by it.


William Barton Northrup: I agree with every word that ' Hansard ' says to-morrow ; but I am speaking of the present, of to-night, and I am speaking in the presence of hon. members who heard the statement made by the Minister of Finance. And what do we in this House care for what ' Hansard ' may say to-morrow? Does the hon. gentleman expect that the unrevised version of ' Hansard ' will give a different statement from that which rang in the ears of every hon. member of this House a few moments ago? What about this reference to 'Hansard'? Either ' Hansard ' will ibe correct or it will not. If it be correct, it will IBear out the statement I have made. If it does not, I say it will be incorrect, and I speak in the hearing of those who heard the hon. gentleman. I say that the hon. gentleman, when appealed to as ' the watchdog of the treasury,' repudiated responsibility as watchdog-he is not even an alarm clock ; it is for him merely to accept the accounts handed in by his colleagues. ' Hansard,' I hope, will report my words as well as those of the Minister of Finance. But the crucial matter is that this House has, for the first time in its history, heard a Minister of Finance deliberately state on this floor that he practically has no responsibility whatever for the accounts of his colleagues so long as they tell him those Mr. NORTHRUP.
accounts are correct. And think of a minister of Finance who is the only man out of two hundred and twenty members of this House who does not know that the accounts have not been correct for years gone by ! Can any man possibly have attended the meetings of the Public Accounts Committee, year after year-and I have seen the Minister of Finance there-when accounts were investigated and not know that accounts "were brought before this House that were not correct? Yet the Minister of Finance, knowing that these accounts are not correct, is prepared, in the face of this House and before Heaven, to say_ that he has no further responsibility to this House and to the people of Canada than to accept any statement made to him by any of his colleagues. The question before the House is a comparatively small matter, a mere question of expenditure. But I think the House is to be congratulated that, in the discussion of this comparatively small matter, we have had enunciated by the Minister of Finance a principle which the people of this country will understand and remember-that, since the year 1896, there has not been anybody in charge of the Department of Finance, and that the minister had no responsibility to anybody in this country except his colleagues. We understand now why the Farmers Bank was chartered.


Richard Blain: There are other people in Canada who made the request of this government to have further investigation of these departments, including the Department of Public Works.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Blain) wishes to continue the argument on that line, I have to remind him that the item before us is that of lighting the Dominion buildings at Ottawa. Unless the arguments can be made somewhat applicable to that subject, I cannot allow the discussion to take a wider range.


Richard Blain: I obey your decision, Mr. Chairman. We are discussing the. question whether there should be an investigation of this lighting or not, and whether an investigation should be by this House spending hour after hour upon it, or whether it should he by commission. And I was pointing out that other people have suggested that a thorough and public investigation should be made, and this I substantiate by reading a statement of the commissioners who investigated the Marine Departmext :
Your commissioners regret having been unable to investigate the condition of things in some of the other departments. But to do the work with any pretensions to thoroughness would take much more time than would probably be agreeable to the government.

That is the statement of gentlemen appointed toy the government to investigate one department. If they had reached the department having this lighting in charge, I suppose they would have said they regretted they had not an opportunity to go into still other departments. To have matters of this kind cleared up and to allay public suspicion, this side of the House moved a resolution asking for an investigation into all large spending departments which would include the lighting contracts. I need not put this resolution again on ' Hansard;' the Minister of Finance remembers it well, and so does the Minister of Public Works. In the face of that statement by gentlemen appointed by themselves, that other departments required investigation, we on this side put ourselves on record as asking for a thorough investigation of the Public Works Department and others. This was moved in 1909. And what did the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Public Works do? Why, they recorded their votes against the resolution, declaring that, no matter what the commissioners said, they found no wrong-doing in the Marine and Fisheries Department and suggested in their report that there is wrong-doing in other departments and regret very much that they had not the opportunity to investigate it.


William Pugsley: They did not say, I think, that there was wrong-doing in other departments.


Richard Blain: That is what they said :
Your commissioners regret having been unable to investigate the condition of things in some of the other departments.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman said that they reported that there was wrongdoing in the other departments.


Richard Blain: What else would he take out of it?


William Pugsley: I would not take out of it what the hon. gentleman (Air. Blain) stated.


Richard Blain: If the hon. minister feels that everything is right in his department, why refuse the investigation?


Mr. PARDEE.: No necessity for it.


Richard Blain: The hon. member for West Lamtoton (Mr. Pardee) said, before the investigation, that there was nothing wrong in the Marine Department. But his friends the commissioners said there was something wrong and that the department had no conscience. But the point- is that we are asking that in such matters as this lighting contract there should be an investigation. A year ago we asked for a commission of investigation, and I was much surprised that the Minister of Finance should vote against it. I had a great deal
more confidence in him, and I thought he had more confidence in the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) than there would seem to have been at that time.


Air. LALOR.: They got into trouble with one commission, and they did not want any more.


Richard Blain: Exactly. Suppose the opposition were to move for an investigation into my hon. friend's (Mr. Pugsley's) department, where would he stand? Has he the same policy now? He has learned some new things, I am sure. We have had him before the Public Accounts Committee, for instance, on the sawdust wharf. He knows the weak points of that wharf as well as the strong ones. And the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) knows it too. That wharf is in the eastern part of Canada, and he is always anxious to protect the eastern part.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend's (Mr. Blain) friends- in eastern Canada never give me that credit.


Richard Blain: I do not know what credit the minister has, but I know what he does; when we ask for investigation he refuses not only by speech but by vote. I suppose we are to go on without public competition for lighting for my hon. friend is opposed to investigation, and to public competition. Therefore, the friends of this government must be fed with contracts. When the Minister of Public Works is asked as to competition, he says: We have a list, and we ask those upon the list to tender. One hon. gentleman has shown that there were twenty people ready to tender. Why did not the minister put the whole twenty on the list, or, better still, advertise publicly, thus brushing away all suspicion with regard to his department that the public interest is not maintained?


William Pugsley: There is no list, I think, but Mr. Lymburner said his authority was to buy from anybody at the cheapest possible rate, and he thought he had secured sufficient competition by these circulars.
Power for running elevators, stamp-cancelling machines, &c., $32,000.


William Pugsley: This is an increase of $7,000 owing to the increase in the number of buildings throughout the country.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We ought to have some information as to where these are.


William Pugsley: This is to provide for the cost of electric power for running elevators and other machines in the public buildings throughout the Dominion. It is estimated that the power for elevators now installed will cost $25,820, and for those being installed $4,320. I cannot give further details, because these are simply buildings tlmoughout the whole Dominion.
COMMON >3


Richard Blain: What course does the minister pursue in towns where there are two lighting plants, as, for instance, in the city of Brantford?


William Pugsley: I am sure that what we do is to get the lowest price from the companies, but we do not advertise for tenders.


Richard Blain: Why not? Are you afraid you will get it too cheap?


William Pugsley: We could not possibly get it cheaper than we do. My horn, friend knows that these companies have just two rates, a flat rate, and a meter rate, and whichever of these rates is applied it is the same to everybody.


Richard Blain: Why not call for tenders?


William Pugsley: We could not get a reduced rate.


Richard Blain: The minister has not tried.


William Pugsley: I know perfectly well we could not do it. I have here a list of these buildings throughout the Dominion for which this $32,000 is estimated. It takes in the parliament buildings and many other buildings in Ottawa, and the public buildings in many cities throughout the Dominion.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the fixed rate for power?


William Pugsley: The average rate is about $30 per annum per horse-power.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: A pretty high rate.


William Pugsley: Not at retail, I think.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister speaks of there being only the flat rate, and the meter rate. And, if I understood him correctly, he gave the flat rate as $2.25 a lamp.


William Pugsley: The company rate here in Ottawa is $2.25 per lamp for the first three thousand lamps, and $2 after that? From the city we get a straight rate of $2.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister said that is as low a rate as he could expect. How-does he account for the fact that in the town of Orillia they sell at $2 per lamp even if a man takes only four or five necessary to light a small house? Speaking with the mayor of Orillia, he told me that they were paying expenses and making a good profit besides; they did not require that the consumer should take 2,000 or 3,000 lamps before getting the benefit of this rate.


William Pugsley: Do I understand that a man can get'enough to light a small house for $8 a year-four lights at $2 apiece?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes. And I have known it to be as low as $1 a year. But I think that that is below the Tate at which it can be furnished to-day. But the point in this Mr. PUGSLEY.
case is the point of public competition. There are many places where competition is not possible, but there are other towns and cities that have two or three plants, and, in such cases, I regard it as the duty of the Minister of Public Works to ask for tenders. If that were done, no one could reasonably find fault; but, so long as he does otherwise, there is a suspicion that he has not done his whole duty.
Rents, &c., $260,000.


William Pugsley: This is to make provision for payment of rents during the next fiscal year of buildings leased for the public departments in all parts of the Dominion. This takes in the whole of the Dominion including the city of Ottawa. Perhaps I might give the list to the committee: Nova Scotia, Halifax, examining warehouse $1,000; penitentiary 24 cents-I do not know what that means; North Sydney, engineer's office $120; Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, engineer's office, $200; Grand Falls, post office, $120; St. John, customs house, water lots, $22; immigration detention building, $2,105.37; Quebec, $15,861; Ontario, $184,847; Manitoba $4,304; Saskatchewan, $7,487; Alberta, $11,760; British Columbia, $2,700; Peace River district $300. That makes- a total of $233,099.11. Then, for phones the total is $1,737.65.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: I would like to ask the minister if the same generous rental is paid in outside places throughout the Dominion that is shown to be paid in the city of Ottawa?


William Pugsley: Perhaps 1 might better answer that question in another way, by saying that the same economy is observed in the city of Ottawa as is observed throughout the Dominion, and if my hon. friend will take the rentals we are paying throughout the Dominion for accommodation for custom houses and post offices I think he will see that we are very prudent and economical; in fact, some people may-say that we are too much so.
Dominion buildings, salaries of engineers, Bremen, caretakers, &e., $235,000.


William Pugsley: This is for the purpose cf paying salaries in Ottawa and throughout the Dominion. I have a list for the different provinces of the engineers and caretakers and their salaries. I will not read it to the committee, because it would take several hours, but if any hon. gentleman wishes to inquire as to ahy particular matter I will be very glad to give him the information.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: I would like to hear about Manitoba.


William Pugsley: I will give the information to my hon. friend with pleasure. In Manitoba we have 32 engineers, firemen

and caretakers to whom we pay $23,366, or that is the estimate of their salaries for the coming year.


Glenlyon Campbell: Are these engineers employed entirely in public buildings?


William Pugsley: In public buildings.


Glenlyon Campbell: Not on dredges?


William Pugsley: No. .


Thomas Simpson Sproule: About what figure do you pay your caretakers in these buildings?


William Pugsley: In Amherst we pay $400; Annapolis, $400; Antigonish, $400; Arichat, $150; Baddeck, $250; Bridgewater, $400; Glace Bay, $600; Halifax, $750. I think we pay a little more when we get west of Lake Superior. At Winnipeg we pay the engineer at the old post office $960; firemen, $720; elevator man, $650; electrician, $1,080, and so on.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are these certificated engineers?
Mr. PUGSLEYL The engineers are all certificated, but the caretakers are not.
Dominion cattle quarantine stations, renewals, repairs, &c., $20,000.


William Pugsley: That amount is required by the Department of Agriculture.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think we ought to have the Department of Agriculture here to explain it.


William Pugsley: This vote is required to make provision for the construction of corrals and dipping vats along the boundary line between Canada and the United States, and the maintenance of cattle quarantine stations generally throughout the Dominion in a proper state of repair and efficiency during the fiscal year ending March 30, 1912. The whole is in accordance with a request made by the Deputy Minister of Agriculture. He has written a letter in which he urges that this amount should be placed in the estimates.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many of these dipping stations does he propose to build along the boundary?


William Pugsley: He has not given the information as to those. Perhaps my hon. friend will be good enough to allow me to get the Minister of Agriculture to give him the information when his estimates are under consideration.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not objecting to the item, but we would like to know what they are doing in other lines, because some people think there is a good deal of danger of importing disease.


William Pugsley: We have these stations in a number of places in the different provinces.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What do each of these stations cost ?


William Pugsley: From $500 to $600 each. We may have to erect one on an emergency and a vote has to be available. I will get the particulars for my hon. friend when the agricultural items are under consideration.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We are running business without a quorum, and I am afraid I will have to draw the attention of the chairman to it.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: There are 20 members present.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It will be distinctly understood that when the agricultural estimates are up, we will get all the information about this vote ?


William Pugsley: That is clearly understood.
Yukon public buildings, $75,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We ought to have some information about this. The population is constantly decreasing and the expenses are about the same.


William Pugsley: I have the details here as to the cost for each building. 'We have been paying Mr. Bertrand, agent for the department, a salary of $4,000. He is clerk of works or superintendent of buildings, but he is leaving the Yukon and i think he intends resigning his position. If so, one of the other officials will discharge the duties of the office and it will not be necessary to fill Mr. Bertrand's place. There is a reduction of $5,000 on this vote.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are you providing for a salary of $4,000 for that office next year?


William Pugsley: The total vote is reduced by $5,000. We will not have Mr. Bertrand's salary to pay, although we may have to pay some other official a slight increase for looking after the woTk.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is not what I asked. Are you providing for a salary of $4,000 for the man who fills this office ?


William Pugsley: I am unable to tell my hon. friend without going into details. The result is a total of $5,000 less than last year. One official, Mr. Bertrand, has resigned, and we expect to have his duties performed by another official, possibly at some increase in salary.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That does not give the slightest information in regard to his salary. Does it account for the reduction of $5,000?


Richard Blain: What is the population now?
321a


William Pugsley: I do not know exactly. It has declined from the boom days, but there is considerable permanent mining, hydraulic mining, and, I think, in some parts of the district, quartz mining.


Richard Blain: The department is expending a good deal there?


William Pugsley: Yes, but we are making reductions. The services of quite a number of officials in the Interior Department have been dispensed with, and we are dispensing with the services of one of our most heavily salaried men.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: Is the post office building for which there is a vote of $13,000 a government owned building?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: How many employees are there?


William Pugsley: There is a caretaker at $160 a month, a night caretaker at $160, a charwoman, and then this vote includes' the lighting service, fuel,, water and scavenger service, &c.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: Would the postmaster live in the building?


William Pugsley: I have no memorandum on that point, but I assume not, because I presume the caretaker lives there.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: A very commonplace man who is reliable will do quite well as a caretaker, and here you are paying two men at the rate of $1,920 each per annum. In many post offices in the east the caretakers live in the building and receive very small salaries. Formerly, we paid very high salaries in the Yukon and were told it was owing to the high cost of living, but that the expenses were coming down. I should think that you could get good, useful, reliable men to do the work there for one-half the money.


William Pugsley: I would not think so; that would be about what we pay in Winnipeg. In the Yukon the conditions are not pleasant and wages and expenses are very high, so that for these positions we have to pay good salaries. I do not think we could get reliable caretakers in the Yukon for less than we are paying. In the east we get them in many cases for $400 or $250, but in the west we have to pay more and in the Yukon we have found it impossible to get reliable caretakers for less than we pay.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do they reside in the building or not?


William Pugsley: I can obtain a memorandum of that from the department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I heard it stated recently that the population of the Yukon is Mr. BLAIN.
now between 2,000 and 3,000 people. Some years ago we were told the population was 20,000 people from all over the world, and that it was necessary to keep a large staff there at high salaries, because of the unsettled condition of things there' and the danger c/i the turbulent element. We are told that we have to pay them very high figures because everything is very dear there, but the population, has been growing less and the revenues have been diminishing, and there is no reason why the numbers of this force should not be diminished. Yet we keep up the same number from year to year, and every year we are given the same reasons, namely, that it is necessary in the interests of peace and safety to keep up the number. Yet we are told by men from Dawson that that city is just as peaceful as Toronto or Montreal. Why there should not be a greater reduction I do not understand.


William Pugsley: The country is very remote, and it is difficult to get into it and out of it. In the winter you have to take a journey of a good many miles until you strike the railway at Whitehorse. It is a part of the country where people do not like to live, unless attracted by mining and work incidental to that industry. I do not think it would be possible to get caretakers for less than we are paying these. The suggestion of my hon. friend that we should reduce the number of employees is however, worthy of consideration. The department of the Interior has made considerable deductions. We are dispensing with the services of one of our highest priced men, who has resigned, because he got tired of living out there.


Richard Blain: Have you given him any other office ?


William Pugsley: Not so far as my department is concerned.


Richard Blain: In any other department ?


William Pugsley: Not that I am aware of. That will make a saving of $4,000 very nearly. He was clerk of works and superintendent of buildings and general agent of the government in connection with expenditures.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: I have no objection to paying good salaries and I quite understand that the conditions out there are peculiar, but it would be well for the minister to look into this question and see how it is this building requires so many employees. $13,000 seems a pretty large amount apart from the other salaries paid.


Mr. TEMPLEMAN.: I had the privilege the summer before last of spending 10 days in Dawson City. The public building contains the post office, customs house and

Inland revenue office, and quite a number of officials are housed there. Dawson is one of the most important post offices in the Dominion, from the fact that large quantities of gold are sent through it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But what have the caretakers to do -with that ?


William Templeman: These caretakers probably also act as night and day watchmen. I think they do not live in the building, as there did not appear to be room there for them, and their salaries, when we consider the enormous cost of living out there, are not large. Half of that salary in the city of Ottawa, would be very high, compared witiv the full amount out in the Yukon. Of course the population of Dawson has been decreasing, but I think it has arrived at the point now where the decrease will cease, especially as hydraulic mining is increasing and large companies are in operation there. In my department there, the inspector of weights and measures gets a salary of $2,500 and he may possibly resign because he claims he cannot live there on that figure.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I can quite understand a man like that requiring to be extra'well paid, but I do not see that a caretaker is at all in the same category.


William Templeman: These may not be ordinary caretakers, but watchmen and very capable men.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: A caretaker is simply there to look after the building. Even though he cannot write his name, he may be more reliable than many a B.A. You can often find a man working as a road-maker, or drain-digger, who is as reliable as the most highly educated man you could choose. It is not fair to compare the inspector of weights and measures with the caretaker of a building. We get little information from the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Templeman) when we ask whether this man lives in the building.


William Pugsley: I understand the minister to say he does not.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No, he does not state that.


William Pugsley: I think he does.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I must accept the evidence of my own ears rather than the recollection of the Minister of Public Works.


William Templeman: I said that from my inspection of the building my impression was that he did not live in the building- there was no Toom.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We have heard it stated here that a rent of $40 a month for living quarters in any ordinary public building would be a reasonable figure. If a man were living there and had a family he would have his rent free, and, even counting this at $20, it would be a considerable sum which should be taken into account. And there is also his fuel, light and other things which add a good deal. We have not known whether these caretakers get these perquisites or not. Comparing with what is paid for this class of men throughout the country generally, it would seem that we pay a high figure. I know that for years we have been paying high salaries out there. The minister says they are trying to reduce them as well as they can. In
1909-	10 the expenditure was $80,000, in
1910-	11 it was the same, and in 1911-12 the estimate is $75,000, a reduction of $5,000.


Richard Blain: Could the minister, on a future day, give us the total expenditure and total revenue of the Yukon?


William Pugsley: That covers more than my department, and I would suggest that the hon. gentleman should move for a return.


Richard Blain: If the hon. gentleman is unwilling-


William Pugsley: I am willing to give anything in my own department.


Richard Blain: Will the hon. gentleman give the total revenue and expenditure of the Yukon in his own department?


William Pugsley: I will make a note of that.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 11.15 p.m.

Wednesday, February 8, 1911.