RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT-COMMUTATION TICKETS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MACDONELL moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 78) to amend the Railway Act. He said: This Bill is very similar to the one which I introduced last session concerning the issue by railway companies of what are known as commutation tickets or suburban mileage tickets. It is introduced now in order to simplify the law by removing obstacles that appear to exist to having this matter disposed of. The jurisdiction of the Railway Commission is not admitted m this matter, appeals having been taken from its ruling to the Supreme Court of Canada. The object is to put the issue of the commutation tickets under the same supervision as other tickets with regard to the obligation of the railway companies not to discriminate in their actions as against persons or localities.
Mr. MACLEAN (York).: I desire to ask the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) what truth there is in the statement which appeared in the ' Globe,' a couple of days ago that the government have practically adopted the principle of the Bill in regard to suburban service giving jurisdiction to the Railway Commission. This has been stated by the ' Globe ' editorially.
< GRAHAM. The facts as stated in the
Globe ' were new to me. I have not considered the matter since last session.


William Findlay Maclean: This progressive policy announced in the ' Globe ' may not be carried into effect?


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

Mr. SPEAKER.: Under Rule 39 Mr. Lake begs permission to move the adjournment of the House in order to discuss a matter of public importance, that matter being the statements of a periodical in England in regard to the conditions of life in the western provinces.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr.  R. S.@: LAKE (Qu'Appelle) moved the adjournment of the House. He said: The article to which I,wish to direct the attention of the House for a very few minutes is of an exceptionally scurrilous nature. It is published in a paper which claims a very large circulation in the United Kingdom-Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
very nearly a million copies weekly-and that is my first reason for bringing it to the attention of the House. There are other reasons. One is that the editor, Mr. Horatio Bottomley, is a Liberal member of the British House of Commons, and his name appearing on the front page seems to lend some strength to the article as published in the paper. Also the article bears a name similar to that of a man well known in the world of art. The writer also is an artist: but evidently of a very different type from the other. The journal to which I refer is called ' John Bull,' and this is the article to w'hich I wish to call attention:



CANADA'S DEATH TRAP.

[Stage Direction]
Further Warnings to Canadian Emigrants.
By Louis Wain.
Canada is at this moment making every endeavour to entice young able-bodied Englishmen to her dominions; her agents are scouring the country with specious promises and glowing reports, which are attracting young men by the thousands to try their luck in her western regions, which are nothing more or less than death traps for all but those who go out well provided for. Train-loads of raw lads, with from £10 to £100 in their pockets as their sole possession, and the barest of ordinary outfits, are being dumped into the western towns. In these towns they are compelled to stop until the snow and slush have disappeared, perhaps for a month or six weeks, or longer, the cost of living alone being six shillings a day. The majority get to the end of their resources before they can be moved to the particular claim district to which they are bound.
Once on the spot, their condition is pitiable in the extreme. Penniless, and without the means to move their small belongings, they have to scour a vast district in semi-starvation in search of work or for a likely claim. They are useless for skilled work, and so most homesteads pass them by.
Without Work or Money.
Being far from the beaten paths of civilized life, they meet with none but their own kind, and these, too, are poverty-stricken, broken-down, young-old men, who, if they have by chance survived the terrible rigours of one winter, have come out of it only at the expense of the stamina which goes to make a strong, healthy man. Utterly incapable of helping themselves, these poor wretches just keep life together until they have tramped to a chance charitable homestead, and if they have not the strength to work they may end existence in some lonely hollow, or at best make for the nearest township, there to lounge out a wretched, broken-down life until another winter relieves them of their sufferings. In most cases their hands have been so badly frost-bitten that they are quite incapable of undertaking any strong, manual labour at all. If he is very strong and willing to learn, he may perhaps be taken on at an existing homestead temporarily as an unskilled labourer, and so get through the summer months on four shillings a day and food and lodging of the roughest possible description, but the hard

work compels liim to spend his money in clothes, and the winter finds him in some township without the means to take him baok to the coast.
On the Trail.
But if he can find no work on the. old homesteads he must take his chance and strike one of the Indian trails-the only roads known in these tramping lake districts-and trust to luck. By chance he may happen upon a new homestead, one of the cheaply and hastily-constructed wooden shacks covered with earthen clods. It is evident that some poor creature has spent his summer in building his shack and in breaking up his IX out of his 160 acres of land-government requiring him to work on his claim for six months of every year for three years before it will grant him his free patent for freehold-that he has done very little towards preparing for the winter, and that he has kept alive only just so long as wood and food have lasted him, and then he has been frozen to death. Probably, as in hundreds of other cases, he has not had sufficient money to carry him through the winter, and had not the strength to walk through the snow even to the nearest homestead. The novice follows the trail again, sick at, heart, and comes upon a starving wolf snarling over a few human bones-the remains of another poor wretch who has been caught in the open in a powerless state, frost-bitten and paralysed by the intensity of the bitter wind and cold. Half a mile further lies another man's horse fallen by his cart, a pile of burnt-out straw by its side-the whole of the contents of the cart in fact-the man himself having been rescued earlier. Further on still he will see a riderless bullock wagon, the team still stiff with the frost, while a mile away is a rescue party bending over the remains of the owner of the wagon. He hastens to the spot and is glad of the bit of generous relief given by these kind men, a party of one of the many good-hearted efforts made after the winter is over, to visit the novice homesteads by the more matured and wealthy pioneer settlers, whose kindly aid just saves many lives in the nick of time. I
I do not think I need read much more, but there is one other paragraph which contains an .abominable attack upon the women of the west and so should toe brought to the attention of this House ; in fact it is this paragraph which has mainly induced me to bring this matter before the House. It is as follows :

[Stage Direction]
This is hut a page of the whole story. If the country life claims its holocaust, the town life out west is little better. Western Canada is no place for the gentlewoman. The woman population is composed largely of half-castes, of a degenerate type, often redeemed women who have been sent out by rescue societies to fall back into a worse state than they were drawn from, and the lowest class of domestic servant who. if she is at all good-looking, soon falls away into wild life, for the girls are of too low a class for most of the men to
marry. The few better class women who do come out and marry, suffer and suffer badly from hardships which only the brawny, strong, animal type of countrywoman can stand.	.
There are, of course, many good women in the towns, hut they live in the midst of temptation, and are plagued by a class of men vulgarly nicknamed 'remittance men and their hangers on. These are men who receive monthly or quarterly remittances from distant relatives abroad. They crawl about with sunken heads, aged and careworn, more often than not just out of their teens; 'their Ians are covered up brothels, and officialdom winks.
I am an Englishman who settled in the Northwest between 27 and 28.years -ago, and I think I can claim some knowledge and some experience in reference to that country. I characterize the whole tenor of what I have read to this House are grossly malicious and untrue. Even in the very earliest days of settlement when conditions were much rougher than they are now, they .never were in the very slightest degree what has been depicted in that article. To one who is acquainted with the conditions of the country the article bears on its face the stamp of having been written by a man who is .absolutely ignorant of what he is writing .about, of a man who has never been in the country at all or who, if he has been in the country, is so ignorant that he has been unable to make himself acquainted with the conditions. The article is malicious especially with regard to its attack upon the female portion of the population. Speaking of the prairie provinces especially, over which I have travelled very frequently, and of which I claim to have the knowledge attained during more than a quarter of a century residence there, I confidently make the assertion that no more moral people exists on the whole face of the globe than the people of the Northwest. The phenomenal progress of the new provinces is in a very large degree due to the magnificent type of women whom we have in that country. It would be impossible for me to speak too highly of the immense help which they have given towards rendering that country what it is to-day. The article is a most cruel libel upon them and I conceive also that it is cruel to thousands of families in the old country who have sons or relatives out in the Northwest, that is if any of them are credulous enough to believe statements published in a newspaper of this character. Speaking of my own experience, I would say that compared with the .pioneer life of Which we read in the older days of the settlement of this country, pioneer life in the western provinces is merely childs play. There are practically no hardships out there, except such as a man makes for himself. When I arrived-.and the conditions are much the same to-day-I found the people hospitable to a degree, generous and kindJiearted,
[Stage Direction]
' always ready with advice and assistance to new comers, always ready to welcome them, and to help them along, and there are thousands and thousands of people in that country who will bear (witness to the truth of what I say in that respect. Considering the number who have come out, the failures have been astonishingly rare. In practically every case of failure it is the man's own fault. The man who is willing to work cannot help but get on, and I know of no case where ia man willing to work has been unable to find work. That is a very astonishing statement to be able to make in regard to any country. We do not want the idle and shiftless ; the more idle (and Shiftless they are the more they abuse the country instead of abusing themselves, and I should be very much inclined to think that the basis of this article is to be found in the idle stories of some man who is of no use and who has been on that account unable to get along in the country. These idle and Shiftless men of Whom I speak are_ not the breed who made the British empire what it is to-day. The young man of spirit and energy Who is full of the colonizing genius which has made the British Empire, need have no fear in coming out to the western provinces of the Dominion and need not fear that he will not make a success of his life there.
Mr. MARTIN BURRELL (Yale-Cariboo).: 
Mr. SCHAFFNER.: I am not English-born (and that is nothing to boast of) but I have had quite an experience in that western country, and I believe I know the conditions there. I do not know anything about this man Wain, but I could express

my opinion of him in two words. However, as these words would be unparliamentary I shall have to content myself with thinking them rather than expressing them. The statements in this article are a gross libel on Canada and Canadians, and I think that the Minister of the Interior is the proper person to take steps to nullify whatever effect such scurrilous writing may have. There have been failures in the west as the result of inexperience. Twenty-five or thirty years ago the conditions in Manitoba were very similar to the present conditions in the further west, and for many years I have gone in and out amongst the people and I know them, and I know that although the great majority came here poorly off financially, yet they have been progressive and prosperous. It is the first time that I have ever heard or read of any question as to the morality of the women in that country. True, in the early days especially they underwent great hardships because they had not much of this world's goods, but they met their circumstances in a womanly way. On the face of this article, the writer shows that he does not know what he is talking about, and while in this country his statements will have no influence whatever, there is the danger that those who do not know us may take some heed in them. This House is right in making a strong protest.


Mr. BRODER.: I would not speak on this question were it not that there is in the article a reflection on the older provinces of Canada. According to the special census taken in 1906, out of 808,000 in that western country, 444,000 have come from the other provinces of the Dominion and 164,000 from the province of Ontario alone, so that any reflection on the people of the west is a reflection on the people of the older provinces. I shall not detain the House further than to say that the right hon. the Prime Minister, who has in his power the most effective means of reaching the people, should cause the strongest possible denial to be made of the statements that are to be found in this article. The people of the best families of our older provinces have gone into that western country to make homes for themselves, and they are aspersed in the most dastardly way by this writer who makes statements as false as they can possibly be. The effect of such writings may be to influence adversely towards Canada the very class of people we want to get into this country, and so the government should take the most effective means to counteract whatever ill effects such an article may have.


Mr. BOYCE.: Mr. Speaker, I should noi have spoken on this question were it not for Mr. SCHAFFNER,
the means which have been employed to publish this libel upon Canadian resources and Canadian treatment of the immigration into this fair land. This man's writings characterize him as knowing nothing whatever of the subject on which he purports to write, but, we must remember that this article appears in a magazine, the editor of which is member of the Imperial parliament, a fact which is sufficient to stamp it with a certain authenticity when it goes into the hands of the million readers amongst whom it circulates. It is therefore inconceivable that an article of this nature published in such a magazine should pass unheeded by this House, and I am quite sure that no hon. member will grudge the time that has been taken in stigmatizing it as absolutely unjust and grossly untrue. In this same magazine I notice in the editorial column for which Horatio Bottomley, member of the Imperial parliament, is directly responsible, an article launched against Canada. What does the House think of this? I quote from the same magazine, of date December 10, page 919:-
It is the fashion just now for the Canadian papers to abuse this journal for its outspokenness in regard to emigration truths. The language of the gutter is the only argument they can find to refute our definite allegations-confirmed quotations from advertisements-that 'no Englishman need apply' for any job in the Dominion. An Ontario reader sends us cuttings from the Hamilton 'Spectator' (the first dated as recently as November 16th) with the remark that he has been over there more than seven years and does'nt know yet why Canadians are so prejudiced against Englishmen.
Under the heading 'It is'nt true,' appears the following:-'To settle an argument will you please state in the 'Spectator' if it is true that the gaols in England are freed of prisoners once a year and sent to Canada?' To this is attached the note, 'No.-Ed.' But in a subsequent issue 'Chirper' chimes in that he would Tike to add that possibly years ago such was the case, and the big majority^ of present day Canadians are the progeny of such scum.' I don't say this is a fact, but judging by the number I have met and worked with, I should think it is more than likely. How the Canadians do love the motherland.
That, Sir, is the work of a member of the Imperial House of Commons, and some definite action ought to be taken by the representatives of this government in England to make it impossible for a gentleman occupying so high a position in the councils of the empire to publish such a libel, or such a scurrilous article. With reference to the Englishman in Canada, I may say that 1 have the honour of being an Englishman myself, who came to Canada and found the conditions here to be such that any Englishman of energy, with any reasonable amount of ' get-up-and-get * in him, could

carve out a living for himself in this country, and receive all the encouragement possible from good Canadian citizens. There is everything in this country to encourage Englishmen of the right type to come here. Speaking for myself and for the class of Englishmen who have come to Canada and, as good, honest, intelligent, hard working citizens, are helping to build up the country, I say there is no country in the civilized world that offers better inducements to the Englishman who is not afraid of work, but who is prepared to meet the conditions and to wrest from them what this country has in store than this fair Dominion of Canada. I am glad my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle has referred to this article, and I sincerely hope that, with such means as are at the disposal of the government, libels of this character, unjust, untrue, and malicious in their nature, published and circulated as they are by so high an authority as a member of the imperial parliament, may in the future be prevented if it is possible to prevent them.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK (Red Deer).: I feel, Sir, that I have a duty to perform in regard to this matter, if no other than to . disavow being classed among the broken-down young-old men who came from England and settled in Canada. I read this article in my shack in the west with the comfortable knowledge that I had plenty of beef, plenty of pork, and a good Dit of my own land around me, and a little bit of venison in the larder, shot strictly in season. I smiled and remarked to my family:
' It is astonishing what a lot of fools there are in the world.' I should have left the article at that. I do not think it is a wise thing to give such a stupid letter as the' one we are now commenting upon, the publicity and the comparative immortality that it gets by being placed on the pages of ' Hansard.' The press do not regard their emanations so seriously, so far as I have the honour of knowing them, on both sides of the Atlantic. They prepare each day's manna for each day's consumption, and then forget-why shouldn't we? That is the question I should have put to myself before taking the responsibility of bringing this matter before the House. I desire, of course, fully to associate myself, if it is necessary, in the condemnation of what has been very accurately described by my hon. friend from Souris (Mr. Schaffner) as_ a publication which bears the evidence of its being a lie on its face. But if it bears that evidence on its face, everybody will know it for a lie, and I cannot understand why it should be made the subject of comment in parliament. Mr. Bottomley is a very eccentric member of parliament, financier and journalist. He believes, like most British journalists, in the utmost freedom of the press, and it is a fine poim whether more harm will result from curtailing the utmost freedom of the press, or from the publication of an occasional lie. We all know that the lies in the press, whether in Britain or in Canada, are exceedingly rare, but they do appear occasionally. My belief is that the people in England who are kept from coming to Canada by such an article as this, are people who from their low order of intelligence are better left orit of the country. I have a much more serious purpose in rising to offer a few words on this subject; and, after all, Sir, there is a serious origin to this kind of writing in the old country. I am bound to do this justice to the press in Canada, that I have never read a word in the newspapers of Canada which for scurrility would compare with that letter. But there is a great deal of talk in private, and sometimes in public, in Canada which sets an example to journalists of the order of Mr. Bottomley.
' What is the price of Free Trade ? ' said Sir Joseph Lawrence at the Empire Club in Toronto on October 12 last. He answered in part, ' One million paupers.' He ought to have known, if he did not know, that he was talking nonsense. Seventeen out of every twenty of those paupers are either physically or mentally incapable of looking after themselves. I was a great many years ago medical officer to a parochial workhouse in the old country, and the paupers under my charge were almost to an individual either imbecile old women or old men who I knew had been drunken and improvident in their habits; and yet we have a member of the Unionist party coming and telling such a distinguished patriotic and imperialistic body as the Empire Club of Toronto that these imbeciles and drunken old men are the produce of Free Trade. Of my own knowledge they were born and lived a groat many years in Britain when she was under Protection, so that if they were produced by an imbecile system, it was Protection that produced them. I do not contend that for a moment, but I do contend that the responsible public man, and the responsible body of men who listened to him, who give publicity to a libel like that on England and England's fiscal system, are only traducing the old country in a degree somewhat minor to that in which this scurrilous writer traduced Canada. The tendency to preach the decadence of Britain we find occasionally indulged in for political reasons. On this subject I can do no better than quote the Hamilton 'Times' of October 24 last:
There lias been so much fool talk about ' British decadence,' that ignorant people even in Canada have come to think that, in spite of the evidence of the facts of British pros-

perity and progress, there must be something in it. We can hardly conceive of the unpatriotic conduct of the coterie of British partisans who conduct the campaign for protection and who stop at nothing, not even depreciation and defamation of their country, in the effort to forward their selfish and treasonous party ends. But among educated and intelligent people the cry of British decadence evokes only contempt for its makers. As Frederick Austin Ogg points out in the ' Review of Reviews,' the United Kingdom never possessed elements of strength equal to those of to-day. There is no question of decadence, save in the minds of a few defeated and discredited politicians, who, lacking an acceptable policy, and hungering for office, set out to attempt to lie ignorance into disquiet.	;	! . i* -If
I should like to repeat from my own knowledge that there is no country in the world where a man has to-day such opportunity to get on as he has in Canada. When I first came to Canada I did some of that early-morning lighting of the _ stove which evoked such expressions of pity from the Minister of Labour for the workmen engaged in that operation. I can only say that I have never been more conscious of any addition to the virility of my manhood than when going through that operation. When I had the honour of representing Canada a few years ago for immigration purposes, I told any Englishmen I met that if they wanted to pick up money in the streets they had better stay where they were, but that if they wanted to find a country where they would have the greatest scope for their capacity and vigour they should by all means come to Canada and that in this country, despite our protectionist policy, we looked upon immigrants who had a little money as a desirable addition to our population. There is an important political lesson in what has been drawn attention to this afternoon. What is that lesson? It is that after all the good sound old Liberal policy of each nation in the main minding its own business and attending to its own affairs is the only policy upon which you can build and maintain the permanence of the British Empire. Nothing could afford better evidence than this very discussion of the deep insight of that imperial statesman whom we all admire irrespective of parties, Sir Edward Grey, when he said that this attempt to draw closer the material bonds between the different portions of the empire will only lead to mutual recriminations which will in the end make, not for the good of the empire, but its destruction. That would be the lesson to be drawn from this whole business which would at all make it worth while bringing it to the attention of this House. I can only say in conclusion that I am proud to be a Canadian citizen, just as I am proud to be a citizen of the old country, and as we all are Mr. CLARK.
proud, I believe, to be citizens of the British Empire, and to look upon the old country as the head and origin of that empire.


Mr. RALPH SMITH (Nanaimo).: It seems to be considered necessary by the Englishman in the House to-day that he should be the defender of this country against the writer of the scurrilous and untruthful article contributed to an important paper in the old country. The only disinclination I have to saying very much on this question arises from the fact that I do not attach any serious importance to this article at all. I read it for the first time last night, but having read the English press for some years and knowing what the English press has to say about Canada and Canadians every day, and when I remember that there are any number of English people in Canada who are in constant correspondence with their friends in the old country, I do not attach any serious importance to the article we are now discussing. I do not believe that it will affect one single individual on the other side. The people of the old country know the benefits and advantages of Canada almost as well as we do ourselves. The standing of Canada in the motherland to-day, the maintenance of that standing shown by the press of England, and the constant correspondence between the English people on the other side and this-all these make it impossible lor any single individual contributor to any newspaper to do any injury to this councrv by anything he may write. My hon. friend who brought forward this resolution, (Mr. Lake) suggested that the writer of this article might not have been in this country at all. I am rather inclined to disagree with him in that respect. After reading the article closely I am inclined to suspect that the writer has been in Canada some time and that he is one of these incapable, degenerate gentlemen who come out here and do not make good, and consequently had to make some excuse perhaps to his father for the constant remittances he was receiving to enable him to live. My impression of the writer of that article is that he belongs to that class who never succeed in any country. They come from every country and they all fail when they come to this country. But, as I have already said, the great majority of Englishmen who come here and whose success encourages their friends to follow are an object lesson that make it impossible for any newspaper article to have any detrimental effect on the English mind.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: Before this debate is closed, I would like to say that I do not at all agree in the view expressed that this incident was not worth bringing to the attention of the House. While it is perfectly true that an article such as this

would be received on all sides in Canada with the contempt it deserves, I am not so sure that it might not have an effect elsewhere, and I say so for this reason. Coming from Nova Scotia during the Christmas holidays I met a very intelligent man, a Russian, who had been living some years in Canada. He had fought in the Russo-Japanese war and afterwards came to Canada where he had engaged in all kinds of work. He had been a teamster in railway construction and had worked his way up, and is now living in the city of Winnipeg and doing very well. I had not then seen the article in question, but after my return I found that it had been sent me by Mr. A. F. McLaren who formerly represented North Perth in this House. But this man with whom I had been conversing, and who had just come from Russia and Germany, told me that on all hands in those countries one saw translations of articles published in this very newspaper * John Bull,' describing conditions in Canada in the most com-temptible and untruthful way. It is perfectly time that such writings have no weight in Canada and it may be equally true that they have small weight in Great Britain, but I am not sure that they would not possibly have very considerable weight in some places on the continent, and I think it is only right that the truth should be told in this House in order that it may go out to the world. For my part, so far as the language of that article is concerned, it is simply a foul and contemptible libel. I cannot understand why it should have been published by any man who ought to know Canada as the man who is responsible for this publication should be in the position to know it. If he knows anything about this country, he must know that these words published in his newspaper are absolutely false and constitute a contemptible libel. I have no respect whatever for that freedom of the press which finds expression in the publication of that which the man responsible for the publication knows to be thoroughly and contemptibly false.
That is a freedom of the press for which I have no respect whatever, and I know that my hon. Mend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark), has no respect for it either. It is just as well, it seems to me, that some notice should be taken of this; and I congratulate my hon. friend from Qu'Ap-pelle (Mr. Lake), for having brought the matter to the attention of this House. When it came to my attention I asked him to take this course as an Englishman who had lived for more than a quarter of a century in Canada, and knew, perhaps, as much about the opportunities that present themselves to any immigrant in this country as any other hon. gentleman in this House. So far as opportunity in
Canada is concerned, there can be no question. The wealth of opportunity that is before any man who comes into this country is greater than in any other country of the world at the present time. And, as has been well said in this House this afternon, any man of reasonable industry and capacity coming into Canada at the present time-and the same has been true for the past twenty-five years-is as sure of a comfortable livelihood as any man can be sure of anything in this world. So far as conditions in the west to-day are concerned, every one of us knows that they are infinitely easier-at least, I believe them to be infinitely easier-than the conditions that faced the pioneers in the maritime provinces, Quebec or Ontario, fifty or seventy-five years ago. I believe that there is no comparison. Any Englishman like the possible writer of this article, who is not able to withstand the comparatively trifling privations and hardships which face him at the present time, is a man of whom this country is well rid. And our duty is to expose in this House and everywhere abroad the absolute inaccuracy and falsehood of the statements which have been published in the newspaper referred to.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: There can be in this House but one feeling, and that is that we owe a debt of gratitude to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle for the action he has taken upon the present occasion. Not, I am sure, that the article to which he has called our attention, deserves any notice or that it is likely to have any influence in England or anywhere else. It is so false as to carry its own refutation. Yet the malice of it is so evident that it is well that it should be stigmatized as it has been by my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle and those who followed him. These hon. gentlemen, my hon. friends from_ Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake), Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Burrell), Red Deer (Mr. Clark), and Nanaimo (Mr. Ralph Smith), are all Englishmen born who have made Canada their home, and whose character is well known, not only in this country, but also in the? land of their birth. If the article quoted, made any impression, the fact that these gentlemen are now members of this Canadian House of Commons and the statements they have made, must remove that impression.
Motion (Mr. Lake) to adjourn negatived.



QUESTIONS.


[Stage Direction]
* Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster) :
1.	Had the Post Office Department or any of its officers knowledge, at the time, that W. H. J. Robertson was transacting the busi-
[Stage Direction]
ness of the Fraser Mills post office during February and May of this year?
2.	Was Robertson under bonds to secure the government and the public against loss from his operations?
3.	Who was the nominal postmaster, and
was he under bonds to secure the government and the public against loss through _ operations of himself, his employees or his substitute ?	-
4.	Has it been brought to the notice of the government that Robertson decamped with funds entrusted to him, under the supposition that they were being deposited with the post office, by workmen at the Fraser Mills, lately from Quebec, and unacquainted with local postal conditions?
5.	Has application been made to the government to reimburse' the persons so defrauded of their savings? If so, with what result?
6.	Has the department had information of the whereabouts of Robertson at any time since his disappearance? If so, has the department taken any steps to secure his return and prosecution?
Wilfrid Laurier: 1, 2 and 3. At an office of the class of Fraser Mills the postmaster, in return for the usual commissions upon the legitimate business conducted, is required to provide reasonable post office accommodation, and to engage such assistants as may be necessary for the proper performance of postal business. Persons so engaged are employees of the postmaster, who is responsible to the department for affording an efficient service. In these circumstances the department had no knowledge that Mr. W. H. J. Robertson was in the employ of Mr. H. S. Merrel], who was in February and May last, and still is, postmaster at Fraser Mills, and who has furnished security required of such officers.
4, 5 and 6. Under date of 28th October last, the post office inspector at Vancouver reported that he had received, under crate of 22nd September, -a communication from Messrs. Wade, Whealler, McQuarrie & Martin, barristers of New Westminster, for an early repayment to their clients, S. Jos-sok and Ole Molle, of amounts which, they represented, had been deposited by them with the postmaster of Fraser Mills. Fraser Mills not being a savings bank office, the request above referred to was not thoroughly understood by the inspector ; but he, upon making inquiry, ascertained that in the months of February and May last, Messrs. Jossok and Molle, as a personal transaction, had left money with Robertson for safekeeping in order that they need not carry it about with them from day to day. It further appears that Robertson retired both from the service of the Fraser River Lumber Company and that of the postmaster in April last, leaving Fraser Mills without returning the money thus entrusted to him. On 30th September the inspector replied to the firm of solicitors that the nature of Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster).
the transactions was not sucih as to call for departmental recognition. Under date of 29th October, Messrs. Wade, Whealler, McQuarrie and Martin wrote direct to the department upon the subject, and were advised that as Fraser Mills post office was not a savings bank office, the case could not be considered a post office one, and, therefore, the circumstances were not such as to admit of their request being complied with. They were also advised that, although Robertson's address was unknown, he had, when leaving Fraser Mills, informed the postmaster that he intended to visit some friends at Los Angeles, Cal., and that such information as to his probable whereabouts was supplied in case they desired to take further action.


UNCLAIMED BALANCES.
Mr. STANFIELD :: 1.	Are there any unclaimed balances in the Dominion or Post Office Savings Banks for a period of five years or upward?
2.	If so, have the names of the depositors, with the amounts standing to their credit, ever been published?
3.	If not, is it the intention of the government to make public through the press or otherwise a statement of these unclaimed balances?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER :: 1. There are accounts in the Dominion Government Savings and Post Office Savings Banks which have remained inactive for five years or upward and in which no transactions have taken place other than the addition of the yearly interest. The departments concerned, however, are not in a position to regard the balances of such accounts as unclaimed.
2 and 3. The publication of the balances at the credit of depositors would be contrary to the provisions of the Savings Bank Act. The amendment of the Act in this respect has .not been considered.


POLICE COMMISSIONER AT COCHRANE.
Mr. GORDON (Nipissing) :: 1.	How many persons have been convicted befoie Police Commissioner Loghrin in the town of Cochrane since the date of his appointment to the 30th day of November, 1910?
2.	Where is the record of convictions kept?
3.	What amount of fines have been received from the police commissioner by the government?
4.	Is the government aware, as alleged, that the usual fine imposed by the police commissioner for infraction of section 150 of the Criminal Code is $50 and $10 costs?
5.	How are the costs made up?
6.	What quantity of liquor has been seized by the Transcontinental police at Cochrane since the proclamation under pant 3 of the Criminal Code came into force up to November 30, 1910, and what has become of the liquor seized?
7.	Where are the affidavits filed showing destruction of liquor?

8.	Is the government aware, as alleged, that men are fined for having a small portion of liquor on their persons and in their pack sacks?
9.	How many convictions made hy the police commissioner have been quashed by the high courts under Certiorari, and how much money has been returned to persons wrongly fined?
10.	Are the police at Cochrane allowed to act as sub-contractors, rent and debt collectors for private parties?


Mr. MURPHY :: 1.	Forty-one.
2.	In police commissioners office.
3.	$999.50 to 31st December, 1910.
4.	Tihe fine which the police commissioner is authorized to impose for violation of sec. 150 of the Criminal Code as amended is fixed by sec. 3 of chap. 9. 6-7 Edward VII.
5.	From returns sent in by the police commissioner the costs vary. In most cases the costs are $2 to the commissioner, $3 to constable and necessary witness fees.
6.	30 packages, which were banded over from time to time to Drs. Henderson & Kennedy in hospital at Cochrane and Abi-tibi where typhoid fever outbreak was.
7.	None.
8.	No.
9.	Ten oases quashed under Certiorari. $800 in fines returned.
10.	Under chapter 92, R.S.C., the police constables are under the government of the police commissioner.


NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY SHOPS.
Mr. AMES:: 1.	Who, not connected with the permanent staff, drew up or aided in drawing up the plans and specifications for the machinery of the National Transcontinental railway shops?
2.	How long did his engagement last, when did it terminate; and how much was he paid for his services ?
3.	Was another mechanical expert named
about the time the tenders were to be examined?	.
4.	Who secured the contract for such machinery, and for what amounts?
5.	How much was paid in this connection, and to whom, during the fiscal year 1909-10?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Nobody.
2.	Answered by 1.
3.	Mr. W. J. Press, mechanical engineer, was appointed machinery expert May 23, 1910.
* 4. List of contractors and amounts shown on attached statement.
5.	Nothing.


'LOCOMOTIVE SHOPS, WINNIPEG
[Stage Direction]
List of Contracts awarded for Machines and Tools and amounts of each Contract. Morgan Engineering Co., Alliance,
Ohio, 1,120 ton electric crane.. . .$ 19,550 00 50
Mussens Limited, Montreal, P.Q.,
11 electric travelling cranes of different sizes	$ 59,034 00
Geo. Anderson & Co., Montreal, P.Q.,
1 5-ton electric travelling crane, 5 hand cranes, 15 jib and bracket.. .11,787 00 Whiting Foundry Equipment Co.,
Harvey, Illinois, 20 2-ton jib and
bracket cranes	 3,554	00
Williams & Wilson, Montreal, P.Q.,
machines and tools.. .. '	 39,850 00
The Holden Coy., Montreal, P.Q.,
machines and tools	 5,100	00
A. B. Jardine & Co., Hespeler, Ont.,
machines and tools	 608	83
The John Bertram & Sons Co., Ltd.,
Dundas, Ont., machines and tools. 122,682 68 Canadian Fairbanks Co., Ltd., Montreal, P.Q., machines and tools.. .. 15,259 90 The Walter H. Foster Co., New York, N.Y., machines and tools.. 2,825 00 Morton Manufacturing Co., Muskegon Heights, Mich., machines and
tools	 22,525	Ofll
The Rudel-Yeats Machinery Co.,
Montreal, P.Q., machines and tools. 79,893 50 Jos. T. Ryerson & Son, Chicago, 111.,
machines and tools	 54,918	00
The A.   R.@: Williams Machinery Co.,
Ltd., Toronto, Ont., machines and
tools	 14,813	00
Mussens Limited, Montreal, P.Q.,
machines and tools	 49,550	48
The Canadian Westinghouse Co.,
Ltd., Montreal, P.Q., motors.. ..	6,408	00
Laurie & Lamb, Montreal, PiQ.,
motors	 17,850	00
Francis Hyde & Co., Montreal, P.Q.,
furnaces and forges	 21,500	00
The John McDougal Caledonian Iron Works Co., Ltd., Montreal, P.Q.,
pumps	  7,257	00
The John Inglis Co., Ltd., Toronto,
Ont., pumps	 2,350	00
The John Inglis Co., Ltd., Toronto,
Ont., water tube boilers.. .-	 39,900 00 The John Inglis Co., Ltd., Toronto,
Ont., air compressors	 8,520	00
The Illinois Stoker Co., Alton, 111.,
stokers	 10,784	00
The Gurney Scale Co., Hamilton,
Ont., scales	 199	00
The Robb Engineering Co., Amherst,
N.S., feed water heater	 1,862	00
The Dennis Wire and Iron Co., Ltd.,
London, Ont., lockers	 3,015	00
The Canadian General Electric Co.,
Toronto, Ont., generators	 27,400	00
The Goldie, McCulloch Co., Ltd.,
Galt, Ont., engines	 40,000	00
The Canadian Westinghouse Co.,
Montreal, P.Q., motors	 6,408	00
The Canadian Westinghouse Co.,
Montreal, P.Q.-
Transformers	
6,168	00Switchboard	
14,990	00
NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL [DOT] RAILWAY-OVERBREAK ON EASTERN DIVISION.


Mr. LENNOX:: 1. In those cases in which an agreement was come to last autumn between Mr. Kelliher



and Mr. Gordon as to overbreak on the eastern division of the Transcontinental railway, what quantities of material, and of what class, and what sums of money were taken from or added to the progress estimates?
2. In the cases where measurements had to be made, have they been made, and with what result?


Mr. GRAHAM.: I expect to have a report covering this information to lay on the table within the next few clays. I have not that information now owing to the absence of the chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific. But that gentleman is on his way from Winnipeg now, and on his return I expect to have the report of the Board of Arbitrators to lay on the table.


INQUIRY FOR RETURNS.
Mr. FOSTER.: Before the orders of the day are called, I desire to call the attention of the Prime Minister to a motion for return moved on December 1,	1909, for
papers with respect to requests made by the United States government for the passage of war vessels through the canals, etc. The return referred to has not been brought down.


Wilfrid Laurier: I will make a note of it.


Mr. EDWARDS.: I wish to ask for information- with regard to a motion passed on November 17, 1909, for a copy of all orders in council, reports and documents, correspondence and papers, from the 1st of January, 1897, to the 1st of January, 1907, relating to the passage of United States warships or training ships through the Bt. Lawrence canals or the great lakes. Also, for a copy of orders in council, returns, documents, &c., on the same subject from March 30, 1908, to the present time. The right hon. the First Minister on that occasion said he saw no objection to the first part of my motion being granted but asked that the latter part of it be omitted, as the matter was the subject of diplomatic action at that time. The motion as amended by the right hon gentleman was adopted but no attention has been paid to it. I would also ask if it will not be possible now to get the information which the right hon. gentleman thought at that time should be left over.


Wilfrid Laurier: I shall have to refresh my memory on that and I will tell my hon. friend.


Mr. STANFIELD.: I would ask the Minister of Railways about an order of the House on March 14, 1910, for two orders for returns regarding accidents on the Intercolonial railway which have not yet been brought down, and also for a return of July 20, 1910, regarding passes, which was not complete.


Mr. LENNOX.: 


George Perry Graham: That order I think was prepared and will be here in a day or two. The other is in course of preparation.


John Stanfield: The order regarding passes was brought down but many passes were omitted.


George Perry Graham: If the hon. gentleman will point out to me privately the omissions I shall endeavour to supply the information.


Mr. SHARPE (Ontario).: On March 22, 1909, almost two years ago, an order was made on my motion for the names of towns, cities and villages where post offices, armouries and custom houses have been erected and the annual expense in connection with them. I have been endeavouring to get that return, but I cannot ascertain when it was ever brought down.


Mr. JAMESON.: I would call the attention of the Minister of Railways to the fact that a return ordered by this House on December 6, 1909, respecting the payment of eighteen millions and some odd dollars in connection with the Transcontinental railway has not yet been brought down.


George Perry Graham: Payment to whom?


Clarence Jameson: Paid by the Commissioners of the Transcontinental railway to different persons. The particulars of the payments were asked in the order that was passed.


George Perry Graham: The information is very meagre but I shall hunt up the order, and find out just what its terms were.


Robert Laird Borden: The information is not meagre, because the reference is given to the order and the date.


George Perry Graham: I shall, hunt up the
orcer.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems to me to be the best possible information, because it indicates where the terms of the order can be obtained. It does strike me as a remarkable thing that orders of this House made very nearly eighteen months ago have been absolutely disregarded and neglected up to the present time. One of these extends to nearly two years ago and should be answered with all speed. There is a distinct and clear rule of the House on the subject.
A. prorogation of the House shall not have the effect of nullifying an order or address of the House for returns or papers, hut all papers and returns ordered at one session of the House, if not complied with during the session, shall he brought down during the following session without renewal of the order.
I am quoting Rule 34. One return mentioned to-day was moved for in March,

1909, twenty-two months ago. The order has not been complied with yet, and I have not observed any one that is not at least eight or nine months old. I think the Prime Minister will do well to have this remarkable and extraordinary delay looked into and endeavour to facilitate the work of the House.


George Perry Graham: If my memory serves me right. I have hunted up the date of the order, and I think I informed the House that the information, as far as possible, had been brought down. I stated that I endeavoured to get the details asked for in paragraph No. 2 of this order frcm the Transcontinental, but it was simply impossible to get them as they were scattered all over the country. That is my recollection of the matter. It was not forgotten and there is no idea of forgetting it. I will look it up again.


Robert Laird Borden: I was not referring to that particular return, although I did refer to a great number for which an order had been granted and as to which there seems to have been rather a remarkable delay in most cases.


George Perry Graham: I Will look this up again and ascertain what the conditions are with reference to it.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

William Findlay Maclean: Would the First Minister say on what day next week the House is likely to go into Supply, and whether it would then be convenient to take up the amendment of which I gave notice yesterday in reference to the Canadian Pacific railway?


Wilfrid Laurier: Will Tuesday be convenient for my hon. friend?


William Findlay Maclean: Yes.


Wilfrid Laurier: Very well then. -


George Eulas Foster: I might ask my hon. friend who put such blanket resolutions before the House yesterday if he intends this to deprive other members of the privilege of taking up any of that large range of subjects provided they get in ahead of him?


William Findlay Maclean: They are all individual propositions and they will have
to come up one after the other. The only one I propose to deal with on next going into Supply is the one connected with the Canadian Pacific railway.


George Eulas Foster: It is free trade on the other side, is it?	-


William Findlay Maclean: It is free trade all around; if the hon. gentleman wants to lead the way I will give him an opportunity.


George Eulas Foster: You take this one.


Wilfrid Laurier: He is against monopoly.



HYDRO-ELECTRIC POWER COMMISSION AT TORONTO.

Mr. MACDONELL (Toronto).: Is the government yet in a position to make any statement with regard to the application of Mr. McGann in respect to restraining the Hydro-Electric Power Commission from erecting their poles and appliances along the water front at Toronto? It is a matter of great urgency and importance and a public statement would be appreciated.


Wilfrid Laurier: The Minister of Public Works has come to a decision in this matter. Whether it is in favour of Mr. McGann or not I do not know.


Air. AIACDONELL (Toronto).: Will the hon. gentleman state what the minister's decision is?


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not think I can to-day.



WESTERN FARMERS' DELEGATION.

Wilfrid Laurier: My attention was called yesterday by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) to an article of the ' Grain Growers' Guide ' of the 4th January, under the heading 'Sir Wilfrid's Promise.' My recollection of what took place at that interview' varies from the positive statements of that article.
I certainly made no promise of any kind, as I had no authority to do so; and state- [DOT] ments of personal views of policy may have been construed into promises.
The western farmers, after the public interview with the government on the 16th of December, met me again in further support of the resolution which they had placed before the government in favour of the Hudson Bay road being built and operated by the government. Unfortunately my colleague the Minister of Railways and Canals could not be present. I then reiterated tile view's which I had expressed in the public interview and stated that whilst personally I was open to considering the building of the road by the government, 1 was strongly disinclined to the government operating it. I said that considering the object sought to be attained by the farmers, there was more certainty of their reaching that object in the road being operated by a company, subject to the control of the Railway Board over the tolls, not only of the land carriage, but also of the ocean carriage, with in addition government supervision in England against the mixing of grain, in the manner now obtaining by gov-
50*

eminent supervision against the adulteration oi dairy products.


Robert Laird Borden: Are we to understand that the right hon. gentleman gave no assurances except those set forth in the statement he has just read?


Wilfrid Laurier: That is my impression.



PROPOSED DAM AT BOIS BLANC ISLAND.

Mr. WILCOX.: Mr. Speaker, I desire to draw the attention of the government to an item that appears in the issue of the 'Globe' of January 11, which reads as follows:-




[Stage Direction]
(Special despatch to the 'Globe.'
Washington, January 10.-The War Department is becoming impatient at the delay of the Canadian government in ordering its inquiry as to whether this government would be permitted to build a dam in the Detroit river at Bois Blanc island, which is in British waters.
Some two months ago the War Department through the State Department requested permission of the Canadian government to construct this dam, which, according to the plans for the Livingstone channel, will extend to the Canadian side. No reply has been received, and the work, it is feared, will be delayed by the tardiness of the Canadian government.
If within a week or so no definite news is forthcoming from Ottawa, the Secretary of War will request the Secretary of State to . call the attention of Canada to the request of this government.
Amherstburg is a beautiful little town situated in the extreme western part of Ontario. It has been the home of the so'dier in the pioneer days of this country.
Wilfrid Laurier: Order.


Oliver James Wilcox: It seems to me that it should have a warm spot in the heart of every Canadian


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. gentleman must be confined to a question at this stage.


Oliver James Wilcox: and it appears that
they have a complaint


Wilfrid Laurier: Order.


Oliver James Wilcox: that is worthy of the
consideration of the government. I have received many communications from citizens of the town stating that this proposed dam will very seriously affect the channel of the Detroit river, it will-


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. member can only put a question at this stage. He cannot discuss the question now.


Wilfrid Laurier: 


Oliver James Wilcox: I am only pointing out the objections that are taken to the proposed dam. It is, I submit, a question which is worthy of the consideration of the government, and it should be dealt with with all convenient speed.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am happy to say to my hon. friend (Mr. Wilcox) that. this despatch has been answered and the reply sent to Washington.



WESTERN FARMERS' DELEGATION.

Robert Laird Borden: May I ask the Rt Hon. Prime Minister whether anything has been done with regard to the printing and publication of the representations that were made to the government and parliament by the delegation which was spoken of to-day?


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not know if the printing has been commenced, but it is the intention to have the report printed.



MANUFACTURE AND IMPORTATION OF MATCHES MADE WITH WHITE PHOSPHORUS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. KING moved the second reading of Bill (No. 10), to prohibit the manufacture and importation of matches made with white phosphorus.
Robert Laird Borden: I do not understand how this Bill can be proceeded with without the usual resolution of the Committee of the House. My hon. friend the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Temple-man) had a similar Bill relating to trade. He withdrew it about three or four weeks ago and has introduced the subject by resolution, which is the proper course. Rule 50 of the House of Commons is very clear.
I suppose it was on account of that rule that the Minister of Inland Revenue with-diew the Bill which he introduced and is proceeding now by resolution. Rule 50, which has been in force a long time, is this:-
No Bill relating to trade or the alteration of the laws concerning trade is to be brought into this House until the proposition shall have been first considered in a Committee of the Whole House, and agreed unto by the House.
Well, my hon. friend the Minister of Inland Revenue had a similar Bill, which appeared on the Order Paper, but, this being the rule, he discharged the order, withdrew the Bill, and now has on the Paper order No. 8:
House in committee to consider the following proposed resolution.
And the resolution follows. I think my hon friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. King) will have to take the same course. It is not wise to attempt any departure

from the well known and recognized rules of the House, which, in this instance, are definite and specific.


Mr. KING.: Mr. Speaker, before introducing the Bi:l I had the law clerk of the House look it over. I asked him whether, in his opinion, it was necessary to proceed by a resolution of the lind mentioned by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, and he informed me that he did not think it v as. For that reason I did not have the measure proceeded with by resolution.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, I think, with all deference to the law clerk, that he is mistaken. I do not know how one could in.agine a Bill relating to trade if this is not a Bill relating to trade. It is ' an Act to prohibit the manufacture and importation of matches made with white phosphorus.' The next one is even a more glaring case, because it is ' an Act to prohibit the importation, manufacture, [sale and use of opium.' The Bill in respect to which the Minister of Inland Revenue has followed what seems to me the proper course is one to regulate the manufacture, importation, storage, &c., of explosive ma-teiial. You cannot possibly say that one is within the rule and that the other is not. I think that all three are within the rule.


Wilfrid Laurier: This is a case which shows that lawyers, like doctors, disagree. My hon. friend (Mr. King) took the only course he could-he consulted the law clerk, and on the advice of the law clerk he proceeded in the manner in which he did.


Robert Laird Borden: I am presenting the matter as it appears to me. It is for his honour the Speaker to come to a conclusion with regard to it. It seems to me that all these Bills are wdthin the rule.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I have not read the Bill. If it does interfere with trade, then under Rule No. 50 it cannot be proceeded with.


Wilfrid Laurier: Let it stand.


Robert Laird Borden: I may refer your Honour to Bourinot page 634 and following where authorities are cited.
Order allowed to stand.



REGULATION OF EXPLOSIVES.

[Stage Direction]
House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:-
Resolved, that it is expedient (a) to regulate the manufacture, importation, storage, handling, testing and use of explosive material of every description; (b) to grant licenses to factories and magazines for the manufacture and storage of explosives and to provide for the inspection thereof and the payment of fees for such licenses; (c) to make inquiries into the cause of explosions, and of accidents caused by explosives; (d) to provide for tbe
appointment of inspectors and other officers required for tbe administration of the Act, and the payment of the salaries thereof; (e) to-authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations for carrying out the purposes of the Act; and (f) to provide for the imposition, of penalties in contravention thereof.
Mr. TEMPLEMAN.: There is in Canada at present no law regulating the manufacture of explosives. In England, for a number of years they have had legislation regulating the manufacture and the use of explosives, and the effect of it has been to largely minimize the number of accidents in mines and on public works. It has become very apparent in Canada, that of recent years accidents are increasing from the-use of explosives on public works and in establishments which manufacture explosives. To demonstrate the necessity for ' a Bill of this kind, I will mention a number of accidents resulting from explosives during the last year, and some of which would in all -probability have been, if not altogether obviated, considerably minimized in their results, had legislation such as that now proposed been in force. In British Columbia in March last, an explosion occurred on Bowen island, resulting in five deaths. The accident occurred from using iron nails in packing dynamite and under strict regulations that practice would have been prohibited. On the Nar tional Transcontinental railway, in July last-, 400 pounds of dynamite exploded near La Tuque, resulting in five deaths and five or six persons being seriously injured. The statement was made at the time, that the workmen were endeavouring to open a can of powder with an axe, when it exploded and set off a long train of powder and dynamite. By the regulations to be provided under this legislation, the opening of cans of explosives with an axe or other iron implement will be prohibited. In May last, at Departure bay near Nanaimo, an explosion resulted in five deaths,
I think every workman in the factory at the time was killed. A quantity of nitroglycerine and acid was being brought from the main building into the separator when the latter building blew up, killing all the men in the vicinity. The conditions which existed in this factory at the time would not have been permitted, under strict regulations. At Sand Point, in July last, there was an explosion in a powder factory, which resulted in three deaths and five being seriously injured. No precaution had been taken in this factory to allow sufficient space between the factory buildings and under the proposed regulations it would not have been allowed to operate. Under the regulations contemplated, these factories will be licensed and the buildings must be erected with a view to their distance from roads and dwelling houses, as well as to the distance between the build-

ings themselves which form the factory. I have here a photograph of the Sand Point factory, and it shows six to eight buildings huddled together, all within two or three feet of each other. Such would not have been permitted in * any country where there was a law regulating the manufacture of explosives. Last summer a very serious accident occurred in the Hull factory, by which eight persons were killed and some twenty or thirty seriously injured. Under such regulations as we propose to make, this factory would not have been permitted to operate. We provide in this Bill that applications for factory or magazine licenses shall be made in such form and manner as may be prescribed by regulation, and the application shall be accompanied by:- (a) a plan drawn to scale of the proposed factory or magazine, and of the land and any buildings adjacent thereto, with the exact distance between the several buildings marked thereon.
At the inquest held on persons killed by this explosion it was given in evidence that there was only a distance of 24 feet between the storehouse and the house in which the detonators were kept, and only 15 feet between the latter and the magazine, and 20 feet between the magazine and the mixing house. Regulations governing distances between dangerous buildings will be issued under the proposed Bill, which will bring into force what is known in Great Britain as the distance tables. These tables show the distance which must be maintained between danger buildings in all factories. During a period of 30 years, since the introduction of this distance table in Great Britain, no member of the general public has been killed, and no dwelling house has sustained any serious structural damage by an explosion in any factory to which these distances apply. The Bill is a very short one. Under it authority is taken to make regulations. The Bill has been prepared upon the recommendations of Captain Des-borough, the chief inspector of explosives for Great Britain, who was invited by the Department of Mines to come to Canada to investigate the conditions here. He visited all the establishments for the manufacture of explosives in Canada. The Bill is very largely based on the English Act, which has been found to work very satisfactorily during the last thirty years, and we believe that under it the number of fatalities from explosives, where they are manufactured as well as where they are used on public works and in mines, will be very greatly reduced. When we get into committee on the Bill, I shall be glad to give full explanations of anything that 1 have omitted at the present time.


[Stage Direction]
Resolution agreed to, reported, read the first and second time and concurred in.
William Templeman: Mr. TEMPLEMAN moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 79) to regulate the manufacture and care of explosives.


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


[Stage Direction]
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
Mr. CURRIE (Simcoe).: I understand that the federal parliament of Australia has decided to appoint a deputation of members from both sides of the House to go to England to take part in the coronation ceremony, having received an iryvitation from the British government to that effect, and I understand that their expenses are to be paid by Australia. I would like to ask the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the government to take a similar course with respect to this House. Has any invitation been received, and is it proposed to appoint a delegation composed of members from both sides of this House to represent Canada at the coronation ceremony?


Wilfrid Laurier: I have been informed that a committee of the House of Commons sent an invitation to some members of this parliament to attend the coronation ceremony. We have declared that if such an invitation came we would be very happy to act upon it. That was before the election in Great Britain. Since the election we have not received any other invitation, and I am not aware whether a committee of the new parliament has been formed to send such an invitation. I understand that the Australian parliament, whether on this invitation or not I do not know, have appointed a committee of members to attend the coronation.


Morley Currie: Eighteen members.


Wilfrid Laurier: Now that the election in England is over, probably the matter will be taken up, and we may receive a new invitation. At all events, it has not come yet, but whether the invita-tion'from the previous parliament continues or a new invitation comes, it is a matter with regard to which, so far as I am concerned, we shall be happy to place ourselves in the hands of the House. "


THE POSTMASTER GENERAL.
Mr. PERLEY.: I would like to ask when we may expect the Postmaster General back to give us a report on the opening of the South African parliament?


Wilfrid Laurier: When the Postmaster General returns, he will have a report to give and also duties to attend to.

I understand that he was to sail on the 7th of this month, so that he should be here in a short time.


Mr. SPROULE.: May I ask if his report will include a report on his mission to Rome ?	[DOT]


Wilfrid Laurier: Perhaps my hon. friend will be more interested in that than in the Qther report.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Public Buildings, N.S.-Halifax Citadel- new quarters for single men, $15,000.
Mr. PUGSLEY.: This is a revote. The request has been before the department for some time. It was made by the Militia Department on December 22, i909. The appropriation was made last year, but no expenditure made to date and I am asking for a re vote. '


George Eulas Foster: The minister will have, to take a little time on. this. We were not told yesterday that the estimates would come up, and we went away with the impression that government Bills would be taken up. That business seems to have slipped up as so much does in which the government is concerned, and now we are rushed into estimates. The Minister of Public Works will just have to exercise a little of that patience with which he is so largely endowed until we are notified that he is to be on the scene and ready for action.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER, True, we did not mention the estimates yesterday, but the government measure which we were to discuss could not be gone on with owing to an objection raised by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden). I am not finding fault with his objection because I think it was well taken, but neither was it the fault of the minister in charge because he acted on the advice of the law clerk, who told him he could proceed in that form. We are, therefore, taking up the estimates, and I am sure that my hon. friend, who is always ready to help forward public business, will not persist in his objection.


George Eulas Foster: But we are entitled to be ?iven fair notice as to what particular estimates are coming up.


William Pugsley: I shall be glad to exercise the utmost patience and give my hon. friend all the information he may require.


George Eulas Foster: Then give us a description of the Halifax citadel as a beginning.


William Pugsley: As my hon. friend has visited the citadel frequently himself, I would not like to weary him and the House with unnecessary information. 1
i
may say that the re-vote we are asking is for the purpose of providing quarters for single men.


George Eulas Foster: Are they a part of the naval brigade?


William Pugsley: No, this is for the militia, and has been -asked for by the Militia Department.


Mr. LANCASTER.: How many men will
have quarters there?


William Pugsley: I regret I cannot give that information.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: We ought to know before passing t:iis item.


Morley Currie: Which citadel dees this refer to? Is it the main citadel in the city of Halifax or the citadel in the main batteries on the arm? I have visited those citadels, and -as near as I can recollect, the citadel proper in Halifax contains a large number of quarters -not occupied. But there are new fortifications, and I would like to know whether this expenditure is to be on the old citadel, which is going into decay, or on the new?


William Pugsley: As I understand it, there is only one citadel -at Halifax, and these barracks are built at the base of the citadel.


Morley Currie: The main fortifications of Halifax are away out in the larbour.


William Pugsley: That is not known as the citadel.


Morley Currie: Not generally known to the public either, and the fortifications -all contain rooms and quarters for the men, and I cannot see how additional quarters can be placed in the old citadel without seriously destroying its value as a fortification. The hon. minister would expedite his items if he would give notice to members on this side when these items are coming up and keep faith with them.


George Eulas Foster: For how many -men are these quarters and what kind of quarters are'they to be? Are they to be temporary >r permanent?


William Pugsley: That is information which would be in the possession of the Militia Department, and I -am sorry my hon. colleague is not here.


George Eulas Foster: Then this item had better be laid aside for the present and let us go on with other matters.


William Pugsley: I am glad to meet the request of my hon. friend.
Halifax Dominion Building-Post office, repairs. i-c., $30,000.


William Pugsley: This is for the purpose of completing the improvements. Provision was made at a previous session for the remodelling of the whole interior so as to make the building fire proof and fitted for post office purposes and for the Receiver General's office. The customs, customs warehouse and inland revenue offices were removed to the new customs building. The total cost of remodelling estimated at $147,038. The total expenditure from the 1st July, 1908, to September, 1910, $85,149. I assume that there will be a further expenditure to the 31st March of $32,347, and we are asking $30,000, which will no doubt complete the work.


Robert Laird Borden: When did the work begin?


William Pugsley: Public advertisements were issued calling for tenders in 1908, and the tender of Mr. Keefe, which was the lowest, was accepted on the 29th June, 1908. The work no doubt began shortly fter. Supplementary tenders were called for the heating, elevators and fittings.


Robert Laird Borden: When will it be completed?


William Pugsley: I cannot tell just now. That information will, I think, be found in an answer I gave before recess.


Robert Laird Borden: Are you going to spend $30,000 on it in the course of the approaching fiscal year? Apparently, it will not be finished until a year from now at the earliest, as I observed from what the minister has said that the amount expended during the current fiscal year will be about $32,000.


William Pugsley: No, that is the amount which will be expended between the 30th September last and the close of the fiscal year.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the whole amount expended?


William Pugsley: Up to September 30 last, the amount expended was $85,941.38, and the estimated expenditure between that time and the 31st March next is $32,848.


Robert Laird Borden: The work seems to have proceeded with no very extreme expedition. It has been in progress isince shortly after June 29,	1908, and
June 29, 1911, will still see a great deal of work to be done upon it apparently. Considering the public inconvenience which has been occasioned since the work has been in progress, it would seem very desirable that greater expedition should have been used. The minister (Mr. Pugs-ley), is aware of the conditions. While this building is being repaired, the Post Office staff has been accommodated, I Mr. PUGSLEY.	. S
think, in the new building, and the general post office is in the basement of that building, a very cramped and inconvenient place, as I have found in visiting the post office during the past year. There seems to be a good deal of dissatisfaction among the citizens of Halifax because of the lack of expedition in this work. In fact, if you ask them when the work is expected to be completed and normal conditions re-established, they will simply laugh and shrug their shoulders. Can the minister give an explanation why this work should have required a period of about three and a half or four years to complete?


William Pugsley: It is not so long as that. The contract was let on June 29, 1908-two years ago last June.


Robert Laird Borden: I know; but, as I have said, on June 29, 1911, the work will not be nearly completed-probably it will take six months, or even longer, after that. So, I think I was strictly within the mark when I said that the work will have occupied three and a half years or more. That seems a very long time for a work of this kind, particularly in view of the public inconvenience occasioned while it is being proceeded with. I know the contractor, Mr. Keefe. He is a very good contractor, I think, but he does not seem to have put himself out to make haste in this particular case. Nor do the government seem to have taken any very energetic steps to hurry him up. Was any time limit set in the contract?


William Pugsley: 
Robert Laird Borden: The minister said the work would cost $148,000. How is the difference made up between Mr. Keefe's contract of $94,000 and this sum ?


William Pugsley: The following are the figures:
Paid for printing, advertising, travelling expenses, surveys and
sundry disbursements	>$ 1,687 65
Paid to contractor	 65,360	00
Paid for firing boilers, offsetting
radiators, &e	
725	00Paid for gas piping, wash basins, messannine floors, lintels over windows, cupola on roof, &c	
1,697	f5Paid for heating apparatus	
3,810	00"	vault lining and doors, &c. 6,1+1 18"	elevator	
6,500 00
$85,9+1 38
Amount due on contract and additional work	_	$29,173
Amount due on contract heating and
boilers	 1,053
Amount due on contract elevators and
inclosures	 1,780
Amount due on contract steel cupboards	 5,844
Amount due on contract fitting for
savings bank	 1,708
Amount due on contract electric fixtures (no wiring)	   1,7+5
Amount due on contract fittings, furniture and lock-boxes (estimated)... 18,000 Contingencies and superintendence.. ..	3,5+4


Robert Laird Borden: How much of that has been paid to the contractor?


William Pugsley: The amount was $65,380, leaving to be paid when completed $29,703. The chief architect has ju&t informed me that he received to-day the final estimate of the contractor's work, so that that work is finished. All that remains to be done is to provide the post office fittings, elevator, ,electric fixtures, etc.


Robert Laird Borden: Is there any penalty in the contract for delay?


William Pugsley: There is no penalty.


Robert Laird Borden: Is there any correspondence indicating the steps taken
by the government to expedite the contractor's work?


William Pugsley: The chief architect tells me there is correspondence with the contractor calling his attention to the delay and urging the necessity of proceeding more rapidly. That is the nature of the correspondence.


Robert Laird Borden: It seems remarkable that a time limit should be fixed and no penalty for exceeding that limit inserted. Is it not unusual in government contracts to adopt that course?


William Pugsley: No, that is the usual form of contract.


Robert Laird Borden: I thought a penalty was usually fixed for failure to complete in a given time.


William Pugsley: Not in respect to public buildings.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the practice when the limit is exceeded? It seems to me the government are very much at the mercy of the contractors unless they propose to adopt the extreme course referred to by the minister of taking the work out of the contractor's hands. That is very often not a desirable course to take, but it is a good thing to have a penalty, even if you do not exact it, because the time limit is not of much service. The government, I suppose might claim damages for nonfulfilment, but in the case of a public building such as this, it would be difficult to maintain a claim for more than nominal damages.


William Pugsley: Of course, we keep back a percentage on the progress estimates and then if there is undue delay we can say to the contractor that we will keep back a larger percentage, and in that way bring to bear a very powerful lever, the desire of the contractor to earn his money as soon as he can. Then, of course, there is the other course which we have sometimes adopted, of taking the work out of the hands of the contractor, holding back a certain amount of money, and calling for new tenders. Of course, we charge any additional cost of the work up to the contractor, but it has not been usual to insert a penalty clause charging so much each day. We have not had' many instances of great delay. In this case, no doubt, Mr. Keefe has been behind in his contract.


John Stanfield: What was the chief architect's estimate for this work?


William Pugsley: $165,000, but that is for everything. We are getting it done at very nearly $20,000 below the original estimate.


John Stanfield: Have you an inspector on this work, and who is he?


William Pugsley: Yes, he has been on it from the commencement to the present. He belongs to the chief architect's staff and his office is at Ottawa, and we sent him from Ottawa to inspect the work.


Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds).: Have you a local inspector as well?


William Pugsley: No, no local inspector.


John Stanfield: It is common report in Halifax that the post office fittings, letter boxes, &c., were bought some time ago, but that the contractor has been so long at the work that these boxes have got out of date, and that the department are buying new ones. Another report is that the fittings were not good enough for Jhe place. Is there any truth in that story?


William Pugsley: The suggestion of my hen, friend is entirely new to the officers of the department. I cannot think that would be the case without their knowing it.


Clarence Jameson: Is the contractor who is working on this building the same one who constructed the custom house in Halifax?


William Pugsley: The same gentleman, yes.


Clarence Jameson: Is the minister aware that the tile floor in the upper story of the custom house is afloat, that the tiles are loose and give out a hollow sound when walked on?


William Pugsley: I am aware that there are some defects, but not that it is afloat.


Clarence Jameson: That the tiles are loose and can be kicked around when a person walks?


William Pugsley: I do not know that it is so bad as that.


Clarence Jameson: I can tell the minister ficm my own experience that it- is.


William Pugsley: I was very greatly dissatisfied; I do not hesitate to say so publicly, with the mode in which Mr. Keefe did the work in connection with the custom house in Halifax, and when the tenders were called for this building and it was found that Mr. Keefe's tender was the lowest it caused me a great deal of concern as to what steps I should take in view, of the dissatisfaction in connection with the erection of the custom house. But Mr. Keefe was the lowest tenderer, he is a reliable man, a man of means, an experienced contractor, and I do not see how I could justify a refusal to accept his tender, which was $20,000 less than the next tenderer. What I did was to exercise the utmost possible care in regard to this building; we sent an inspector belonging to the architect's staff at headquarters, and he has remained constantly on the work from that day to this.


John Stanfield: I have heard no dissatisfaction as to how the work is being performed on this building.


Robert Laird Borden: What was the cause of dissatisfaction on the custom house building?


William Pugsley: I cannot give the details nowr, but I remember one in respect to the well of the elevator, which was not just exactly as it ought to have been, and the roof was not done to the satisfaction of the department; there were some leaks which we had to repair. Then there was the matter spoken of by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Jameson), as to the flooring in certain parts of the building. Altogether, the defects were not very numerous, but they wore annoying and afforded just ground for complaint against the contractor.


John Stanfield: The minister speaks of his low tender. I know of a contract which was tendered for; the lowest tender was $60,000 and his was nearly $30,000 higher; so that, you cannot tell much about the figures of contracts.


William Pugsley: I can give my hon. friend a more remarkable instance than that. A building costing about $250,000 was tendered for by three of the most reliable contractors in Canada and there was a difference of $70,000 between the lowest tender and the highest, but we gave the contract, as we always do, except for special reasons, wdiich must be reported to council, to the lowest tenderer.


Mr. CROTHERS.: Is it the practice of the department to get the estimate from their own officers as to what a building ought to cost?


William Pugsley: That is always done.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Do you always let the work to the lowest tenderer?


William Pugsley: We always let it to the lowest tenderer unless the tenderer happens to be a man of no experience in that particular work or unless there has been dissatisfaction with the mode in which he has performed previous work. In very few instances-there have been a very few instances since I have been minister-have we ever done otherwise than given the contract to the lowest tenderer. The reasons in those cases are presented to council and there would be no objection whatever to presenting the reasons to the House if they were asked for.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I had not in my mind any instance to give in which the successful tenderer was not the lowest.


William Pugsley: If the hon. gentleman will give us such an instance


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The minister does not understand me. I had not in my mind any fault finding in that regard, but what I want to know is if, in letting a contract to the lowest tenderer, you have any regard for the estimate of your officers. Supposing your officers reported that $60,000 was a fair sum to be expended on a public work and your lowest tender was $100,000, is it your practice to give the contract to the lowest tenderer without any reference to the value of the work when it is finished.


William Pugsley: No, we always consider carefully the estimate of the chief architect. Sometimes, when the lowest tender is considerably higher than the estimate of the chief architect, we refer the matter back to the chief architect for his report and go carefully over his estimate. If he adheres to his estimate, in the great majority of cases we call for new tenders.


William Cameron Edwards: What value would you attach to that when it is quite evident that the estimate of your architect is exceeded from 25 to 100 per cent in the actual cost of these buildings?


William Pugsley: That is not the case.


William Cameron Edwards: It is the case, and I can give you many instances to show that it is the case.


William Pugsley: In this particular case the cost is about $20,000 less than the chief architect's estimate.


William Cameron Edwards: That stands out very noticeably as an exception.


William Pugsley: No, my hon. friend is in error as to that..


William Cameron Edwards: If you take up the whole list of armouries from one end of the country to the other you will see that the actual cost, when the buildings are completed, runs from 25 to 75 per cent higher than the contract price, so that the estimated cost does not cut any figure at all.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend is entirely in error as to that.


William Cameron Edwards: I will prove before you get through with your armoury estimates that I am not in error.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend may take a ease here and there-


William Cameron Edwards: I will give dozens of cases.
Mr. PUGSLEY-where hundreds of buildings are erected dozens of cases would not be sufficient to establish what the hon. gentleman says.


William Cameron Edwards: I will give you three or four dozen cases.


William Pugsley: It would keep you busy to do that.


Mr. DANIEL.: I would like to ask the minister if the rule which he speaks of as giving the contract to the lowest tenderer with regard to the erection of public buildings also applies to dredging contracts carried out by the Department of Public Works?


William Pugsley: Yes.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I would like to call the attention of the minister to a reply that he gave me before the recess. I was asking with regard to some dredging at Port Dalhousie, for the names of the tenderers, and so on. The contract was given to the highest instead of the lowest tenderer. There were two tenders from, I think, Ontario companies that were pretty much alike and very much lower than the tender of A. & R. Loggie, who got the contract. In that case certainly the minister did not award the contract to the lowest tenderer; in fact, there were two or three lower than the firm who got it. Of course, I will say that the minister did not award the contract at the price which A. & R. Loggie put in, but they gave them the work at very nearly the tender of some Eastern 'Construction Company. It was not carrying out the statement of the minister that he awards the contracts of his department to the lowest tenderer.


William Pugsley: I am sorry that my hon. friend has not quite stated the whole truth. [DOT]


John Waterhouse Daniel: Pretty much of it, I think.


William Pugsley: No, there is a very important part of the truth that my hon. friend has forgotten. He has not done it intentionally, but simply because of his having forgotten the facts.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Which part?


William Pugsley: The part is this, that the lowest tenderer had other dredging work to do. That company had tendered for a number of different dredging works, it had not plant enough to put into this work and we awarded the contract to A. & R. Loggie at the price of the lowest tender, which they were willing to accept.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Very nearly at the lowest tender but not quite.


William Pugsley: It was either identical with it or less.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The minister in that case makes himself the judge as to the ability of this company to do the work. If the company had not been able to do the work and had so much work that they could not attend to any more, they cer-

tainly would not have put in a tender, but, as a matter of fact, two of them did put in lower tenders and the minister in his reply said that, in his opinion, these tenderers, having as much work as the minister thought they could attend to, he gave the tender to somebody else.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend has forgotten another matter. When we invite tenders we require the tenderer to specify the dredging plant which he has available for doing the work. When tenders are called for, the companies tender on different works and we know, because we had the evidence in the tenders of the companies themselves, that the lowest tenderers had no.t the plant which would enable them to do the work because they had been awarded other contracts on tenders received about the same time, and if we had not given the work to
A.	& R. Loggie we could not have had it done during last year. We said to A. & R. Loggie:	We cannot give you the whole
price of your tender, but if you are willing to take the work at the price of the lowest tenderer, as he is obliged to go elsewhere with his plant, we will give you the work and it was given to them at identically the figure of the lowest tenderer or at a less price.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I do not know that it is worth while to pursue this matter, as we are on public buildings, but I have the reply of the minister here.


William Pugsley: I will be glad if my hon. friend will read it. What page is it?


John Waterhouse Daniel: Page 1102 of the Revised ' Hansard,' December 12. The General Construction and Dredging Company. Limited, offered to do the work, which is divided un into .three series, A, B and C; A at $8, B at $6, and C at 291 cents. The tender of the General Construction Company was: A, $2.65; B, 38 cents; C, 38 cents. Then came A. & R. Loggie, who offered to do A for $15. I presume that is $15 per cubic yard for solid rock, and $6 for boulders, and 441 cents for the ordinary spoil. The minister gave the work to A. & R. Loggie at $5 for A, which was solid rock, and he will notice that the General Construction Company offered to remove that for $2.65 per cubic yard. The minister in his answer does not say anything about B, -but he gives that for ordinary spoil, 291 cents. I have not had time to work it out. hut if it were worked out I think that Messrs. Loggie would not be the lowest tenderer.


William Pugsley: The tender of the General Construction Company was for ordinary spoil 38 cents and for rock $2.65, but they had no plant capable of enabling them to drill rock. I do not wish to say anything


John Waterhouse Daniel: publicly against any contractors, but I may say they were entirely incapable of doing the work, and had no plant suitable for the purpose.


John Waterhouse Daniel: That was not stated in the answer of the minister. I presume each tenderer sent in deposit with his tender.


William Pugsley: We require a certain amount for works in any one province. In dredging work it is very important to have a contracting firm that has done work satisfactorily in the past. If my hon. friend would make inquiry I believe he would not have given this work to the General Construction Company at any price.
Halifax Dominion Buildings-repairs, $4,000.


Clarence Jameson: Will the flooring of the new customs house be repaired out of this vote?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: If the construction of that building was faulty in the way indicated, why is it not done at the expense of the contractor?


William Pugsley: We did make the contractor do quite a number of improvements before we took the work off his hands, but the chief architect finally accepted the work and so far as he was concerned the work was closed.
Lunenburg Public Buildings-improvements, $800.


William Pugsley: This is in connection with the clock on the tower of the public building and for wiring, and so on.


John Stanfield: I thought the clock was settled for long ago?


William Pugsley: This is a revote to finish the payment,


Mr. BLAIN.: What is the total cost?


William Pugsley: The tender was $1,600, and the total probable cost including wiring of the building, and everything complete, $2,900.


Richard Blain: Was that work done by public competition?


William Pugsley: No, we got prices from different people in the business.


John Stanfield: Does the $800 include the fittings?


William Pugsley: No.


John Stanfield: It seems quite a price for wiring a building.


William Pugsley: It includes what we call the fixtures for the electric lighting. The item is for the wiring of the building for electric lighting.


Richard Blain: Was the clock bought by public competition?


William Pugsley: No, prices were asked.


Richard Blain: From whom?


William Pugsley: Mr. Schultz was asked to furnish a price and it was acceptable to the chief architect who knows the value of clocks.


Richard Blain: Who is Mr. Schultz?


William Pugsley: A clock dealer in Halifax.


Richard Blain: The minister does not adopt the policy of public competition?


William Pugsley: Not in all cases.


Richard Blain: Was there anybody else on the patronage list besides Mr. Schultz?


William Pugsley: Quite a number.


Richard Blain: Why did'nt you ask them for a price on this clock?


William Pugsley: WTe selected a reliable man and asked him to furnish a price which I think my hon. friend will agree with me is reasonable. We desired to get a first-class clock and we dealt with a first-class man and got a good article.


John Stanfield: There are other gentlemen in Halifax in the clock business who do a much larger business than Mr. Schultz. I might mention the name of Messrs. Brown & Company, but unfortunately Mr. Brown is a Conservative.


William Pugsley: Why say unfortunately?


John Stanfield: Because he could not get a chance to supply this clock.


William Pugsley: Surely he would not weep over that, he probably had his turn.


John Stanfield: And lie will have it soon again.


William Pugsley: I don't know about that.


Richard Blain: Who asked Mr. Schultz for a price?


William Pugsley: The chief architect,


Richard Blain: On whose authority?


William Pugsley: On the authority of the minister.


Richard Blain: Then we are to understand that the Minister of Public Works refuses to adopt the policy of public competition. I would have thought that an expenditure of $1,600 for a clock and $800 for wiring a building would be sufficient even in the eyes of the minister to call for public competition. I suppose the man who got the contract is not a clock maker himself, but a middleman.


William Pugsley: ile is a dealer in clocks.


Richard Blain: He is a middleman, you did not ask the manufacturer for his price?


William Pugsley: The manufacturer is in England.


Richard Blain: That makes no difference. The minister would not pass by a large dealer in Halifax, and go to a smaller one unless he had some reason. Am I right in saying that the reason was that Mr. Schultz is a supporter of the government?


William Pugsley: The reason is that Mr. Schultz is a thoroughly reliable dealer in clocks. t


Richard Blain: Are there no others?


William Pugsley: Plenty of others.


Richard Blain: What about that larger establishment in Halifax?


William Pugsley: I have no doubt he is a good man. I have nothing to say against him.


Richard Blain: I am talking about the principle. The hon. minister and some other members of the government say they have adopted the policy of public competition. When we point out that he purchases this clock from a friend of his for $1,600 and gives the wiring of the building to another friend for $800, the hon. minister, says these are reliable men, and for that reason they receive the contracts without competition. Why does not my hon. friend adopt either one policy or the other? Why would not a little competition in clocks be a gsod thing? My hon. friend stands guilty, because he walks past the largest clock establishment in Halifax, without even suggesting that its price should be asked, and gives the contract to a political supporter without any competition at all. When it suits my hon. friend's purpose, he adopts competition, and when it suits the party interested, he does the other thing. My hon. friend should go to the province of Ontario and see how governmeht business is conducted.


William Pugsley: Legislating away* people's rights.


Richard Blain: Whose rights were legislated away? Legislating in the interest of the people of Ontario to such an extent that your party has no life there at all.


William Pugsley: I would be ashamed to be the father of legislation that is enacted in the provinces of Ontario.


Richard Blain: What does my hon. friend refer to?


William Pugsley: My hon. friend knows. Take the ease of the Florence Mining Company, whose property rights the legislature of Ontario took away and at the same time prevented them going into the courts. I would be ashamed to be the father of legislation of that character.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend has not followed that case or he would know that the courts decided in favour of the legislation.


William Pugsley: They decided that it was competent for the legislature to take away the rights of property, although they said that it was disgraceful legislation.


Morley Currie: They made the
comment that even if the government of Ontario granted the fiat, they were justified in the action they did take.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I must intervene. It is not relevant to an expenditure on a clock in the town of Lunenburg to discuss the legislation of the Ontario legislature.


Haughton Lennox: I have some memory of this affair, and if the minister would like to have it discussed again, we will have it discussed, and I think we will convince him that his recollection of it is very much at fault.


William Pugsley: Mr. Chairman, I regret the diversion, but I sometimes get sick and tired of the hon. member for Peel inviting us to look at the way they do things in Ontario.


Richard Blain: May I be permitted to say that I think only on one occasion before in this House have I made such a suggestion.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not wonder at the hon. Minister of Public Works
geting sick at references to the administration of the province of Ontario because the contrast between that and the administration of this government is so startling.


William Pugsley: Some things they do are startling.


Robert Laird Borden: For example, they keep within the estimates brought down to parliament, while this government
exceedis them two or three times over.
Mr.j PUGSLEY. For instance, the extensions to the parliament buildings 'in Toronto.


Robert Laird Borden: I have no knowledge of that. I was speaking of the Hydro-Electric Commission.


William Pugsley: What does my hon. friend think of the action of the Ontario legislature in declaring that no man shall have a right to sue the Hydro-Electric Commission or the government for any damages that may be done to private property without the consent of the Attorney General ?


Robert Laird Borden: The minister
had better look at his own record. I myself brought to the attention of the House twenty cases of men who desired to present their claims to the Exchequer Court of Canada upon contracts entered into by Mr. PUGSLEY.
this government which were brought to an end by the Post Office Department. I pressed their claims in two or three sessions in this parliament, and the government from 1897 down to the present time has absolutely refused these men the right to prosecute their claims in the courts of this country. What does he think about the case of the men who own timber limits at Petawawa and who up to the present time have not been allowed any opportunity to press their claims.


William Pugsley: What does the hon. gentleman think of it ?


Robert Laird Borden: I think that it does not lie in the mouth of the Minister of Public Works to say one word about it, and I think any man with less hardihood than he, would not venture to do it. It is a great compliment to his remarkable audacity that he should venture to do it.


William Pugsley: Is that a parliamentary expression-audacity ?


Robert Laird Borden: It is perfectly parliamentary. If the Minister of Public Works did not. know that before, he knows it now.


William Pugsley: Now, Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member had, to use his own expression, the audacity to make that statement with regard to myself, perhaps you would allow me to make a remark. What I say is that if the Crown unreasonably denies to an individual the light to go into court and claim compensation for damages which he sustains at the hands of the Crown, it is an outrage; and when the Ontario government asked the legislature of that province to take away the property of the Florence Mining Company and to declare that that company should not have the right to go into a court of law, I say that was an outrage which reflects upon the standing and the respectability of the legislature.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: What about the Canada Life Bill?


William Pugsley: The Canada Life Bill was different. It was simply confirming what all the parties interested had been doing for many years, and what they regarded as t.he rights of the respective parties. However, Mr. Chairman, perhaps we had better proceed with the clock at Lunenburg.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend's supporters in the Ontario legislature never suggest or attempted to suggest anything like my hon. friend has said. They endorsed the government throughout.


George Perry Graham: I take exception absolutely to that statement, and I know.


Richard Blain: So do I know. My hon. friend knows all about it until his party

was defeated in the Ontario legislature, but he does not know all about it since then because new methods have been adopted.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I think the discussion has been allowed to continue longer than is proper, and I would ask the committee to resume consideration of the item.


Richard Blain: We require some information about this clock matter. No doubt as election time approaches, there will be more clocks supplied. I would like to know what is the policy of the department with respect to purchasing clocks that cost $1,600. Is there to be a public competition or are government supporters to be selected and specially favoured?


William Pugsley: The usual policy of the department is to call for tenders, but when we require a special kind of clock made by a special manufacturer the price of which we know, and where the cost is under $5,000, we might very well do just what we did in this case, and give the order to a reliable man to obtain the clock from England.


Richard Blain: Does the minister know how much this clock would cost at the factory?


William Pugsley: In England? The chief architect would have that information.


Richard Blain: That is information which the committee ought to be given. Here is a clock which cost $1,600, not made in Canada, the minister said he knew the price, but now he tells us the chief architect would know. Why did the minister not buy direct instead of through some middleman and party supporter in Halifax?


William Pugsley: The clock had to be installed by some competent man in this country, and we employed a reliable clock-dealer to purchase and install the clock. After recess, I will get the information from the chief architect.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Does the hon. minister intend going through the New Brunswick public buildings this evening? I ask because I unfortunately have an unavoidable engagement which would prevent my being here, and I would be much obliged to the minister if he would take up something else.


William Pugsley: With the consent of the committee, I would agree that every opportunity be given my hon. friend to discuss the New Brunswick items on some other item. He does not, I presume, hope to prevent any of these items from passing.


John Waterhouse Daniel: No, but I desire to have information.


Morley Currie: Let one item stand and the others can be discussed on that one.


William Pugsley: That is objectionable because when a sub item is left, the resolution does not pass. But upon any of the Prince Edward Island items, or the British Columbia items, my hon. friend can discuss the New Brunswick items.


John Waterhouse Daniel: But the items having passed, I might not be able to get the information deshed.


William Pugsley: I will undertake to give any information my hon. friend requires.


Morley Currie: Might I ask the minister when he is going to have a decision on this question of the Hydro-Electric being permitted to connect its wires up in Toronto across the McGann property.


William Pugsley: T have recommended to council that the works be approved of, subject to complying with certain conditions recommended by the engineers of the department.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


William Pugsley: I may say to my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) that I asked Mr. Ewart to look up the papers and get me information as to the cost of the clock n England. But Mr. Ewart has quite a distance to go to his dinner and then he would have to go to the office, so I am without the information at present. Would the hon. gentleman prefer to let this item stand, or allow it to pass with the understanding that the information will'be given later?


Richard Blain: I am not particular.


John Stanfield: As to the electric wiring, were tenders called for?


William Pugsley: Mr. Ewart is getting information as to that as well.


John Stanfield: Better let it stand.
Parrsboro public building, $15,000.


William Pugsley: The site has been purchased and this is to erect the building.


George Taylor: Where is Parrsboro?


William Pugsley: In the county of Cumberland. This amount is a re-vote.


Richard Blain: What did the site cost?


William Pugsley: It cost $3,000 and legal expenses of $28.25. The lot has three frontpages, respectively 69, 96 and 77 feet.


John Stanfield: That seems a pretty good price for a lot in Parrsboro.


William Pugsley: For so large a lot, well situated, I should not think it would be out of the way.


George Taylor: What is the size of Parrsboro?


William Pugsley: In 1901, it was $2,700; pretty close on $3,000 now, no doubt.


George Taylor: That is an awful price for the lot in a town of that size.


William Pugsley: I am sure if my hon.
friend from Cumberland (Mr. Rhodes) were here, he would take a different view.


John Stanfield: We have to take advantage of his absence.


Richard Blain: Who had charge of the purchase on behalf of the government?


William Pugsley: I have not the name, but it was an official of the department.


Richard Blain: Was the site purchased from the owner direct, or was there a mid-lemian?


William Pugsley: There was no middleman.


Richard Blain: Has the minister the particulars of the purchase before him?


William Pugsley: Only that the lot was purchased from Mrs. Vickery. Authority was given in 1908 for purchase at $3,000. Purchase was made on the recommendation of an official of the department and was completed through the Justice Department in the ordinary way.
Wolfville public building, $20,000.


William Pugsley: Of this amount, $13,000 is a re-vote. Wolfville is a very fine town, the site of Acadia college. We have acquired a very good site.	s


Richard Blain: What is the population of Wolfville?


William Pugsley: About 1,500.


George Taylor: That is only a village.


William Pugsley: It is more than that. It is an educational centre and well worthy of the building we propose to give it.


Richard Blain: Has the site been purchased?


William Pugsley: Yes.


George Taylor: What was paid for it?


William Pugsley: It is an unusually fine site. The price was $4,000. There is a frontage on Main street of 171 feet with a width at the back of 197 feet, the depth on the east side is 212 feet and on the west side 220 feet-about an acre of land.


William Pugsley: 


John Stanfield: Are the plans made for the building?


William Pugsley: They are in course of preparation.


John Stanfield: I suppose it will be the ordinary style of building, with accommodation for the custom house up-stairs.


William Pugsley: Yes, and for inland revenue also.


John Stanfield: In my own town, some of us are getting old, and we find it hard to climb the stairs. I should think that in Wolfville with such a large lot, it might be possible to have the custom house on the ground floor.


William Pugsley: I do not think the people should complain at climbing one flight.


Richard Blain: What will be the cost of the building?


William Pugsley: The plans are not completed, but the idea is to erect a building that will cost about $30,000, not including the site.


Richard Blain: What about a clock for this place?


William Pugsley: I have not considered that subject. I regret to say the demand for clocks is increasing.


Richard Blain: If the minister does decide to put in a clock, how will he go about it?


William Pugsley: I should be guided by circumstances, and actuated by the sole desire to get a clock at the cheapest possible price.	.


John Stanfield: When the minister is planning for the building, he should make provision for a clock. I should like to have a clock in the public building in my own town, Truro, but there is no place for it.


William Pugsley: A good many of the buildings erected twenty years or so ago v'ere built with towers in which the opening was carefully left for the clock-face, but creeks were not put in, and now demands are being made upon me to fill these places.


John Stanfield: The hon. minister must remember that he belonged to the Conservative side of the House at that time and so was responsible.


William Pugsley: I am glad my hon. friend has somebody upon whom to place responsibility.
Yarmouth public building, $2,500.


William Pugsley: It is thought that this would be- sufficient to make the repairs needed in the Yarmouth public building, but since these estimates were made up it has been pressed upon out consideration by the member for Yarmouth that there

should he a very considerably greater addition to the public building there, and it is not impossible that, in the supplementary estimates I may ask for a larger appropriation. The accommodation afforded by this building is very limited, and the business is increasing rapidly. I think we shall have to give them a substantial addition instead of the comparatively small repairs that we proposed to make.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Miller).: Will the minister go back and take up the Lunenburg item?


William Pugsley: I think we had better pass that.


John Stanfield: It was asked to stand.


William Pugsley: Better let it go through, with the understanding that the matter can be further discussed on some other item.


John Stanfield: I would sooner see it stand. We can take it up later in the evening, can't we?


Clarence Jameson: Does the minister intend making provision for a public building at Weymouth? I do not see any item for Weymouth in the estimates, but there is need for a public building there. The post office and custom house are in two different buildings, both rented. The requirements of the place are such as to warrant a moderate expenditure for a public building to house both these offices as well as the inland revenue office. I submitted to the minister some data showing the revenues of the post office and customs house, and also the population to be served, and I hope the minister has given the matter some consideration. Perhaps he can say what conclusion he has reached.


William Pugsley: I have not yet decided what will be done in regard to a public building at Weymouth.


Clarence Jameson: When will the minister arrive at a decision?


William Pugsley: That is a hard question to ask.


Clarence Jameson: It is not a hard question to ask, although it may be hard to answer.


William Pugsley: There aTe so many public buildings one cannot say when we will decide a certain matter.


Clarence Jameson: Has the minister considered the matter at all yet?


William Pugsley: I have thought of it, yes.


Clarence Jameson: The minister seems to have derived a good deal of satisfaction from the thought he has bestowed on it, if one may judge from the merry twinkle in his eye.	*


William Pugsley: There is more twinkle on the other side of the House.


Clarence Jameson: If the minister visits Weymouth he will find there is a great necessity for such a building, and I hope he will give it his early consideration.


William Pugsley: What is the population to be served?


Clarence Jameson: The population to be served is about 1,500.


William Pugsley: That would be more than the town of Weymouth, the town is smaller than that.


Clarence Jameson: It is not an incorporated town.


William Pugsley: It is a village.


Clarence Jameson: Call it a village if you like, it is as well entitled to be called a town and deserves the consideration of the minister as well as these other towns to which he has alluded, and for which he has made provision. I register a request to that end now.
Prince Edward Island-Summerside armoury, $7,000.


William Pugsley: This is a revote.


Mr. FRASER.: Have tenders been called for?


William Pugsley: Under the vote of last year tenders were called for this building, and we are asking $7,000 to complete the contract.


Clarence Jameson: Has the site been chosen?


William Pugsley: Yes, and the contract let.
Tignish public building, $11,000.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is the population of Tignish?


William Pugsley: It is difficult to give the population, it is not an incorporated town but there is quite a large settlement which is known as Tignish, and which is quite an important place. The money orders issued last year were $16,953, and money orders paid $10,745.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What was the revenue?


William Pugsley: Post office $988, and customs $2,141.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is the population?


William Pugsley: I have not the population. There are six stores, two canning factories, two hotels, two churches, a newspaper-it is a very thickly settled district.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It cannot be very thickly settled with a revenue of $980 in the post office. What will the building cost?


William Pugsley: My idea would be about


Austin Levi Fraser: What is the fact?


William Pugsley: When I give an idea it may be taken as pretty nearly the fact.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The minister should tell us what he intends to spend here.


William Pugsley: The instructions to the chief architect will be to erect a building not to exceed $15,000.


Clarence Jameson: Have tenders been called?


William Pugsley: Not yec.
_ Mr. STANFIELD. In what papers do you intend to advertise?


William Pugsley: In a reasonably large number, sufficient to answer the purpose.


John Stanfield: I notice that when some work was being done by another de-pai'tment at Truro tenders were advertised for in the New Glasgow and Halifax papers, although the work cost only a few thousand dollars, but not in the Truro ' Daily News,' a good independent paper which we have at Truro, with one of the largest circulations in the maritime provinces. I am only throwing out this suggestion in case a similar situation should arise in the minister's department.
New Brunswick-Campbellton public building, $30,000.


William Pugsley: This is to take the place of the public building destroyed by the recent fire in Campbellton.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is this building to cost?


William Pugsley: The contract without the fittings is for $28,592.


John Stanfield: You own the land?


Mr PUGSLEY.: Yes.


George Halsey Perley: How long is the contractor given to complete the building?


William Pugsley: Until December 25, 1911.


George Halsey Perley: Is there any penalty?


William Pugsley: No, there is no penalty clause.


George Halsey Perley: Why not?


William Pugsley: It has not been customary.


George Halsey Perley: The minister must know that the government would get a great deal better work and their buildings would be erected in more reasonable time if they had Mr. PUGSLEY.
a penalty. I cannot understand why the government should not insert a penalty of so much per day as other people do, and I would like to know why It was thought best not to. do this?


William Pugsley: The reason is that it has not been found, except in rare instances, that there has been any public inconvenience caused by delays of contractors. Those erecting public buildings are pretty well up to date as a rule, it is to their interest to complete the building as quickly as possible, we keep back a percentage of the progress estimates, and I presume that has been the reason it has never been the rule in the Public Works Department to put in a penalty clause for the non-completion of a building. My hon. friend says it is customary in the case of private contracts. I do not know how it is in this part of the country, but in the province of New Brunswick I have known penalty clauses to be inserted, but I cannot call to mind a single case where the penalty has been exacted. It would never be exacted unless there had been unreasonable and unjustifiable delay on the part of the contractor. It is not worth wdiile putting anything in a contract that you are not going to enforce.


George Halsey Perley: The minister says that there has been no public inconvenience from delay in completing a building. He makes that statement without any evidence whatever.


William Pugsley: Except in rare instances, I say.


George Halsey Perley: If he will look at the files of the department he will find that he is mistaken about this matter. A penalty clause for delay may not be enforced except under extraordinary circumstances, but at the same time the owner of the property, by having a penalty clause, has an argument or a club over the contractor to get him to finish his building when he agrees. This afternoon we had a discussion with regard to the Halifax public building, which was behind time, and it is an immense inconvenience to the public. I will recall to the minister's mind the Ottawa post office here, which was a scandal. None of us in this city could understand why it took such a long time to restore that building after it had been burned, and, therefore, I cannot agree with the minister. It seems to me that even if he does not enforce this penalty except under extraordinary circumstances it would be for the benefit of the public service, and I am sure that many instances could be given where the public has been inconvenienced from not having buildings completed in time. The post office in Ottawa was a special case in point and there never seemed 'to be any reason why it should be so.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend suggests the best possible reason why a penalty should not be inserted. He says that it would not be exacted except under extraordinary circumstances. What a lever it would place in the hands of the minister to give him power to exact a penalty or not just as he pleased, if the contractor is behind time! You place a penalty clause of $25 a day in the contract and the minister can exact it as he pleases or may be the judge as to whether the circumstances were extraordinary or whether there was reasonable ground for the delay. My own idea is that whatever we put in a contract with the government shall be enforced under all circumstances and against everybody and that there shall be no lever left in the hands of the minister. If we put in a penalty clause we should enforce it. But it would be a very harsh thing to do. It might cause great hardship and be ruinous to contractors. We would have to put it in in the case of a small building as well as a large building. We would have to make the penalty commensurate with the size of the contract. If it were a large contract we would have to have a penalty of $25, $50 or $100 per day, in smaller contracts proportionately less, and in many cases to enforce it would simply mean ruin to the contractors. Notwithstanding the case to which the hon. gentleman has referred, I have since I have been minister, known very few instances in which the public have suffered any inconvenience by reason of delay in the completion of a contract.


George Halsey Perley: What about the Halifax building?


William Pugsley: That is one that my hon. friend referred to.


George Halsey Perley: The minister makes an extraordinary argument. He says that he should not have anything in the contract but what he proposes to enforce. He brings in a contract for a public building at Campbellton which is to be finished next fall, and at the same time he practically tells the contractor that he can finish the building whenever he pleases, that there is no method of making him finish it at the time the contract calls for, that, in other words, the contractor can please himself as to when he will finish the public building, in the meantime the public can suffer and the minister has no power to enforce the contract.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Does the minister not appreciate that he can trust himself to use discretion in the matters that he has spoken of? Does he think that he could not trust himself to use discretion? The minister says that it would never do in all cases to exact the penalty. Supposing it was a glaring case, where a man 514
was not trying to finish his contract, either from taking advantage of the fact that the government might or might not exact the penalty, or was assuming that the government would not exact the penalty, would it not be a good thing in the interest of the public if the minister would exercise discretion as to having the penalty exacted? Could we not trust the minister to exact the penalty or to refrain from exacting it for a good cause, the onus always being on the man in default? It would seem to me that my hon. friend from Argente'uil (Mir. Perley) is quite right in saying that there should be a penalty clause. If the minister has that penalty clause he has it in his power, if it is a case where there is no excuse for the man delaying and therefore where morally as well as legally it should be exacted, to enforce it. But the converse is that when he has no penalty, because in some cases it might be harsh to enforce it, even when it is not harsh and^ its enforcement would be just and equitable, he is entirely remedyless. It is like a judge having no criminal code behind him to inflict punishment on somebody who has been proven guilty of a criminal offence. I cannot understand the hon. gentleman's argument that it would be doing anything wrong to have power to enforce a penalty unless it is that the hon. gentleman cannot trust himself to enforce it properly and equitably or to refrain from enforcing it.


William Pugsley: Suppose that in the contract it was provided that for every day's default in the completion of a work the contractor should be liable to the Crown for a penalty of $25 per day, what right would I have as minister to give away that $25? What right would I have to exercise discretion?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The minister has the right which the existence of the Crown gives him, and the government do it every day. The government refrains from exercising rights every day against people, and they justify it by saying that there were peculiar and special circumstances why they did not enforce the rights of the Crcwn. Every day the right hon. gentleman and his government are not insisting against subjects upon things that technically they could insist upon. It is the prerogative of the Crown to say that it is not fair to a subject under certain circumstances to insist upon what it could legally exact. Could we not trust this government to say, the onus being upon the man who was in default technically, that the circumstances being such as to justify mercy, so to speak, we shall exercise our discretion and shall not insist upon a penalty? Surely the government could do that. That has

beer, going on practically every day since this government has been in power; it lias refiained from exercising the rights which it possessed. What about the Grand Trunk Pacific? Did we not have rights against the Grand Trunk Pacific that a year or two later we were told that it was not fair to enforce? We gave away some millions of the people's money because the govern-mnt said that it was not fair to hold them to the strict letter of the contract.


William Pugsley: If I remember, the hon. gentleman did not approve of that?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not understand what the hon. gentleman means. _ I did not approve of this government doing things without a good excuse, and there was no good excuse for handing over that many mere millions of dollars to the Grand Tiunk Pacific. If there had been a good reason I would have been with the hon. gentleman in doing it. I am not saying that the hon. gentleman should do it where there is no good moral reason, but he is saying that even when there is good moral reason he should not have the power to enforce it. I say that he should have the power unless he has no faith in himself. The only answer is that he seems to believe that he would not be able to do justice to the people if he had that power. A lot of the other people think that is so, but I am astonished to^ find that the hon. gentleman puts himself in that position. I would think that while wo have responsible government, that government ought to be able to do justice as the circumstances warrant. They could determine whether it was a case in which the penalty should be enforced, the onus always being upon a person who was liable for the penalty to show good reason for not having it enforced against him. I cannot help but say that I think the reason for not putting in a penalty clause seems to be a deliberate refusal to protect the people of the country by having it in the power of the government to hurry on construction. Compare the progress made on the Chateau Laurier, in this city, with the progress made on the Museum, one built by a private corporation and the other by the government. Here we have exactly similar local conditions, but the Grand Trunk hotel has gone ahead ten times as fast as the Museum. Of course, there are no elections coming off, rnd the Grand Trunk can go ahead with its building and do business in a businesslike way, but the government has to delay for political exigencies.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman knows perfectly well that a penalty clause would not be effective unless it provided that the amount of the penalty should be regarded as liquidated damages. I apprehend that as a matter of law it would be Mr. LANCASTER.
the duty of the Minister of Public Works to deduct an amount as liquidated damages,
for every day's delay, from ths balance due on the contract.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Unless good cause were shown to the contrary.


William Pugsley: If that were in the contract you might waive the penalty, but if it is in the contract that there shall be a penalty of say, $50 a day which shall be deemed liquidated damages no Minister of Public Works has the right to waive it, and it would be the duty of the minister to deduct that from the balance due on the contract. My hon. friend forgets that in respect to public buildings every contractor is obliged to have a security deposit for the completion of the contract. If there be any case of outrageous delay

which is the only case in which he says one ought to enforce a penalty-it is quite within the power of the minister to give notice to the contractor, take the work off his hands, let it to a new contractor and charge up against the security deposit and against apy balance due on progress estimates, what it may cost to complete the work. It has been found in the experience of the past, under the former government as well as this, that a penalty clause such as the hon. gentleman refers to is not necessary. There have been a very few instances since I have been minister in which the position of the public would have been in any way benefited by having a penalty clause.


George Halsey Perley: If the work is not completed within the time mentioned in the contract is this deposit to be forfeited to the Crown?


William Pugsley: If the minister takes the steps which the contract provides for by giving the contractor notice and taking the work off his hands, the minister has a right to look to the security cheque.


George Halsey Perley: That is for the completion of the contract, but not for the delay.


William Pugsley: Yes.


George Halsey Perley: In the present contract
there is -a clause which gives the option to the minister to take the contract over and complete it, but at the same time he says he does not think it would be proper for him to insert a penalty clause which he could enforce if a contractor were abusing his privileges.


William Pugsley: I said that I did not
think the minister should be free to exercise his judgment as to whether or not he should enforce a penalty clause. I said if it were made, as it ought to be made, in the nature of liquidated damages, it ought to be enforced in every case irrespective of

whether the contractor was a friend or a foe, or whether he was a strong man or a weak man.


George Halsey Perley: The same argument whicli
applies to the deposit for non-completion of the contract should apply to penalty for delay to complete the contract within the stipulated time. What difference in principle is there between the two things. The minister can now exercise his option to take over the contract and that is a far more severe proceeding for the contractor than a penalty clause would be.


Mr. HENDERSON.: Leaving all these theoretical ideas aside does the minister not think that this is a very special case. In Campbellton all the buildings in the town were wiped out by fire, and since then the people must have been suffering great inconvenience in using a temporary post office. For that reason if for no other does not the minister think that special means should have been taken in this case to have the new post office speedily constructed, and no better means could be taken than those suggested by the hon. member for Argenteuil?	,


William Pugsley: I am happy to say, from my knowledge of the contractor in this case, that I have not the slightest doubt but that this building will be completed in good time. My hon. friend need have no fear upon that point.


George Halsey Perley: That is a very poor excuse. A great many of these contractors are very good men, but it is notorious that it takes longer to erect a government building than a building for a private party. The reason is that the contractor can practically finish a government building whenever he pleases. There is no penalty if he does not complete it within the stipulated time, and he does whatever best suits him. If a contractor is erecting a building for me, and another building for the government, and I am pressing him to complete he will devote his attention to my building simply because I will not stand for the delay, but the government will be satisfied and he can take as much time as he likes. This is a very special case, and it is very necessary that the people of Campbellton should have that public building completed immediately. I ask the minister now to put a penalty clause in the contract if the building is not completed in time.


William Pugsley: I cannot make an exception in one special case, and besides the contract for this building has already been signed.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The matter becomes worse in view of the minister's last statement that he signed this contract before
getting the estimate before the House. He is very much afraid of putting >a clause in the contract that would be harsh to the contractor ; but he has very little respect apparently for the people of this country.


William Pugsley: It was done under a Governor-General's warrant in accordance with the law.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: And we are told that a certain condition cannot be put in now because the contract has been made.


William Pugsley: What would have been the use of obtaining a Governor General's warrant to proceed as rapidly as possibly with the building if we waited until the Supply Bill passed, which would be in the latter part of next spring?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: To get 'back to the hon. gentleman's statement, what would be the use of haste unless you did compel the contractor to hurry up the work and to pay a penalty if he did not hurry it up? According to the hon. gentleman's own statement, expedition was needed, and therefore a Governor General's warrant had to be got, and yet he is afraid to put in a penalty clause to compel the contractor to finish the work speedily. I think the hon. gentleman becomes more inconsistent every time he tries to justify this matter


George Halsey Perley: I understand that none of the government buildings are insured, and therefore, I assume that this was a total loss to the government.


William Pugsley: Yes.


George Halsey Perley: Can the minister tell us how it happened that this building was burned?


William Pugsley: The whole town of Campbellton was destroyed, only five or six buildings being left in the town limits.
Chatham public	building-enlargement,


William Pugsley: This is to make a very necessary enlargement of the public building of Chatham. It is occupied for the post office, and also for the staff of the Public Works Department, the resident engineer of which resides at Chatham. They are very much cramped for room, and it is absolutely essential to make this addition. It is proposed to build an extension upon land which has been purchased. Two lots were purchased, one for $200, and the other for $2,800. It is estimated that the total cost will be $12,000.


Clarence Jameson: What is the population of Chatham?


William Pugsley: About 6,000, or possibly 7,000.


George Halsey Perley: This estimate is to cover the entire cost of the building?


William Pugsley: Yes.


George Halsey Perley: No money has been spent up to date?


William Pugsley: No, except to buy the land.
Fairville public building, $15,000.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is that to cost?


William Pugsley: My impression is aibont $25,000.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is the population?


William Pugsley: It is a manufacturing town. The population is about 3,500, including the villages surrounding, which for all practical purposes are a part of Fairville.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is the revenue from the post office?


William Pugsley: For 1909-10, $1,891.


George Halsey Perley: What county is it in?


William Pugsley: The county of St. John, on the west side of t'he river.


George Halsey Perley: Has the minister any rule in erecting these public buildings, as to the population, or the postal revenue of the town, and is the cost of the building proportionate to the size of the town?


William Pugsley: To the last question I would answer yes. To the first I would say there is no settled rule as to population, hut we are not in the habit of erecting public buildings at places of less than from 1,500 to 3,000 people. There are very few places in which we erect public buildings where the population is less than 1,500. It is only in rare instances that we erect public buildings where the population does not greatly exceed that. In the shire town of a county a public building might be erected though the population was less than that. We do have regard to the population and the business being done, and the postal revenue also. In Fairville there are eight lumber .manufacturing mills employing, before the Cushing mill was closed, 980 men.


An hon. MEMBER.: What is the customs?


William Pugsley: There is no custom house at Fairville. The people do their customs business in the city of St. John.


George Halsey Perley: When was this amount first voted?


William Pugsley: In 1908.


George Halsey Perley: Can the minister tell us what the revenue was then?


William Pugsley: 


George Halsey Perley: 


George Halsey Perley: Does the minister think that a $25,000 building is necessary where the revenue amounts to only $1,800?


William Pugsley: That depends on circumstances. Fairville is an important place, and I think it is not an unreasonable expenditure.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The employees of these lumber mills evidently post their letters in the city of St. John when the rev-nue is so small at Fairville.


William Pugsley: I see that the money rders increased in one year by about $1,00, and the postal revenue increased somewhat too. It is a growing town.


George Halsey Perley: Will the minister tell us why this building was not started before, if the money was voted two years ago?


William Pugsley: The reason is that the chief architect has been very busy getting ready plans and specifications for other buildings, and I thought my constituents would forgive me if I allowed this building to wait.
Fredericton public building-Government share of cost of permanent pavement put down by municipal corporation on Queen and Car-leton streets, $1,816.98.


William Pugsley: This is to pay the balance of the amount we agreed to pay the city of Fredericton for the granolithic pavement in front of the public building.


John Stanfield: Does this include the roadway as well as the sidewalk?


William Pugsley: Yes.


John Stanfield: We will send in a bill from our own town for a roadway in front of the public building.


Morley Currie: Is it the policy of the Public Works Department to pay for the permanent pavements 'and sidewalks in front of the Dominion public buildings throughout the country?


William Pugsley: It has been the practice to contribute a portion of the cost.


Morley Currie: What proportion ?	r


William Pugsley: Usually we provide half the cost of the frontage.


Morley Currie: Is that course pursued in other cities?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Morley Currie: Is it followed in Toronto?


William Pugsley: I do not know that Toronto has asked for it.


Morley Currie: I suppose Toronto will be reimbursed in the same way as Halifax and these other places.


William Pugsley: That does not follow. It will be time to consider that when .Toronto city makes any claim.


Morley Currie: I am just putting a hypothetical case.


William Pugsley: But I am not in the mood to-night for inviting municipalities to make claims against the government.


Morley Currie: But the hon. gentleman forgets that we had a return of expenditures on these post offices brought down last year. The excuse given for the increase in the expenditures on the postal service was the number of post offices opened in the Northwest Territories, but when the return was brought down we were amazed to find that the post offices in Manitoba and the Northwest were all paying good dividends. The proportion of expenditure to revenue was as 90 to 100. Where the vast losses have occurred is in the eastern provinces. I do not wish to be provincial or narrow, but when the minister is distributing favours in the shape of post offices, he should consider those sections where the postal service gives a revenue over expenditure. As regards those pavements. I recollect the government refusing to pay anything for pavements in front of public buildings in Ontario.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend is entirely mistaken. In the estimates of last year he will find some amount for that very purpose.


Morley Currie: Would the hon. minister come down to particulars?


William Pugsley: Take the case of Stratford, we paid a portion of the cost of paving there. Take the city of Ottawa, we agreed to pay what is called the local improvement tax, although under the British North America Act we are not legally bound.


Morley Currie: That was the first time you did it.


William Pugsley: I do not know, but there must always be a first time. My hon. friend will find that in other places, where the circumstances made the pav-ment a proper one, we did pay a portion of the cost of paving. I believe, however, that the old Conservative government refused to pay, and perhaps that is what my hon. friend has in mind. We, however, have adopted a different policy. I am of the opinion that, notwithstanding the provisions of the British North America Act, this government ought to pay its fair share of improvements in the way of granolithic pavements in front of its buildings.


Andrew Broder: In putting up a new building, the government always more or less damages the street in front.


Morley Currie: Would I be unkind in calling attention to the fact that the hon. minister was a very devoted supporter of the old government to which he refers.


William Pugsley: What has that to do with the action of this government? I am not finding fault with the old government. It was right under the British North America Act, but what I say is that we are proceeding on broader lines of equity, justice and fair play to the municipalities.


Richard Blain: The old government, in many cases, was just as generous as my hon. friend's in that respect.


William Pugsley: I was not blaming the old government.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The sum of $2,094 already paid was in part payment for this pavement.


William Pugsley: Yes, and this is to provide for the balance.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: That would make the government share of paving these streets about $4,800.


William Pugsley: Yes. In Fredericton there is not only the post office and custom house, but the militia building and barracks, and this includes pavements for the frontage of all these different properties.
Grand Falls public buildings, $15,900.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is this to cost?


William Pugsley: The contract price is $17,777.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is the population?


William Pugsley: In 1901 it was 1,897, and
it must have increased since at least 50 per cent. Grand Fails is growing very well indeed. There is almost an absolute certainty that in the very near future an undertaking will be established by a company for the development of Grand Falls, which is perhaps the finest water-power next to Niagara. The company are to establish a pulp and paper mill with a capacity of 200 tons per day. Grand Falls is not only an important place to-day, but has apparently a splendid future.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What was the revenue?


William Pugsley: $3,318 and the money orders $85,000.
Hampton public buildings, $3,000.


William Pugsley: This is for the erection of a small building for a post office. Hampton is a shire town-an important village. The population in 1901 was over 2,000. The

intention is to put up a neat building which will cost probably $5,000.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is the revenue?


William Pugsley: It is not large. It was $660 and money orders $12,450.


Richard Blain: In what county is it?


William Pugsley: Kings County. It is the shire town.


Richard Blain: Has the site been purchased?


William Pugsley: Not yet. I have a little hope that possibly the railway department may furnish the site on a very pretty square opposite the railway station. If not we will buy a site in the immediate vicinity.


David Henderson: I have noticed that the minister frequently justifies the erection of these public buildings by saying that they are to be erected in shire towns. Are we to assume that his policy is to erect a post office in every county town ? And, if that is the rule for the province in which he lives, I ask the minister how he reconciles it with the fact that he does not apply that rule to other provinces.


William Pugsley: For instance, what place?


David Henderson: I am not going to mention any particular place, for I am not asking the hon. gentleman for a post office-not necessarily, we are getting along fairly well, and I presume that if I did ask him to erect a post office in the county town of the county I represent, the Minister of Finance would come down later in the session and charge me with trying to increase the public expenditure. But the fact remains that the shire town of the county I represent is about three times the size of the town under discussion, is altogether an important town and has been a county town for upwards of fifty years.


William Pugsley: May I ask the name of that town?


David Henderson: The hon. gentleman can guess it. He speculates a good deal, and I think he is a pretty good guesser. I have no doubt he has the name in his mind at this moment, and it is unnecessary for me to give it. But that is not the question: The question is, how does he reconcile the fact that every shire town in the province of New Brunswick is to have a public building, even though that town may be a place of only seven hundred people and with a small revenue, when he does not apply that rule in other provinces? I do not think he should give the fact of a town being a shire town as the reason for the erection of a post office there unless he is Mr. PUGSLEY.
prepared to follow the same rule in other provinces. I do not think it is a good reason. I will just wait a moment for the hon. minister's answer to my question.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend (Mr. Henderson) will doubtless remember that the Finance Minister, last session, or the session before, laid down what he thought, and what I feel sure his colleagues agree, would be a very safe rule to follow in these matters. He said it would not be unreasonable to erect one public building in a county where there was not absolutely good postal accommodation otherwise, and that a place which was a shire town other things being fairly equal, had the strongest claim to such public buildings. I entirely agree with the Minister of Finance, and I think I may say the same of all the members of the government. Let me say to the hon. member (Mr. Henderson) there are no two rules, the principle would apply to every county of Ontario, as well as of other provinces. Might I, while on my feet, without being too persistent, and without inviting any discourtesy from the hon. gentleman, ask him if he will tell me the name of the shire town of his county?


David Henderson: I think it is unnecessary.


William Pugsley: I think it is Milton.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: A pretty good guesser.


William Pugsley: I may say, while I speak only for myself-and hitherto I did only speak for myself-that I feel that Milton had very strong claims for a public building. My hon. friend (Mr. Henderson) used formerly to rather advocate the claims of Milton. But I observe that to-night he intimates that Milton does not want a public building, that it is getting on pretty well and has sufficient postal accommodation. I should be sorry to consider a useless expenditure of public money in the town of Milton. But I was anxious to know if that was the town to which the hon. gentleman referred.


David Henderson: I do not wish the minister to go away with the idea that I made any statement to the effect that I would not like to see a post office erected in the town of Milton. But I have been asking for justice for that town ever since this government came into power, and I will not go on asking. I am not a beggar, and the county of Halton or the town of Milton dees not need that I should beg on its behalf. There is a fairly good post office building, rented by the government. But the people will be glad to have a public building erected, Understand, I am not begging the minister to do it, for I have been refused so often that my pride forbids me to repeat the request. But I can tell

th(- minister that the time will come when the town of Milton will get a public building, and it may not be so very far off either. I do not expect that the town will receive justice from the present ministry, at least so long as I represent the county. But I am going to represent the county as long as I think fit, and if he thinks he will punish the town and the county because the people choose to make me their representative, he can do so. I do not think he will compel the people to change their course by any such line of policy. Certainly, they have shown no sign of being influenced in that direction. But I must say the minister has not given a satisfactory answer to my question; he has not explained how it is that in one province a small town with a small revenue is given a public building and in another province a town three times as large, and a county town, is given no consideration at all.
Hartland public building, $15,000.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is this building to coat?


William Pugsley: The contract is for $16,700.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is the population?


William Pugsley: In 1904 it was 700. It is quite a rapidly growing town, and, though I do not know its present population, I suppose it would be in the vicinity of 1,000 or 1,200.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is the postal revenue?


William Pugsley: It is $1,955; money orders, $22,000.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is this a shire town?


William Pugsley: No. This building is intended to accommodate also the militia, affording a place for the storage of arms and equipment.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: In what county is it?
Alr.^ PUGSLEY. Carleton. Hartland is a rapidly growing town, where considerable business is done.


Oliver James Wilcox: Any customs?


William Pugsley: No customs at present, but I think the building is intended for customs as well.


Morley Currie: Is there any inland revenue?


William Pugsley: Yes, there is inland revenue. The building is for post office and customs purposes and also for armoury accommodation for E Company of the 67th Regiment, Carleton Light Infantry. The contract price, $16,000, includes both heating and lighting. We have
adopted a plan which from remarks in the House I think will meet with approval, of letting contracts in such a way that they include heating and lighting.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Would the minister explain the principle underlying the erection of these buildings? In this instance Hampton has a population of 2,000 and a revenue of $660, and gets a $5,000 building. Hartland has a population of 700 and a revenue of $1,900 and gets a $16,000 building. If it is owing to the larger revenue that Hartland gets the more expensive building I can understand it. I realize that if people are businesslike and doing a great deal of business, 1,000 people may be using the post office and contributing to the revenue as much as 2,000 less progressive people in some other part of the country.


William Pugsley: The circumstances in the two towns are a little different. While the population of Hampton is what is given here it is more scattered than the population of Hartland and the revenue is smaller. Then it may be that a considerable number of people having their homes at Hampton do their postal business at St. John, some 20 miles away. The people there are desirous of having a suitable post office but they will not require it for customs or inland revenue purposes, while the building at Hartland is to be used for that purpose and also as an armoury. Prominent citizens of Hampton represented to me that probably it would not be necessary to have caretaker's quarters in the building and that a one-story building with a basement, costing $5,000, would answer their purpose. At Hartland it is different. The revenue there is three times as great and, as I said, the building is for post office, inland revenue, customs and armoury purposes, all of which add to the cost. My hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell) perhaps could give some further information on the subject.


Mr. CARVELL.: I have no further information. I have no apology. to make for having asked the department to make a grant for a public building in Hartland. Instead of 700 I would say that the population is nearer 1,500. It is not incorporated for municipal purposes but is for fire and water purposes, and I presume the 700 refers to the fire incorporation, which is only the very centre of the town. It is the second largest town in the constituency and from a business standpoint it is very important. There are two large sawmills, a bank, a newspaper, and I suppose a dozen stores of all kinds. It is a live, hustling town and is entitled to what it is getting. I predict that in a few years the revenue will be twice what it

is. There are two companies of militia with headquarters at Hartland and both of these will be housed and quartered in the new building.


Morley Currie: Is it intended to establish a drill shed as well as an armoury?


William Pugsley: No, an armoury. The upper story is to be devoted to the two companies of the militia and the lower story to other public purposes.


Morley Currie: Is there a public building in the county town?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, in the town of Woodstock.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: How far is it from Hartland?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Thirteen miles.


Morley Currie: What is the size of the building? We can build a large building for $15,000 in our part of the country.


William Pugsley: It is to have a frontage of 42 feet on Main street by a depth of 46 feet, two stories in brick with stone basement, basement floor concrete, basement partitions brick. Then there is a four story brick tower on the right anterior angle of the building.


George Halsey Perley: What was the cost of the land for this building?


William Pugsley: 


George Halsey Perley: The minister says that a part of this building is an armoury on account of there being a company of a militia regiment there.


William Pugsley: There are two companies, the member for Carleton says.


George Halsey Perley: Has it been the custom to provide armouries where a company or two of a militia regiment is situated? I have a regiment in my county, a very good one too, and there is no provision of that sort for it. I would like to ask why it is that an armoury should be provided in a small village of this kind, whether it is the custom or whether the minister is making a precedent of it.


William Pugsley: The necessity or desirability of doing this has been pressed upon my attention very strongly not only by some hon. gentlemen, but by the Militia Department. It is felt that if, in connection with public buildings, some suitable provision of a not very expensive character can be made for the accommodation of the militia in these smaller towns, it would be very desirable as giving encouragement to the militia and perhaps as saving the necessity which might exist in the near future of erecting separate buildings for armourv pur-Mr. CARVELL.
poses. I think it is a very good idea. It will certainly be a very great accommodation to the militia and it cannot add very much to the cost of the building.


George Halsey Perley: Does the minister refer to the headquarters of a regiment or to where there is just a company or two?


William Pugsley: I refer to a place just like this where there may be one or two companies. It is not at all undesirable in connection with a public building to add a little more space to give them some suitable place where their arms and equipment can be taken care of.


Richard Blain: Who was the site purchased from?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It was purchased from a life long Conservative without any middleman being employed at all.


Richard Blain: I think that we had better assume that the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) knows more about this building than the minister.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I know all about this building. There were three Liberals who had sites that they wanted to sell, but they were not as suitable as the Conservative's site, and so the Conservative's site was bought.


Richard Blain: Let us look into this.


William Pugsley: There being a Conservative in this, the hon. gentleman thinks that he had better look into it.


Richard Blain: Who carried on the negotiations for the purchase of this site?


William Pugsley: We sent a representative of the department to examine the site- Mr. D. H. Waterbury, of St John.


Richard Blain: Was the hon. member for Carleton with him?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, I was not with him.


William Pugsley: I may say that the fact that this site was bought from a Conservative is not to be attributed to the fact that Mr. Waterbury was appointed by the Conservative government.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend knows how people change sometimes, having had some experience in that. But we are not debating the political side of it, we are trying to get at facts. When will this building be completed!


William Pugsley: On the 19th February, 1912.


Richard Blain: Have they commenced the work yet?


William Pugsley: No, the contract was only let in November.


Richard Blain: By competition?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Richard Blain: Where were the plans prepared?


William Pugsley: In the department at Ottawa.


Richard Blain: Who is the clerk of works?


William Pugsley: Mr. Macfarlane. And, to give the hon. gentleman information which is not asked for, the wages are $3.50 per day not including Sundays.


Richard Blain: How was he selected, and what were the qualifications?


William Pugsley: I selected him.


Richard Blain: Is he a builder?


William Pugsley: He is a builder.


Richard Blain: Since my hon. friend has furnished the politics-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: He was recommended by a petition signed by all the prominent men of the town, both Liberal and Conservative.


Richard Blain: Is that the way they select them now?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We do things honestly in Carleton county.


Morley Currie: Does that price include the furnishing?


William Pugsley: That includes the heating and lighting.


Morley Currie: The cost, of the building will be approximately $3 per square foot of site, or $9 per square foot of ground area. It must be an exceedingly elaborate building. I do not think that this building here cost $9 per square foot of ground area.


William Pugsley: Can my hon. friend suggest that you ever can get the cost of the building by taking the square area or the ground area?


Morley Currie: My hon. friend knows that that is one of the roughest or quickest ways of calculating the cost of a building.


William Pugsley: That is utterly absurd, you have to have the cubic contents, or the height of the building.


Morley Currie: The minister forgets that I said that each floor would cost $3 per square foot of area.
Hillsborough public building, $15,000.


William Pugsley: This is a revote,


Morley Currie: Has the site been purchased from a Conservative?


William Pugsley: No, this has been obtained from the Albert Manufacturing company.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is the cost of the building? *


William Pugsley: The estimated cost is $20,000. The plans have not been entirely completed yet, we have not called for tenders, but the instructions to the chief architect are to keep the cost to about $20,000.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is the population?


William Pugsley: By the census of 1901, it is 2,907. It is growing somewhat. It is a business centre where is located the Albert Manufacturing Company, a very large concern manufacturing gypsum and finding a market very largely in the United States, and here in the upper provinces.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The same people that you bought the site from?


William Pugsley: They gave the site.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is the reveue of the post office?


William Pugsley: About $1,900. It is to be for the post office and custom house. It is an outport of Moncton. The custom duties were $11,612, money orders issued, $13,411, and money orders paid $7,197.


Richard Blain: Were the plans prepared in Ottawa?


William Pugsley: The plans are being prepared here by the chief architect.


Richard Blain: When will this work be completed?


William Pugsley: It is not under contract yet. We have not called for tenders.


Richard Blain: When does my hon. friend expect to call for tenders?


William Pugsley: In about a month or six weeks the plans and specifications, it is expected, will be ready.


Richard Blain: How did the manufacturing company come to donate the site to the minister's department?


William Pugsley: They are largely interested in the town, and having this land there, and being actuated, by public spirit, the officers of the company expressed a willingness to donate the site. It seemed the most suitable site which could be got.


Richard Blain: It was suggested that the minister construct a wharf for them in return. Is there anything in that?


William Pugsley: No, I do not think there is.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Did they construct one at the same place?


William Pugsley: No, the hon. gentleman is thinking of Pink Rock.


Richard Blain: You did it there?


William Pugsley: No, not for the company.
Moncton armoury, $7,000.


William Pugsley: This will not more than pay for the site. The representative of the Militia Department has recommended a very excellent lot of land in Moncton which we are proceeding to expropriate.


Morley Currie: Is there to be a drill ground?


William Pugsley: There is to be a parade ground.


George Halsey Perley: What will be the total cost?


William Pugsley: We have not yet had the plans prepared.


Richard Blain: Why do you expropriate?


William Pugsley: The hon. Mr. Emmerson, a member of this House, is executor of the estate of the late Mrs. Spurr and he did not feel it would be proper to make any agreement with him, and so the Exchequer Court will value the property.


Richard Blain: Who selected the site?


William Pugsley: Our own representative, and the representative of the Militia Department.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What procedure is taken to fix the price?


William Pugsley: Usually we send an expert from the department to examine t'he available sites. We have at least one exceedingly good man in the department who has had large experience and he makes inquiry and reports. The Spurr estate has expressed a willingness to take $7,000 for this property which has a large area and is quite centrally situated, but we did not feel it would be proper to make an agreement with Mr. Emmerson, although he is simply the executor, having no interest in the property.


Morley Currie: Who is the expert sent by the department?


William Pugsley: Mr. Waterbury, of St. John, the superintendent of buildings for New. Brunswick.


Morley Currie: What is the area?


William Pugsley: I do not know exactly but the deputy tells me he thinks there are over two acres.


Morley Currie: Property appears to be very dear in a town the size of Moncton. The last purchase we made there was at the rate of $23 per foot frontage.
Mr. PUGSLEY


William Pugsley: The population of Moncton is now about 12,000. It was considered desirable to get a lot which would have railway connection for the accommodation of the artillery and we went a little bit out of the business centre and got quite a large area.


Morley Currie: In Toronto, the Militia Department acquired a piece of land, held it for four years, and it is now being resold at a profit of $250,000. In the early days of Winnipeg a large tract of land was secured in the centre of the city, and it is now being sold at a very large profit by the government and land for military purposes is being acquired outside. I should think that the department should acquire a good sized tract of land here because there is no question but that Moncton will be a large city, and if the purchase is made at a reasonable figure the investment may become profitable some day. What troops will be accommodated in Moncton?


William Pugsley: The 74th regiment called the New Brunswick rangers, and the 19th battery of artillery.
St. John drill hall, $100,000.


William Pugsley: This is to supply a want which has been felt for a great many years. Fifteen years ago plans were prepared for a drill hall at St. John, but nothing was done. The site has now been obtained, and pursuant to a vote of last year tenders have been called, and we are about awarding a contract for the construction of a drill hall.


George Halsey Perley: Has the land been purchased"?


William Pugsley: Yes.


George Halsey Perley: I understand there was an agreement with the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Daniel) who cannot possibly be in the House to-night, that one of the New Brunswick items should stand so that he may discuss these matters, and ask any questions he may think necessary. Will this item stand "for that purpose?


William Pugsley: The understanding is that on any item he can ask a question and we have let the Lunenburg item stand.


George Halsey Perley: Can my hon friend (Mr. Daniel) discuss these matters on items for Ontario or Quebec?


William Pugsley: Yes I have no objection to that.


George Halsey Perley: That arrangement will also apply to the hon. member for York, N.B. (Mr. Crocket).


William Pugsley: Certainly.
Tracadie Lazaretto, $5,000.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is the policy of the government in regard to that?


William Pugsley: Lepers are sent there for treatment and for care.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: How is it progressing? Can the hon. gentleman give us any statistics about it?


William Pugsley: I do not know of any cures being effected, but the patients are treated very kindly. I believe the nursing is done by the Sisters of Charity.


Morley Currie: Is there an increase in the number of patients? I see a house is provided for in the vote.


William Pugsley: That is for the medical superintendent.


Mr. FISHER.: The number of patients has been constant ever since I have been in office, varying from 18 to 23.


Morley Currie: Are the accessions from foreigners?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: One or two, but most of the patients are from the provinces down by the sea.	.


Morley Currie: It is supposed that every leper in Canada is there?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes, except the Chinese in British Columbia, who are at D'Arcy Island, and these are returned to China.


Morley Currie: It would facilitate the passage of these items if item 138 were allowed to stand, and those members who are absent were allowed to discuss any vote for public buildings in the maritime provinces on that item.
Mr. PUGSLiEY. I will agree to let item 138 stand, with the understanding that any member can discuss any maritime province building item when we take that up.
Lunenburg public building-improvements, $800.


William Pugsley: I may say to my hon. friend from Peel that the chief architect has not been able yet to get the particulars with regard to the clock, but he will have them when we take up item 138. With regard to the electric wiring I find that tenders were called by public advertisement, and the time for receiving tenders will be up on the 18th instant, and the item of $800 is the estimate of the cost made by the chief architect.


Mr. RHODES.: With regard to the next item, ' Parrsboro public building, $15,000,' I believe this was passed this afternoon; but. with the permission of the committee, as I have only arrived in Ottawa to-night, I would like to ask if the plans have been prepared for that building?


William Pugsley: No.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Are they in process of preparation?


William Pugsley: No, they have not been reached yet.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Is it the intention of the minister to have them prepared at all soon?


William Pugsley: Yes; that is the present intention, in the ordinary course, as soon as they can be reached, that plans and specifications will be prepared.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I take it that no tenders can be called for until those plans have been prepared?


William Pugsley: No, they cannot.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Can the minister give me any idea when those plans in the ordinary course should be ready?


William Pugsley: I am afraid to say, because there are a great many public buildings for which parliament has provided the mcney, and there are a large number for which the chief architect, with his limited staff, has not vet been able to prepare the plans and specifications. Therefore, it will be impossible for me to give my hon. friend definite information to-nigfit. All I can say is that in due course, when the chief architect reaches them, they will he attended to.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The answer of the minister is plausible, but not reasonable, inasmuch as a few moments ago an item was put through for a public building in the town of Hartland, N.B., and I think this is the first time we have had that item before us. In answer to my hon. friend from Peel, the minister informed the House, without the least hesitation, that tenders for that building were called by public advertisement in November, 1910, and that the building would be finished on the 19th of February, 1912. With respect to the Hillsborough public building, he says_ the plans have been prepared, and the building will be finished in a month or six weeks.


William Pugsley: The Hartland item is not- a new item.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: When did it appear before?


William Pugsley: Last session.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Very good, that will not affect the purposes of my argument. In connection with the Parrsboro public building, how old is that vote?


William Pugsley: That was some time ago and the plans are not ready.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: But the minister said that the plans were in process of preparation and would be ready in a month or six weeks. That was the answer he gave and no doubt it was because the constituency was represented by a man behind him.


William Pugsley: No, it was because the chief architect said the plans were in course of preparation.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That is the excuse the hon. minister gives now. This item is a hardy perennial. It made its first appearance in 1907-8, just preceding the last election, and was brought down the last days of the session. In reply to some observations from my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson) the hon. minister then said:
I will not hold my hon. friend responsible for the amount of the expenditure, but under the authority of parliament I shall feel it my duty to proceed as rapidly as possible with the construction of the building.


William Pugsley: What year was that?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: 1907-8, volume seven of ' Hansard,' page 13327. That was just before the last general election. Coming down to last session, the same vote for the same building was under review again, and in reply to a question by the hon. member for Digby (Mr. Jameson) as to when tenders would be asked for, the minister said:
During the coming year, as soon as we get the plans ready.


William Pugsley: As soon as we get the plans^ ready, you must take both together.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Certainly. He said tenders would be asked for during the coming year as soon as they got the plans ready. Now the minister has the audacity to come before this committee and say that the plans were not prepared because the department had a lot of other public works to attend to and each work must be taken in order. That answer is certainly evasive. It is not a proper or a correct answer. Contrast this with the expenditures in Hartland and Hillsborough. In these places the works were initiated last year. If the hon. gentleman does not propose to erect a public building in Parrsboro after buying a site for it, let him have the courage to say so and not tamper with the time of the House. In view of the attitude of the minister, I would be warranted, in justice to my constituents, in telling them that the Minister of Public Works is not serious when he says he intends to erect this public building, and that in all probability it will not be built.
I could not say anything else in view of the various statements made by the minister in' previous years.


William Pugsley: What is the next item, Mr. Chairman?


George Halsey Perley: My hon. friend from Cumberland has made a fair comment and I think is entitled to a reply.


William Pugsley: But he does not leave me any chance to reply. He says he is Mr. RHODES.
I	" ~~

going down to give certain information to the people.


George Halsey Perley: But we should have some specific assurance from the minister regarding his intentions.


William Pugsley: I cannot prevent the hon. gentleman going down and talking to the people.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Does silence give consent?


William Pugsley: Certainly I consent to his going down.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Then 1 take it from the minister that I can go and tell the citizens of Parrsborp which, to use his own words, is a very important and growing town with a population of over 3,000 and entitled to a suitable building for a post office, savings bank and custom house at an expenditure of $30,000-I can go and tell the people of Parrsboro, that, notwithstanding the statement of the Minister made four years ago, and his promise of last year, he only made these statements with the object of deceiving, or worse, the people of that locality. He authorizes me to say this because now he assures me that I can go and tell the people that he does not intend putting up this building.


William Pugsley: I gave the hon. gentleman no such assurance. He did not ask my permission to go down to Cumberland.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Will the minister say that it is his intention to put up'this building?


William Pugsley: I say it would be exceedingly foolish of my hon. friend to go to Cumberland and tell the people there anything of the kind he says he will.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In matters of policy, I have no doubt the minister would be a very apt guide to follow. I admit that as a question of political astuteness and perhaps from a political standpoint, I might be wrong in going to the people of Parrsboro and telling them that the minister does not propose to keep the word he gave on the floor of this House and is simply deceiving the public. But whether my experience in public life should happen to be long or short, I shall leave it _ with the consciousness that I have tried to act squarely, honourably and fairly, and have not twisted and squirmed and smiled at my friends in the rear, and made use of all sorts of cheap platform claptrap. If the minister does not propose to erect this building, let him say so, and not trifle with the committee by these sham statements.


Richard Blain: When will the plans be ready?


William Pugsley: I am not able to say because the chief architect is not able to tell me.


Richard Blain: How is it that other items have been voted on for public buildings and passed long after this one, and the work commenced?


William Pugsley: If my hon. friend had a great many things to do he would do them one by one and not attempt to do them all at once.


Richard Blain: In rotation?


William Pugsley: In rotation.


Morley Currie: Why does the minister not follow that process here? This is one of the oldest items in the estimates. Surely the chief architect could have had these plans prepared inside of three years. He might have taken the blue prints of one of the other public buildings if necessary, unless he was told not to do so.


William Pugsley: Let me say to the hon. gentleman that the minister and the chief architect must be the judges as to the order in which they will take up the preparation of plans for public buildings.


Morley Currie: But a moment ago he said there were a great many public buildings to be erected.


William Pugsley: There are a great many public buildings to be erected, and let me say that the town of Parrsboro' has no greater claim to a public building than the town of Hartland, and the hon. gentleman has no reason to complain. I have said very fairly that the chief architect is proceeding with the preparation of plans for the various public buildings and in due course he will reach this building. Let me say one word to the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Rhodes). The people of Parrsboro' will not suffer in any way by reason of the insinuations, [DOT]and what I think is the somewhat uncalled for conduct of the hon. gentleman. In dealing with Parrsboro' I shall recognize the claims of the people and not be influenced at all by the conduct of the gentleman who is representing them in this parliament.


George Halsey Perley: The hon. minister has told us that the town of Parrsboro' has no more claim than the town of Hart-land. The vote for Parrsboro' was made long before that for the town of Hartland. The population of Parrsboro' is three or four times that of Hartland, and the postal revenue of the town of Parrsboro' is far greater than that of Hartland. In view of these facts will the minister not take back his statement that Parrsboro' is not better entitled to a public building than Hartland?


William Pugsley: I cannot do so.


Morley Currie: I suppose the minister will short-cut matters by saying that if he does not go on with the building this summer the deal is all off.


William Pugsley: I have not said that.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It is pretty evident what the minister means to do, that is, to do on the eve of the next general election what he did on the eve of the last general election, and tell the people that they are going to get this building next year, when the plans are completed. The minister will not say that, according to his present ideas, he is not going to put up the building. I would not say anything as to delay so far as the chief architect is concerned, because I am sure he would have made these plans if he had not been told not to make them.


William Pugsley: He would have had to neglect some other work.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: But, according to my hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Rhodes), the minister stated two or three years ago that the plans would be got ready next year.


William Pugsley: No. Well, perhaps, pretty nearly that.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Entirely that-next year, as soon as the plans could be got
ready.


Richard Blain: He said that last year.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: He said it back in 1907-8.
I will not hold my hon. friend responsible for the amount of the expenditure, but under the authority of parliament I shall feel it my duty to proceed as rapidly as possible with the construction of the building.
Was he serious in making that statement? We must assume that he was. But the architect was not dismissed for disobedience of orders in not making the plans. There was no suggestion that he had been told, to make them and had refused, or that he had asked for help to make them and had been denied. The plans were not made, and no fault was found. Is it not manifest that the architect must have been told not to make them-for, since then, he has made plans for buildings in places of much less importance. There can be no other fair inference than that the making of these plans has been stopped, and that, for the present at all events, the minister does not intend to go on with the building. As an impartial judge, that is the conclusion I should come to. I live hundreds of miles away from Parrsboro' and these other places, and, as an impartial judge, I can come to no other conclusion than that the people * are being trifled with and misled. Whether

intentionally or not, they are being trifled with and misled.


Mr. CONMEE.: Are you quite sure?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I am much sureT than the hon. gentleman (Mr. Conmee) is about these matters. He has his own way of looking at these things, which is neither the people's way nor mine. But I was at out to say to the minister: If Parrsboro' is to be treated in this way, if a building is to be promised and that promise not carried out and yet the minister is not prepared to stand up manfully in this House and say that the building is not to be constructed, is it not plain that the minister's intention is to hold the matter open for another general election, when it is to be agitated again and the silly, worn out argument is to be used that the people must elect a supporter of the government or they will not get the building? This is the argument the Prime Minister had to repudiate when made by one of his ardent supporters in the west.


Mr. PARDEE.: It was not made.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Was the hon. gentleman there?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Yes.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman from West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) wa3 there.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The hon. member for West Lambton was at a meeting where such a statement was not made?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Yes.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: But the hon. gentleman will find in the newspapers on his own side of politics-I am speaking of the statement that


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Never said it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Then, why did the Prime Minister have to disagree with the gentleman who was alleged to have said it. and say that he had no authority for such a statement?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: No, no.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The newspaper reporting the Prime Minister, represented the Prime Minister as saying that the statement was made indiscreetly-


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Never made it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: But the people believe it was made, and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) by his action in regard to Parrsboro' encourages that belief.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: No, no.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: 


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Yes, yes. By his actions, which speak louder than any words, no matter how smoothly he may utter them, though he speaks them with the greatest unction and the blandest of smiles, he convinces the people of the truth of this charge. When a general election was coming on, Parrsboro' was promised a public building next year as soon as the plans could be got ready. But the people did not see fit to elect the candidate the minister wanted them to elect, and the minister, instead of commending their independence and recognizing their right to exercise their franchise in their own way, instead of being big enough to go on with the building as promised, instead even of having the pluck to say that the building would not be constructed, takes up space in the estimates and takes up the time of this House in discussions as to whether this is to be built or not


William Pugsley: I have not taken up one-fifth of the time taken up by hon. gentlemen opposite.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: But the minister puts this item in his estimates and brings up the discussion in this chamber, and even until this minute he will not tell us whether this building is to go on or not. He, and he alone, is responsible for this discussion, if it should last for six weeks. We can understand that he wants the people to believe that he will give them this building when they elect a supporter of the government. But they probably are big enough to elect whom they please, and not accept this building if it is to be given as a bribe for their vote. If the people of that section are like the people of Ontario, the vote would be all the more in favour of my hon. friend (Mr. Rhodes) because they are subjected to this treatment by the government.


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou).: I desire to take advantage of the opportunity afforded by my hon. friend (Mr. Lancaster) retailing one of those slanders so often found in the Conservative press to refer to this question which, I understand, he introduces, relating to an alleged utterance of mine in Lethbridge. No such statement as is attributed to me was ever made by me.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I did not mention the hon. gentleman (Mr. Macdonald).


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: But the hon. gentleman knows that certain of the press associated with his party have been retailing that stale slander for some time. The statement was contradicted immediately afterwards by the Lethbridge ' Herald ' and it was understood by the people in the vicinity that the statement attributed to

me had never been made. I took the first opportunity to contradict it when I returned to my own province. I have here a
press report of the referenced made to it:-


THE LETHBRIDGE INCIDENT.
[Stage Direction]
He paused to consider an article in the ' Herald ' of that city in which it was stated that Mr. Borden had got after him because of an alleged statement of his at Lethbridge. That fact did not worry him much. It was an evidence of the lack of any substantial criticism of the tour, when all Mr. Borden could find to talk about was an alleged statement which he had never made and its only foundation was a report in a party hack. What he had told the people of Lethbridge who wanted public buildings, was that Mr. Borden was campaigning in Nova Scotia and that the chief burden of his speeches was. the extravagance of the government; that Mr. Doherty, his new chief lieutenant, was especially strong in his condemnation of the building of post office buildings unnecessarily; that the Halifax ' Herald/ the organ of Mr. Borden, had in glaring headlines, declared that Sir Wilfrid Laurier could spend millions in the west but could not spend thousands in Halifax, and that if they followed the Conservative party on these lines they could never hope to get public buildings from the Conservatives. That was what he -said and he was prepared to stand by it. It was about time that Mr. Borden gave up preaching his homilies, usually based on incorrect facts, and got to work to find out a policy for his party.
That is a correct statement of what I said at Lethbridge and I never made the statement that the people of Lethbridge or any other place in Canada would never get public buildings so long as they voted Conservative. I desire to make that statement because this is a report which has been bandied about in every nondescript Conservative paper in the country.
Edward Arthur Lancaster: It is certainly not the first opportunity that has been taken because the Prime Minister took a very much earlier opportunity to correct the hon. gentleman and it was so stated in some newspapers that the Prime Minister, only a few days after, had stated that the hon. member who has just spoken had been ill-advised in the statements he had made, or words to that effect. The Minister of Public Works brings this matter up by his action in regard to the Parrsboro' building. If I had the time I could find for my hon. friend in the library-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Does my hon. friend in the face of the absolute contradiction I have given to that statement undertake to argue that the statement was made ? Because if he does, I want to state that the statement attributed to the Prime Minister is absolutely untrue.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The hon. gentleman must not ask me to take his denials wholesale in regard to everybody. He confines 52
his denial to what the leader of the opposition says.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Not at all.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Yes, bringing in a supposed speech of the leader of the opposition who, I suppose was Mr. Borden.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That is what I said.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The hon. gentleman got up to tell us what he had said in a crit icism of Mr. Borden's speech, when he had said off his own bat in Lethbridge-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The hon. gentleman has given what he said.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: He has given what he said afterwards or his construction of what he said. I can show the hon. gentle man the statement in important papers, reporting the Prime Minister's statement within a few days afterwards correcting the impression made by the hon. gentleman who has just sat down. When his own Prime Minister saw fit to correct him within a few days the hon. gentleman must allow us to assume that the Prime Minister had some- reason for correcting him.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend from Sarnia (Mr. Pardee) with myself accompanied the Prime Minister all through that tour. The Prime Minister did not at any of the meetings, and we were present at them all, make such a statement as the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) has attributed to him, and I never saw in any paper any such statement attributed to the Prime Minister at any time after the tour and no such speech was made during the tour.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not propose to be tied up to speeches made at public meetings. The Prime Minister, in a newspaper, it may have been in an interview with a newspaper reporter long before the session commenced, corrected the impression taken by the country from the hon. member's speech at Lethbridge. If the Prime Minister found it necessary to correct that impression, let the hon. member fight it out with the Prime Minister and not find fault with us for referring to it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Has the Minister of Public Works ever instructed the chief .architect to prepare plans for the Parrsboro' post office?


William Pugsley: The chief architect receives general instructions to proceed with the preparation of plans for the different public buildings for which parliament had granted appropriations. I gave no special instructions with regard to Parrsboro' one way or the other.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Did he give any special instructions with respect to the Hartland public buildings or anything more than the general instructions to prepare plans?


William Pugsley: I do not recall to mind giving any special instructions as to the Hartland building.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I would like to have the minister look into the matter a little further and recall it to mind, if not to-night, subsequently, and let us have the information.


William Pugsley: As to what?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: As to whether the chief architect of his department had received any instructions to prepare plans for the Hartland public building other than the general instructions which would include instructions to prepare plans for the Parrsboro' post office?


William Pugsley: If my hon. friend makes a motion in the House to that effect I would be very glad to furnish a return showing any instructions given as to the Hartland building or the Parrsboro' building.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Am I to understand that in order to get the information I must move for a return?


William Pugsley: It is better and more regular.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I will quote the statement of the minister as reported at page 13327 of ' Hansard ' of the session of 1907-8. He said : I
I shall feel it my duty to proceed as rapidly as possible with the construction of the building.
Does the minister feel that he has complied with these words ; that he has proceeded as rapidly as possible with the construction of this building, that is bearing in mind the fact that- these remarks were uttered on July 16, 1908?


William Pugsley: The non. gentleman must take in connection with that my statement that as soon as plans are prepared the instructions were issued to call for tenders. I can say yes to my hon. friend, unless I had gone outside and selected some outside architect to do the work. I have been pressed by different members to proceed with the erection of certain buildings and have been obliged to go out and get outside architectural assistance because the chief architect was not able to undertake the work. There has been too much work to do. Some of the staff have been sick, two or three of them were laid off during a considerable part of toe summer, and it is a fact that for a great many public buildings to be built, some of them in constituencies represented by Mr. PUGSTjRy.
government supporters in the House, including my own constituency of the city and county of St. John, the chief architect has not yet been able to prepare plans. Let me say that I am not going, simply because the hon. member gets up in the House and blames me for treating Parrs-borro' wrongly, because he has induced my hon. friend now in my eye to get up and say that I am holding up that


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: You are misquoting me,. I never said you were treating Parrsboro' wrongly. I said you were .treating the House, the committee, and the public life of this country wrongfully. Parrsboro' will take care of itself.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman will not, by expressions or comment like this,, induce me to treat Parrsborough any better than any other constituencies in this country are being treated, or constituencies which have elected supporters of this government to parliament. I referred to-night to my own constituency, a constituency which has been faithful to me and a community where I received a very large majority of votes. A portion of that constituency-Fairville- was almost unanimous in my support, and although there was an appropriation two years ago for a building, the chief architect has not reached it. I do not think he has done one single thing towards the preparation of the plans simply because he has been rushed and unduly pressed with work in connection with this department. I am not going to ask him to take up Parrsborough and to give it precedence over other buildings.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am not asking that.


William Pugsley: I should not think of doing it. When the chief architect, in due course, reaches Parrsboro', I take it for granted that, in accordance -with the vote of parliament, he will prepare the plans. I have no intention not to go on with this work of erecting a public building in Parrsboro, but I am not going to be hurried by anything my hon. friend may say. I am not going to be hurried by any threat that he is going to tell the people that I am treating Parrsboro' unfairly.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I never said that.


William Pugsley: I am going to let the matter take its course and when, in the ordinary course, the chief architect reaches Parrsboro' and prepares the pllans and specifications, I presume that my colleagues will agree that the contract shall be let and the work proceeded with. When I made the statement last year I made it in good faith. I do not think that the hon. gentleman at all helps the case of his constituency by insinuating that I was not acting in good faith, or that his colleague, who was associated with him, and w'ho is just now
163?

leaving the House, helps the case when he says that I have been acting in bad faith and that I have no intention of acting upon the vote of parliament. I repeat that in due course, when the chief architect reaches the proposed building and prepares the plans and specifications, I have no reason to doubt that the department, having received the approval of the government, will take the necessary steps for the erection of a building.


Morley Currie: Then we may expect. the plans on the eve of the next election?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I would like to ask the minister if he ever gives any other instructions to the department of the chief architect but the general instruction to prepare plans for these buildings, the names of which appear in the estimates? Does he ever say to the chief architect: Will you kindly hasten the plans of such and such a building?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Then, may I ask the minister if he is putting Parrsboro' on the same basis as other places? Did he ever knew of a work having received a preference?


William Pugsley: There are cases where a member would say to me that there is the very greatest possible necessity for a public building in such a place, the accommodation is very poor, the post office is wretchedly situated, and urging that we shall go ahead. In cases of that kind I send a memorandum to the chief architect asking him how the plans are progressing and asking thaf the plans shall be prepared with as little delay as possible. I do not remember that I have had my attention called to the very urgent, immediate necessity for the erection of a building in Parrsboro'.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Why was the land purchased three years ago?


William Pugsley: It was purchased under the authority of parliament because it was reported to the department that a public building was required. But what I mean to say is that in some places there may be a greater necessity for a public building than in other places.


James Conmee: Port Arthur is one of these places.


William Pugsley: Probably Port Arthur.


Morley Currie: Sudbury.


An hon. MEMBER.: Lethbridge.


William Pugsley: Lethbridge, too, in a constituency represented by an hon. gentleman on the othCT side of the House. I think the case there is urgent. I intend to press that forward with a little more haste 52*
than I would employ towards public buildings in some other places, because the conditions are such as would require urgency. A3 soon as parliament passes the appropriation I will instruct the chief architect to have that building proceeded with, even though some other building may be delayed, and even although we may have to delay for a little while longer the preparation of the plans for Parrsboro'.


Richard Blain: Is that the post office that was promised by the Prime Minister in his tcur?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Morley Currie: That is the one that the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) said they would not get unless they stopped voting Tory.


William Pugsley: The hon. member for Pictou did not say that, and I am surprised that an hon. gentleman so far forgets the duty which he owes to this House and to hon. members as to repeat that statement after the denial of the hon. member.


Morley Currie: The hon. gentleman knows very well that an hon. member of this House can rise in his place and deny things. I have had a certain case-I do not wish to bring it up here-where a minister of the Crown rose last session on the floor of this House and said


William Pugsley: Order, Mr. Chairman.


Morley Currie: All right.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In my previous reference to Parrsborough, I was careful to quote the exact words of the minister, to ask certain1 questions and to make certain observations after having done so. I refrained from speaking of the case of Parrsboro', but I propose to do so now. I may say to the minister that the case of Parrsboro' is urgent. They are very poorly served with the most inferior wooden building which is entirely inadequate to the service of a town of that size. It is upon a back street in a very unsuitable portion of the town. If a building were constructed upon the lot which was purchased by the government it would be unquestionably in, if not the most favourable situation, certainly in as good a location as could be obtained in that part of the town. It is very near the railway station and upon the Main street. The business men of Parrsboro' really require a much better post office service than they have at the present time. Parrsboro' is a much more important town than even the population would indicate although it is much larger than many towns now served by post offices because it is a shipping port, and in the summer time there is a great deal of business done. There are many large interests served there, the representatives of which use the post office, and are interfered with by reason of the location of the post office in the town. I do not

think the minister was quite fair in the answer to the question I put to him a moment ago after quoting his words wherein he said that he proposed to proceed as rapidly as possible with the construction of the building. I asked him if he had carried out his intention in that respect, and he said that coupled with that was the statement made at the same time that as soon as the plans were prepared he proposed to go ahead. But, that promise was made in the year 1907-8. The remark which he proposed to couple with that was made during last year, ox only one year ago when he said: I propose to call for tenders this year, or as soon as the plans are prepared. There were, two years separating the two remarks, and I leave it to the fairness of the committee, if, in view of the fact that plans have been prepared for much smaller places and tenders never having been called for last year, his promise is carried out to proceed as rapidly as possible with the construction of the Parrsboro' post office. This work was projected two years before some of the items referred to io-night and the minister stated that plans in one case had been prepared and that in the other they were in process of preparation and would be completed within one month or six weeks.
Public buildings, Que.-Arthabaska public building, $15,000.


Richard Blain: I think we cannot proceed with these Quebec items to-night.


William Pugsley: Why not?


Richard Blain: Surely the hon. gentleman does not propose to go on with the Quebec items?


William Pugsley: I think we can get along, it would be quite a saving of time. Don't you think it is a little too early for us to adjourn?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not think so. The members from Quebec on this side of the House did not expect that the Quebec items would be reached to-day, and in fact no one anticipated that we were going into estimates at all. We have passed all the items for Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, we have passed moTe items in the same time than we have ever passed before during my ten years experience in the House, and I think the minister will be well advised if he will consent to the committee rising.


William Pugsley: I feel like yielding to the views of hon. gentlemen opposite.
Some resolutions reported.


George Halsey Perley: What business will be taken up to-morrow?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We will go on with the Public Works estimates in Supply.
On motion of Mr. Fisher, House adjourned at 10.40 p.m.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Friday, January 13, 1911.